It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, August 27, 2021
Economic benefits of Tokyo Games estimated at over $55 billion
(Mainichi Japan)
Fireworks are set off during the Paralympic Opening Ceremony over Japan National Stadium for the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games, on Aug. 24, 2021. (Bob Martin for OIS via AP)
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The economic benefits of the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics will be about 6.14 trillion yen ($55.75 billion) but Japanese organizers will incur a loss of more than 2 trillion yen, a scholar's estimates showed Thursday.
Of the benefits, about 3.27 trillion yen from spending on the construction of facilities, including the National Stadium and the athletes' village, have already spilled over into society, according to Katsuhiro Miyamoto, a professor emeritus of theoretical economics at Kansai University, who released the projections.
The remainder will come from consumption during the Tokyo Games and positive "legacy-related" effects expected to be seen after the end of the games early next month, Miyamoto said.
Miyamoto also looked into the organizers' revenues since Tokyo won the bid to host the Olympics and Paralympics in 2013 and expenditures associated with the games. He found that their total deficit is expected to be 2.37 trillion yen.
Of the deficit, the Tokyo metropolitan government's loss stands at 1.41 trillion yen and the central government's at 874 billion yen, with the rest incurred by the organizing committee.
"Based on figures publicly announced by responsible institutions, I objectively calculated them," he said.
The professor said his estimates do not include adverse effects stemming from the spread of the coronavirus.
As a precaution against the virus, the Olympics were held behind closed doors at almost all venues for 17 days until they ended on Aug. 8.
The Paralympics, which started Tuesday and will run through Sept. 5, have become a largely TV-only event as well, with spectators barred from attending due to an alarming rise of COVID-19 cases in recent weeks.
CAN BEING BOURGEOIS BE BAD Beyoncé Responds After Being Slammed For Wearing $30 Million ‘Blood Diamond’ BY : HANNAH SMITH ON : 27 AUG 2021
PA Images/@beyonce/Instagram
Beyoncé is said to be ‘disappointed and angry’ following backlash over her new Tiffany campaign.
The star and her husband, Jay-Z, were revealed as the new faces of the jewellery brand earlier this week, but have found themselves the subject of controversy after fans claimed Beyoncé was wearing a ‘blood diamond.’
Tiffany & Co
Now, after a significant social media outcry, the star has reportedly responded, with a source telling The Sun the singer is ‘aware of the criticism and is disappointed and angry that she wasn’t made aware of questions about its history.’
The iconic 128.54 carat $30 million canary yellow Tiffany Diamond was ‘discovered’ in South Africa in the 19th century, and has been the subject of criticism for many years over its less-than-transparent origins. The term ‘blood diamond’ refers to gems that are mined in conflict zones and sold to fund military action.
Many diamond mines in Africa have historically been run by colonialists and warlords who often relied on slaves and child labourers, with the Kimberly mine in which the Tiffany Diamond was discovered known to have forced its workers to live in abject conditions.
Beyoncé has not publicly commented on the campaign, which saw her and Jay-Z pay tribute to Audrey Hepburn and Jean Michel Basquiat, but her mother, Tina Knowles, took to Instagram earlier this week to defend her daughter from the accusations.
Tiffany & Co
‘How many of you socially conscious activist[s] own diamonds? I thought so! Well guess what did you go to try to check to see where the diamond came from? Probably not,’ Knowles wrote.
‘So when you guys get engaged you won’t have a diamond you gonna put on a sterling silver band And you better check out where it came from and the origin of where came from and why you add it check out the calls for the Leather that you weird (sic) because they made it came from another country to ban and not buy diamonds right because your (sic) righteous!’ she continued
US shares reach for record highs as investors take comfort in stimulus
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 rose during the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell’s, much-anticipated address
Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell: Stock investors take assurance from speech
FRI, 27 AUG, 2021 - 17:54
US equities gained to record highs as investors took assurance from comments by Jerome Powell that the withdrawal of stimulus would be gradual.
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 rose during the Federal Reserve chairman’s much-anticipated address from Jackson Hole, where he reinforced the message that it would be appropriate to begin tapering bond purchases by the end of the year.
The Stoxx Europe 600 index gained, on track for the seventh straight month of gains, the longest streak in eight years.
Mr Powell said the economy has now met the test of “substantial further progress” toward the Fed’s inflation objective while the labor market has also made “clear progress”.
“Investors are breathing a sigh of relief as Powell suggests a kinder, gentler Fed tightening,” said Mike Bailey, director of research at FBB Capital Partners.
“Judging by the equity move, my sense is mainstream investors expected a harder line from Powell about tapering starting in the fall and rate hikes locked in for late 2022 or early 2023,” Mr Bailey said.
Senior market analyst Joshua Mahony at online broker IG said the comments came as a relief to stock markets which had worried all week about the speech.
"Jerome Powell’s Jackson Hole appearance helped lift spirits, with the chairman laying out a slow and steady data-driven approach" and sending tech shares rallying, he said.
"However, the decision to state that tapering would be dependent upon continued economic improvements does highlight the possibility that we could see further delays if rising Covid cases further spur growth," Mr Mahony said.
Stocks climbed in China, where the central bank signaled targeted steps to cushion the economy.
Oil prices rose more than 2% and were on track for their biggest weekly gains in over a year as energy firms began shutting production in the US Gulf of Mexico ahead of a major hurricane expected to hit early next week.
Brent crude climbed 2.2% to $72.63 a barrel.
"Energy traders are pushing crude prices higher in anticipation of disruptions in output in the Gulf of Mexico and on growing expectations Opec+ might resist raising output given the recent Delta variant impact over crude demand," Edward Moya, senior market analyst at Oanda, said.
US oil and gas companies raced to complete evacuations from offshore Gulf of Mexico platforms as Tropical Storm Ida, which is expected to strengthen into a major hurricane before slamming into Louisiana early next week, advanced towards oilfields that provide about 17% of the nation's oil production.
“Clearly, the hurricane is what the market is focusing on now, at least in the short-term. We are going to be losing supply from refiners and some demand,” said Andrew Lebow, senior partner at Commodity Research Group. “The market had expected what the Federal Reserve was planning and had discounted it.”
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE U.S. ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND WHAT COMES NEXT
Johns Hopkins economist Jonathan Wright shares insights on key indicators for recovery amid the COVID-19 pandemic as well as thoughts on what was learned during the Great Recession
By Saralyn Cruickshank / Published 2 hours ago
Even as the U.S. Federal Reserve abruptly canceled plans for its annual in-person conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, due to rising coronavirus cases, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has been staunch in his opinion that the delta variant poses no substantial risk to U.S. economic recovery. During the now virtual event this weekend, the Fed is expected to announce rollbacks to financial and policy supports issued during the peak of the U.S. COVID-19 transmission, but the question still remains: How will the U.S. economy recover from a historic pandemic?
For insights, the Hub reached out to Johns Hopkins economist Jonathan Wright. An expert in econometrics, empirical macroeconomics, and empirical finance, Wright is also experienced in economic forecasting and analysis. The longtime university professor shared his thoughts about what the U.S. economic recovery might look like, what he'll be watching for, and what parts of the economy have already recovered—and might even be booming.
What are the economic challenges that have arisen this past year because of COVID-19?
The level of output (gross domestic product), which for the second quarter is back to where it was in 2019, is still below what we'd want it to be. Output is supposed to grow over time. And so there has been a period of a year and a half where there was no net growth, but worse than that, the level of employment is down by 7 million people. A lot of that is down to the labor force having shrunk—people aren't just not working, they're also not actively looking for a job. They may have retired earlier, for example. People are still afraid of getting sick, and that's driving them to stay out of the labor force. They have child care problems. And one other thing I think belongs on the list (though I wouldn't put it at top) is that the level of unemployment benefits might be discouraging some people from going back to work. The fact that the level of employment is still 7 million below where it was—including many people of so-called prime age, the 25-to-54-year-old group—that's still a big worry.
So, the reopening of the economy, perhaps not too surprisingly, has proved to be a slow and difficult process, even with all the stimulus in place. The recession ended in April 2020 as the economy has been growing since then, but the economy was in a very deep hole. The first part of the recovery was fast, but over the last year or so, has proceeded more gradually.
Last year there was a lot of talk about supply chain constraints causing economic problems. Are we still facing those?
Yes, we are still facing those as well. There are certain sectors with bottlenecks, semiconductors being one, and although it's not pervasive, there certainly are constraints which have affected some sectors like the automobile sector. International trade has been affected, so that would be another thing that's a part of restarting the economy that's running slowly. Supply chain constraints are causing inflation in some sectors. As a result, the Fed's preferred inflation measure is now running at 3.5%, which is above the long-run target. But firms are adapting to supply disruptions and will probably build more robust supply chains in the future.
What are some of the things that our economic institutions like the Federal Reserve can do to jump-start our economic recovery?
One thing is monetary policy, which is the level of interest rates, and the Fed has done all it can do there. The level of interest rates has been set to zero. It's not practical, at least in the U.S., to have rates below zero. They have also bought Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities to try to directly lower longer-term interest rates. The Fed has effectively done everything it can to put the pedal to the metal.
The other thing is fiscal policy, which includes emergency spending and enhanced unemployment benefits. This has helped a great deal. It enabled people to maintain their spending when they otherwise would not have been able to. One person's spending is another person's income, and not having unemployment insurance is exactly the kind of thing that would have brought about a more intractable recession.
So fiscal policy has done a lot. Now, the question becomes, at what point does the fiscal policy, which is boosting demand, become too much? Becomes such that it just drives up prices because the productive capacity of the economy has been reached? I don't think we're there, but I think that's a legitimate question. Economists talk about the output gap, which is the difference between what the economy produces and what it is capable of producing. I think there is still an output gap—I think there are still unused resources. But a debate is appropriate about how far fiscal stimulus can go before it generates inflation. And by inflation, I'm not talking about temporary inflation to do with supply chain disruptions and that kind of thing, but a more persistent form of inflation.
"THAT IS THE WORRY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN THE BACK OF OUR HEADS AS THE ECONOMY GETS BACK TO HEALTH—THAT THE VALUATIONS OF OUR FINANCIAL ASSETS ARE IN SOME CASES VERY HARD TO JUSTIFY."
One unfortunate potential side effect of everything that's been done is that asset markets—stock prices, prices of corporate bonds, securities, housing prices—are now very frothy and expensive. I don't worry too much about seeing consumer prices going up in an unsustainable way. To the extent that that happens, the Fed will have the means to slow the economy and to bring inflation under control, and will much prefer to do this than to worry about an economy stuck at zero interest rates. But I think there are worries about asset prices, and to some extent that may be setting up problems down the road. Not that it would have been appropriate for monetary policy to do any less because of those concerns, but asset prices are extremely elevated. That is the worry that we should have in the back of our heads as the economy gets back to health—that the valuations of our financial assets are in some cases very hard to justify.
Are there sectors where we already have recovered, or are we, across the board, still recovering compared to 2019?
I think there are many sectors that have not only recovered but have boomed relative to 2019. Obviously IT would be a good example of that. In many ways, what the pandemic has done has been to accelerate into the space of 18 months a lot of changes and productivity growth that would otherwise have taken place over many years. But, of course, there are other sectors that are a long way off recovery—the obvious ones being hospitality and travel. It'll be a long time before they get back to where they were. So it's a very uneven recovery, and that uneven recovery is what I think drives the difficulty in getting people from old jobs into new jobs. Say you were working before in the airline industry, and that job has gone and is not coming back for several years, then finding an alternative match that works for the employer and employee is going to take time. On the bright side, the fact that the economy is producing about the same amount as it did at the end of 2019, but with far fewer workers, means that productivity per worker is up. Some of that higher productivity is likely to stay even as people get back to work. The pandemic has in a sense forced firms to find higher productivity solutions.
What do you look at as key indicators of economic health? What should we be watching for?
I'll be looking at the output of the economy, gross domestic product. That's actually the one, which as I say, seems to be in the best shape, although it's still only about where it was in 2019, which is far from ideal.
The other things that I would look at in particular would be the labor force participation rate. What fraction of people are working or looking for a job, particularly in the 25-to-54 age cohort, the prime age cohort. We know that the population is aging, so labor force participation is trending down very slowly as baby boomers are retiring. There's nothing worrisome or unexpected about that. But the decline in labor force participation among the middle age cohort, that's more worrisome. And I think that would be my single biggest indicator of economic health. The unemployment rate, while way down from its highs, is still a good way away from full employment. For now, although wages are up, they are up slower than inflation notwithstanding productivity growth. Wages rising faster than inflation with productivity continuing to rise would together be a sign of a very healthy recovery.
"THE ECONOMY HAS LEARNED TO ADAPT, TO LIVE ALONGSIDE THE VIRUS TO SOME EXTENT."
I think it's also important to look at measures of unemployment rate across different groups. In recessions, the unemployment rates of minorities rise faster, and that's been shown on this occasion again. So that's an indicator that I think is particularly important to see coming down as we move back toward full employment. And it's also important to keep an eye on inflation. Inflation is high, but there are good reasons to think that's a temporary problem and that inflation will come back down next year. But there is a risk that it does not, and if so that indicates more persistent inflation pressures that should not be dismissed as transitory special factors.
How do you expect the delta variant and rising breakthrough cases of coronavirus to affect economic recovery plans?
The news over the last month on the virus has been disappointing and means a slower recovery in employment and output than we had hoped for. It also means that stimulus is likely to stay in place a bit longer than seemed likely earlier in the summer. For example, the Fed seemed to be moving toward phasing out its asset purchases, and that may now come more slowly. The economy has learned to adapt, to live alongside the virus to some extent. It seems to me most likely that the delta variant will slow—but not derail—the recovery. But there are downside risks, and particularly in financial markets because they seem to be pricing a very optimistic outlook.
What do you wish more people understood about the current economic status of the country? What do you know, as an economist, that you wish more people understood?
I think economists and policymakers learned a lot from the mistakes after the Great Recession. Too little was done to restart the economy, there was too much worry about government debt, too little worry about an economy running below capacity for a long time, and too much worry about inflation, which didn't exist. And policymakers and economists have certainly taken that lesson to heart. This time fiscal stimulus has been much larger, much faster, and monetary policy was extremely front-loaded and made clear that it was going to do what it takes. We were not obsessed with the debt-to-GDP ratio the way we were, mistakenly, in 2009 and 2010.
Having said all that, I think it's important to remember that there are resource constraints in the world. Debt to GDP is not something that has some arbitrary cap at 90% that beyond which there's disaster, but there are limits to it. And the pandemic has used up a certain amount of fiscal space, and over the very long run, that leaves less fiscal space for other things. So I guess I would try to remind people that resource constraints still exist. Fiscal and monetary policy can do a lot, and it's done a lot, and it's done well, but resource constraints are still real.
OOPS FRIENDLY FIRE
Russian fighter jets have attacked Bashar al-Assad’s troops
DAMASCUS, ($1= 1,257.86 Syrian Pounds) – The Syrian news agency Massar Media Network, which was founded in 2012, issued a message on its Twitter account that Russian fighter jets had attacked the positions of the militias for the national defense of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The airstrikes were by mistake, but there are Syrian soldiers killed and wounded. The incident happened in the Syrian province of Raqqa.
Military experts suggest the reason for the “wrong attack” is the lack of coordinated action between the Russian Air Force and Bashar al-Assad’s forces. It is alleged that Syrian Arab Army soldiers were misidentified by their Russian allies as members of the Islamic State.
According to a Russian expert, such a mistake is quite possible. Such mistakes have happened before, and not only with Russian participation. Speaking to a reporter for the Russian newspaper Aviapro, the expert said that Russia has the task of controlling, monitoring, and intelligence the situation in the desert regions of Syria. These are vast territories, and therefore any activity, especially if the actions are not coordinated with the Russian military command, leads to immediate attacks by space forces.
The Russian strikes were aimed at striking certain positions of Islamic State terrorists amid yesterday’s several deadly and devastating attacks in Kabul. Political analysts say Moscow has decided to anticipate a possible US response to terrorists in Syria.
Earlier, BulgarianMilitary.com reported that, according to Russian intelligence, at least four US bombers were flying to Afghanistan and the region, and were expected to strike not only in Afghanistan but also at Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria. The US president has already issued an order to conduct an operation to detect and eliminate Islamic State terrorists.
The civil war in Syria
The Syrian civil war has been going on for almost a decade. Attempts by movements such as the Syrian Democratic Forces to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have failed.
The Syrian democratic forces are armed by allies and the United States, while the Syrian army is armed mainly by Russia. Russia is the only country officially invited to Syria by President Bashar al-Assad.
In 2017, the United States launched a massive missile strike on Bashar al-Assad’s forces after a report emerged that the Syrian president had used chemical weapons to attack his people in the country. Syria and Russia deny such actions.
During his tenure, US President Donald Trump decided to withdraw much of US troops from Syria, leaving several troops to guard Syria’s oil fields on the pretext of “falling into the hands of Islamic State.”
With the withdrawal of the United States, Turkey comes to the fore, declaring it necessary to deal with the Kurds and the PKK movement in the northern part of the country, which borders Turkey. That is why Erdogan is sending troops in an attempt to build a stable and secure 30km zone between Syria and Turkey, which will prevent future terrorist attacks on Turkish territory, as it is. Ceasefire
In February 2020, Turkey lost at least 62 troops killed in Syria. Nearly 100 soldiers were wounded, Syrian-backed forces destroyed dozens of Turkish armored vehicles, and more than ten drones, including drones, were shot down. Washington has repeatedly accused Moscow of involvement in the deaths of Turkish soldiers, Russia rejects these allegations.
In early March 2020, the presidents of Russia and Turkey, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, agreed that a ceasefire came into force in the Idlib de-escalation zone. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad later said that if the US and Turkish military did not leave the country, Damascus would use military power.
The reason for the Russian-Turkish negotiations was a sharp aggravation of the situation in Idlib, where in January, a large-scale offensive by the Syrian army against the positions of the armed opposition and terrorists began.
Government forces recaptured nearly half of the Idlib de-escalation zone and left behind several Turkish observation posts. After that, Ankara sharply increased its military contingent in the region and launched the operation “Spring Shield” to push the Syrian troops. Militants are loyal to Ankara and support Turkey.
2017: US launched Tomahawks in Syria, but Russia didn’t use the S-400 defense
PANAGYURISHTE, (BM) – Our “History” section will take you back four years on April 7, 2017, when the United States decided to launch a missile strike on Syria. The reason for then US President Donald Trump’s decision was a revelation that Syria and especially President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons on its citizens and the opposition.
Photo credit: Wikipedia
The attack
On April 7, Washington saw a decision to counter the spread of information from various intelligence agencies, including US intelligence, that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used a gas chemical attack against his people and especially against opposition forces.
The military advisers to Donald Trump, then president of the United States, decided to use the Tomahawk cruise missiles. This missile name has a history and is confusing some of Washington’s opponents. Syrian Arab Army air bases are targeted. Footage from the then-attack spread among television channels showing large-scale missile strikes, but more like explosive fireworks.
A little later in the year, military analysts from the United States and Russia said that the attacks in question had caused minimal damage to the attacked Syrian targets. NBC News reports, for example, that one of the attacked airbases suffered damage to buildings and the amount of stored kerosene fuel. Some of the planes and runways were intact.
In reality, the runway reconstruction would seem to be a difficult task if Syria did not have an ally like Russia, which can repair the damage within weeks. However, the runways’ damage remains in the same condition to this day and continues to be used, which speaks of only one thing – a well-tailored theater. Russia does not even use the S-300 or S-400
The theory of a well-tailored theater is supported by a significant and unshakable fact – the Russian defense forces never decided to use the S-300 and S-4-00 anti-aircraft missile systems.
With these two anti-aircraft missile systems, Russia could easily “blow out” American Tomahawks, the Palmer Report said. But Moscow’s passivity is perhaps another sign – the Kremlin knew very well about the planned attacks, especially that the damage would not be what the Pentagon would want.
Moscow’s non-commitment to protect Syria from US Tomahawk missiles speaks volumes – the likelihood of an agreement between the United States and Russia on the attack and future damage exists, with a relatively high percentage. Wasn’t the attack aimed at manipulating the world community that this was a brutal blow to Assad, but was, in fact, a hidden agreement between the two most significant powers in the world?
Many experts say the following: Despite the US desire to avenge Assad, Russia’s non-participation in defense of Syrian airbases “stinks” of a well-directed theater.
What is the truth? Only three people know her – Trump, Putin, and Assad. Everything else is a guess, but adequate, right?
War in Syria continues
In February 2020, Turkey lost at least 62 troops killed in Syria. Nearly 100 soldiers were wounded, Syrian-backed forces destroyed dozens of Turkish armored vehicles, and more than ten drones, including drones, were shot down. Washington has repeatedly accused Moscow of involvement in the deaths of Turkish soldiers, Russia rejects these allegations.
In early March, the presidents of Russia and Turkey, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, agreed that a ceasefire came into force in the Idlib de-escalation zone. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad later said that if the US and Turkish military did not leave the country, Damascus would use power.
The reason for the Russian-Turkish negotiations was a sharp aggravation of the situation in Idlib, where in January, a large-scale offensive by the Syrian army against the positions of the armed opposition and terrorists began.
Government forces recaptured nearly half of the Idlib de-escalation zone and left behind several Turkish observation posts. After that, Ankara sharply increased its military contingent in the region and launched the operation “Spring Shield” to push the Syrian troops. Militants are loyal to Ankara and support Turkey.
This post was published in Nezavisimaya Gazeta. The point of view expressed in this article is authorial and do not necessarily reflect BM`s editorial stance.
***
MOSCOW, (BM) – After the death of Josip Broz Tito on May 4, 1980, the Yugoslav Empire lost the main link uniting the empire. In the further history of Yugoslavia, there were no longer any high statesmen who would pursue the line of so-called Tithonism.
A similar picture emerged in the Soviet Union. After the death of Joseph Stalin, six people led the USSR – Georgy Malenkov, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, Mikhail Gorbachev. As a result, the country lost its power, international authority, and people’s confidence.
The examples of Stalin and Tito – “two Josephs” – show and prove that multinational empires can only be ruled by people of the highest level, training, intelligence, carriers of the idea of ”statehood”.
Mediocrity can lead a state only in a simple military-political and strategic situation in peacetime. But most likely, even in relatively favorable conditions, such a leader will undermine the authority and power of the multinational state, lead it to destruction and disintegration. The actions of the leaders of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia after the death of their leaders are proof of this. Yugoslavia collapsed 10 years after the departure of Tito, the Soviet Union – 38 years after the death of Stalin. Bloody decay scenario
The collapse of Yugoslavia, in contrast to the Soviet Union, followed a bloody scenario. Especially acute, painful – in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). For almost four years, the civil war was in its most inhuman and bloody form. Even the initiators of the destruction of Yugoslavia by the US, the EU and NATO understood that it was time to end it.
The agreement was adopted on November 21, 1995 in Dayton, and then signed on December 14, 1995 in Paris by the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Aliya Izetbegovic, the President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic and the President of Croatia Franjo Tudjman. The end of the Bosnian War and the formation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were announced.
To fulfill the terms of the agreement, the UN Security Council ordered a NATO peacekeeping operation. Russia, as a party to this agreement, expressed its intention to take part in the peacekeeping operation.
At the end of September 1995, the Chief of Staff of the Russian Defense Minister, Lieutenant General Valery Lapshov, called me and said: “Lesha, get ready to go to Belgium, to the city of Mons, to the Supreme Commander of the NATO Joint Armed Forces to agree on the conditions for the participation of our troops in the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina ”. We are classmates at the Military Academy. M.V. Frunze, knew each other well.
I answer him: “Valera, are you kidding?” He laughs and says, “No jokes. The political decision on Russia’s participation in the operation has been made. But the diplomats cannot resolve the issue of the subordination of the Russian contingent. The main problem is the military aspect of our participation, while observing the principle of one-man command and avoiding direct subordination to NATO. The diplomats turned to the defense ministers of Russia and the United States and asked for a solution. The ministers agreed that Russia will send a group to Mons to study the issue. Pavel Grachev immediately told US Secretary of Defense William Perry that he was ready to give the name of the general who will lead the task force, and gave your name. Get ready. “
The Security Council instructed NATO to conduct the operation. So I became a party to the implementation of this agreement. Within two weeks it was necessary to study the situation in the Balkans, in Yugoslavia, to understand the goals and objectives of each of the participants in the peacekeeping operation and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The study of many documents and meetings with experts made it possible to understand to a certain extent the situation in the Balkans, in the former Yugoslavia, the interests of the United States, Germany, France and the NATO bloc in general.
It has been 25 years since that time. Peacekeeping operations are currently taking place in various countries, but peace enforcement operations using troops rarely end successfully. To do this, first of all, a political solution must be found acceptable for the conflicting (belligerent) parties, and this is usually a very difficult and complex political and diplomatic process, in which the impartiality and equidistance of peacekeepers from the parties to the conflict must be ensured.
Today it is strange to hear about a peacekeeping operation in Ukraine, when for six years not a single political issue in relations with the DPR and LPR has been resolved, with the exception of periodically stopping shelling, which are not used to make political decisions, but imitate at least some activity of the Ukrainian leadership on fulfilling campaign promises to end the war.
One gets the impression that the initiators of peacekeeping initiatives, and these are the United States and some European countries, relying on Ukraine’s vassal dependence on Western handouts, have been deliberately distorting the essence of peacekeeping for six years and expect, under the guise of the authority of the UN and the EU, to achieve a settlement while completely ignoring the interests of the DPR and LPR.
Therefore, it makes sense to recall the operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its value lies in the fact that peace has been maintained in the region for over 25 years, and this is more important than all other problems.
On October 15, 1995, an operational group of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation of six people, led by me, flew to Brussels to prepare for Russia’s participation in a peacekeeping operation to enforce peace with the involvement of troops. Bosnian War (1992-1995)
The disintegration of Yugoslavia after the separation of Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia was continued by Bosnia and Herzegovina, which announced on March 2, 1992 its secession from the SFRY.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has a rather confusing and complex ethnic map: according to the 1992 census, 43.7% of the republic’s population were Muslim; Serbs accounted for 34.1%; Croats – 17.3%; 5.5% considered themselves Yugoslavs due to mixed marriages. Moreover, the boundaries were not clearly marked. In each part there were enclaves, the peoples were mixed, with the Serbs having a majority in more than half of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
National demarcation began in the 1990 parliamentary elections. Their result very accurately reflected the alignment of forces in the republic: the Muslim Democratic Action Party won 86 seats, the Serbian Democratic Party – 72, the Croatian Democratic Commonwealth – 44. The main goal of the Democratic Action Party was to unite Muslims, because Islamic order can only be established in those countries where Muslims make up the majority of the population. Izetbegovic, having come to power, began to act, guided by these provisions. He embarked on a course of secession from the SFRY and the creation of a Muslim state, with the Serbs and Croats assigned the role of national minorities. This, of course, caused discontent among both, since Muslims did not constitute the absolute majority of the population, and according to the 1974 Constitution, all three peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina were considered state-forming, constituted the total population of the republic and were equal.
On March 1, 1992, Bosnia and Herzegovina declared its independence. In protest, the Serbs left parliament and boycotted the independence referendum in late February. The Serbs were in favor of a united Bosnia and Herzegovina and were against the withdrawal from the SFRY. However, despite the boycott, the referendum took place: slightly more than 60% of the population came to it, and about 60% of them voted for the independence of BiH. Disagreeing with this, the Serbs proclaimed the creation of the Republika Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Serbs advocated the preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of the SFRY, but since this did not work out, they tried to occupy territories with a predominantly Serb population, separate from Muslims and create their own state in order to join the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the future.
For Muslims, the maximum program was the creation of a unitary Muslim state, and in the event of the collapse of Bosnia and Herzegovina, try to expand the territory as much as possible and raise the Muslims of Sandzak, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro to fight.
The Croats also sought to expand their territory, annex Herceg Bosna and unite with greater Croatia.
In this context, the EU Council of Ministers on April 6, 1992 adopted the Declaration on the Recognition of the Independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In early May, Bosnia and Herzegovina becomes a member of the CSCE, and on May 22, the UN. It should be noted that as early as December 17, 1991, the EU adopted a Declaration on the Criteria for the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, which stipulated a number of conditions after which the new state could be recognized. According to this declaration, the new state was obliged to: respect the provisions of the UN Charter; to fulfill the commitments formulated in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, especially in matters of the rule of law, democracy and human rights; guarantee the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities; respect the inviolability of all borders, which can only be changed peacefully and with mutual consent; acknowledge all relevant commitments related to disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as security and regional stability; solve all problems related to the legal heritage of states and regional disputes through negotiations.
The EU and its member states also demanded from each Yugoslav republic (before its recognition) to give firm constitutional and political guarantees of the absence of territorial claims to any neighboring EU member state and the obligation not to conduct hostile propaganda against any neighboring EU member state.
Despite the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina did not fulfill most of the conditions, its independence was recognized. This was done for political reasons, a big role here was played by the pressure from Germany, which played the main role in the EU and sought to demonstrate a new status after the unification. The foreign policy goals of a united Germany were formulated by German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who said that “the Germans now, more than ever, need territory. We want to turn Central Europe into a conglomerate of small states completely dependent on Bonn. These countries will be completely dependent on German capital and will become puppets of this great power.”
Germany in the Yugoslav conflict pursued the goal of regaining control over the northwestern part of the Balkans and the northeastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. With the existence of a unified Yugoslavia, it was impossible to realize these goals, since the SFRY has always been an opponent of German expansion in the Balkans. Therefore, Germany provided support to the separatists, who, having come to power, could become allies of the FRG and the conductors of its policy in the Balkan region. Pursuing its policy, Germany put pressure on the EU countries so that they recognize the independence of the Yugoslav republics. For the sake of preserving the unity of the EU, its members were forced to agree to the recognition of Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This policy of the international community led to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which began one day after the recognition of its independence.
The conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina is characterized by a strong influence of the international factor, at this stage – mainly from European and Islamic countries and organizations, with the hidden support of the United States. Croatia actively intervenes in the conflict, helping the Bosnian Croats with troops and weapons. Muslims were assisted by Islamic countries, which, despite the embargo imposed on September 25, 1991, supplied them with weapons (mainly through Croatia). Yugoslavia helped the Serbs at the first stage of the war (before the introduction of sanctions). In addition, the Serbs used the weapons of the Yugoslav People’s Army that remained on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This gave them a significant advantage, allowed them to deploy active hostilities and capture a large territory.
The world community has taken a clearly expressed anti-Serb position. It proclaimed the Serbs the aggressor, although it is difficult to talk about any aggression during the civil war. All actions were of a clear anti-Serb and anti-Yugoslav character. Citing the fact that the FRY is providing assistance to the Bosnian Serbs, the UN on May 30, 1992 imposed sanctions against Yugoslavia. The international community turned a blind eye to the fact that the Croatian army was fighting on the side of the Bosnian Croats, and did not impose any sanctions against Croatia. All the conflicting parties seized territories and carried out ethnic cleansing, but they blamed the Serbs for everything, despite the fact that they suffered from the cleansing even more than Croats and Muslims.
The Balkans are a traditional sphere of Russia’s interests, but in the Yugoslav crisis it took a rather strange position: until the beginning of 1992 it advocated the preservation of the SFRY, but did not take independent steps. Then Russia’s policy changed dramatically, and following the EU, it recognized the independence of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the future, she was never able to develop an independent position and obediently followed in the wake of Western politics. Russia has not defined its foreign policy priorities in the Balkans, limiting itself to statements about its desire to cooperate with the West. Such passivity and ignorance of traditional Russian national interests in the Balkans led to a complete loss of initiative by Moscow and turned Russia into a leading country.
Moreover, Russia obediently joined all anti-Serb measures, voting for the sanctions, which allowed it, according to the then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, to find itself “for the first time in history in an unprecedentedly favorable international environment during a period of severe internal trials.” Of course, the internal political situation in Russia was difficult, but it would be more beneficial, including for international prestige, to take a more balanced and nationally verified position.
In such “favorable conditions” my group had to defend our interests. But in such conditions the entire Russian diplomacy was forced to work, headed from October 11, 1990 to January 5, 1996 by Andrei Kozyrev, who currently lives in the United States and in his speeches expresses confidence in the impending collapse of the “anti-Western” regime of modern Russia. The modern Foreign Ministry, headed by Sergei Lavrov, primarily defends Russia’s national interests while simultaneously trying to establish cooperation with the West to the extent that the latter will not harm our interests.
To some extent, I entered a political path unusual for a professional military, but working with NATO for two years under the leadership of an outstanding Russian diplomat Vitaly Churkin gave me a certain understanding of many political issues. The meetings with Vitaly Ivanovich were weekly and dealt with many practical issues of relations with the leadership of the alliance and representatives of NATO member states as partners in the operation in BiH. Some assistance was also provided by the representative of our Ministry of Defense at the Russian Embassy in Brussels, Colonel Alexander Bartosh, who was part of the NATO liaison group headed by Vitaly Churkin. Together with Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, we prepared my first speech in Russian political practice at a meeting of the NATO Military Committee, where in the summer of 1996 I had to single-handedly fight off very acute questions from the military representatives of the alliance countries about our position in BiH.
Mass media (including, unfortunately, Russian ones) played an important role in shaping the image of the Serb aggressors. They waged a real information war, accusing the Serbs of all mortal sins and calling for an end to the Serbian aggression. This further strengthened the position of Croats and Muslims in the eyes of the world community. We can say that in the wars in the Balkans, foreign and some of the domestic media gained experience in waging information war and later in all conflicts and wars they already ran “ahead of the locomotive”, often provoking their beginning, misleading world public opinion in the interests of the customer. Subsequently, the media began to turn into an important instrument of the global hybrid war. The collapse of the Wence-Owen plan
So, the UN is trying to resolve the conflict, various peace plans are being developed. Croatians are supported by Germany, England, France, Muslims – by Muslim countries and the EU. As a result, the Serbs are imposed on options that are most beneficial to the Croats and Muslims.
The next plan for a way out of this situation was proposed in the fall of 1992 by the co-chairs of the ICFY (international conference on the former Yugoslavia) – the special envoy of the UN Secretary General and former US secretary of state for foreign affairs Cyrus Vance and the EU commissioner David Owen. During the negotiations, they promised to work towards “the establishment of a lasting and just peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” In Geneva, in December 1992 – January 1993, Wence and Owen presented a plan for a peace settlement, including a set of treaties: on the cessation of hostilities and demilitarization; about the constitutional structure; map with new borders; humanitarian treaty. As is often the case, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.
The plan did not take into account many of the demands of the Serbs, which aroused strong objections from them. By the beginning of 1993, the Serbs controlled 70% of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and according to the plan they were supposed to give up a significant part of this territory. Although they received more than they wanted in March 1992, their territory was divided, the cantons did not border either Serbia or each other. Moreover, these territories were economically backward. The Serbs also insisted on changing the status of the provinces, believing that they should receive more independence. The Wens-Owen plan did not allow the creation of a Serbian state. However, by refusing to sign the plan, the Serbs did not stop negotiations, believing that the proposed option for a peaceful settlement should become the basis for further discussion.
The Croats agreed to the plan because they received additional territories that would make it easy to join Croatia in the future.
The Muslims did not agree with the map of the division of the republic and demanded an increase in their territory. They tried to drag out time, to get the condemnation of the Serbs by the world community.
The negotiations dragged on, and the international community increased pressure on the Serbs. The Wens-Owen plan failed not only because of the intransigence of the Serbs. Immediately after the signing of the plans, the Muslim-Croatian Federation (IHF) crackled – they could not divide the territory among themselves in Central Bosnia. But the international community only put pressure on the Serbs.
Dayton Accords: How It Was
After the failure of the Vence-Owen plan, a new stage in the negotiation process began – the role of the United States increased. Back in 1991, a new NATO strategy was developed, the idea of controlling and settling military-political crises was put forward. If it is not possible to prevent the crisis, then the use of the alliance’s troops was envisaged, including in regions beyond the boundaries of its zone of influence. Thus, NATO received an important argument in favor of its continued existence – the use of the alliance as a peacekeeper – a military guarantor of crisis settlement.
The situation became even more complicated after Bill Clinton came to power in the United States, who took a tough stance towards the Serbs and demanded to punish them as aggressors. In addition, Clinton opposed the Wence-Owen plan, which had a strong impact on Muslims who refused to sign the documents.
The United States and NATO stepped up their policies in the Balkans, began to carry out forceful pressure, bombed Serbian positions, and eventually imposed their own version of a peaceful settlement on Bosnia and Herzegovina – the Dayton Accords.
By intervening in the Bosnian conflict, the United States declared its goal to establish a lasting, just peace while maintaining the unity of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But this is an official statement, and the main task was to increase the sphere of influence, and it was also necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness and necessity of NATO in the new conditions. When the main enemy, the Soviet Union, was gone, it had to be urgently replaced with a set of new threats and challenges that could not be dealt with without the United States and NATO. The US tried to disrupt the negotiations when the EU was leading them so that everyone could see that the Europeans cannot deal with the conflict without America’s help. European countries completely fell into the wake of American foreign policy, and the UN (with a rather spineless policy of Russia) could only legitimize the actions of the States.
In the Bosnian conflict, Washington took a sharply anti-Serb position. With the emergence of the United States on the political scene in the Balkans, the pressure on the Serbs ceased to be only political and economic and became military. Plans were being drawn up for air strikes against Bosnian Serb territory. At the first stage, they were supposed to be applied only to suppress firing positions, at the second stage, they planned to bomb infrastructure and supply facilities. At the same time, for the first strike, the authorization of the UN Secretary General and the NATO Council was needed, and for the subsequent ones – only the NATO Council. Demands for bombing increased especially since February 1994, after the explosion at the Merkale market in Sarajevo. According to many sources, it was a provocation by Muslims, but both the EU and NATO seized on yet another reason to increase pressure on the Serbian side.
The bombing of Serbian positions began in April. The decision on them was taken by the commander of the UN forces, and the NATO forces were implemented, and this took place without consulting the Russian side. At the same time, attempts to peaceful settlement of the conflict did not stop. On April 25, 1994, a contact group on BiH was formed, it included the USA, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia. On August 4, she proposed a plan, according to which the Serbs received 49% of the territory of BiH, the Bosnians and Croats 51%, but negotiations were interrupted after the terrorist attack on the Sarajevo market, in which the Serbs were accused. Since neither the UN nor the EU was able to succeed, the initiative was finally seized by the United States. A new stage of negotiations began under their auspices.
A prominent role in the preparations for the negotiations in Dayton was played by Richard Holbrooke, the US Deputy Secretary of State for Europe and Canada, who managed to seat Slobodan Milosevic, Aliya Izetbegovic and Franjo Tudjman at the negotiating table.
On February 28, 1994, the United States began to attract aviation to combat the aircraft of the Republika Srpska and destroyed five attack aircraft, and from November NATO aircraft bombed the Udina airfield and Serbian positions. On July 11, 1995, the Bosnian Serbs, led by Ratko Mladic, captured Srebnica and killed 8,000 Muslims. In response, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia issued arrest warrants for Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic – effectively decapitating the Bosnian Serbs.
On 28 August, an explosion at a market in Sarajevo killed 28 people. According to NATO, the Serbs were the culprit. From 30 August to 14 September, following the Serbs’ refusal to withdraw heavy weapons from the Sarajevo region, NATO launched Operation Deliberate Force, using aerial bombardments of Republika Srpska targets. Richard Holbrook on October 5 announced a two-month truce and began peace talks. On November 21, it was announced the development of the Dayton Agreement, signed in Paris on December 25, 1995. The end of the Bosnian War was declared and the modern constitutional structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina was determined.
28 Taliban fighters killed in IS attack on Kabul airport. Latest updates
The Taliban said there was no reason to extend the August 31 deadline for foreign forces to leave the country after the deadly attacks on the Kabul airport.
Written by Meenakshi Ray, New Delhi PUBLISHED ON AUG 27, 2021
Two suicide bombers and gunmen of the Islamic State group's affiliate in Afghanistan attacked Afghans flocking to Kabul's airport on Thursday, killing at least 60 Afghans and 13 US troops. The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) said in its claim of responsibility that one of its suicide bombers targeted "translators and collaborators with the American army".
The ISKP's statement carried a photo of what the militant group said was the bomber who carried out the attack. The image shows the alleged attacker standing with the explosive belt in front of the black IS flag with a black cloth covering his face, only his eyes showing.
Here are the latest updates after the deadly Kabul airport attack:
1. A Taliban official told Reuters on Friday that at least 28 members of the hardline Islamist group were among the people killed in explosions overnight outside the airport in Kabul. "We have lost more people than the Americans," the official, who declined to be identified, told Reuters. He said there was no reason to extend the August 31 deadline for foreign forces to leave the country.
2. The evacuation of civilians from Kabul has been accelerated after overnight attacks near the airport, a Western security official stationed at the airport told Reuters on Friday. The official, who declined to be named, said flights were taking off regularly.
3. Australia has stopped evacuation flights from Afghanistan after the attacks by the Islamic State suicide bombers, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Friday. Morrison said Australia's military personnel had been evacuated from Kabul just hours before the attacks and with security so precarious it was no longer safe to continue evacuations. "Our plan now moves into its post evacuation stage and that involves ensuring the process of returning, through our official humanitarian program," Morrison told reporters in Canberra.
4. The US on Thursday evacuated 7,500 people from Afghanistan after the twin blasts rocked Kabul airport. "From August 26 at 3am EDT to August 26 at 3pm EDT, a total of approximately 7,500 people were evacuated from Kabul. This is the result of 14 US military flights (13 C-17s and 1 C-130) which carried approximately 5,100 evacuees and 39 coalition flights which carried 2,400 people," a White House official said.
5. Norway can no longer assist in evacuating remaining citizens from Afghanistan's capital, Norwegian foreign minister Ine Eriksen Soereide has said. "The doors at the airport are now closed and it is no longer possible to get people in," Soereide told broadcaster TV2 on Thursday.
6. US troops helping to evacuate Afghans desperate to flee Taliban rule braced for more attacks on Friday after the Islamic State attack. General Frank McKenzie, head of US Central Command, said American commanders were on alert for more attacks by Islamic State, including possibly rockets or vehicle-borne bombs targeting the airport. "We're doing everything we can to be prepared," he said.
7. US President Joe Biden has pledged the United States would hunt down those responsible for the two blasts at the Kabul airport and said he had asked the Pentagon to develop plans to strike back at them. "We will not forgive, we will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay," Biden said in remarks at the White House. He promised US evacuations would continue. "We will not be deterred by terrorists, we will not let them stop our mission. We will continue the evacuations," he said.
8. Amrullah Saleh, who has proclaimed himself the 'caretaker' President of Afghanistan, said that ISKP has links with the Taliban and the Haqqani network. Saleh also hit out at the Taliban for denying links with the Islamic State. "Every evidence we have in hand shows that IS-K cells have their roots in Talibs & Haqqani network particularly the ones operating in Kabul. Talibs denying links with ISIS is identical/similar to the denial of Pakistan on Quetta Shura. Talibs have learned very well from the master. #Kabul," Saleh said in a tweet.
9. White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said that the US flag will be flown at half-mast until the evening of August 30 to honour those killed at Kabul airport. "As a mark for respect, starting today, the United States flag will be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon all public buildings and grounds... until sunset on August 30, 2021, in honour of the victims of the senseless acts of violence in Kabul," Psaki said.
10. Joe Biden's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has been rescheduled as the US president cleared his agenda to address bombings in Kabul. "The president's bilateral meeting... has been rescheduled for tomorrow," the White House said.
Money talks: Russia, India, and China are preparing to enter Afghanistan
The original article is in Russian and was published in Sputnik Uzbekistan
PANAGYURISHTE, ($1= 1.67 Bulgarian Levas) – The lightning-fast collapse of the pro-American government of Afghanistan, which in a matter of days fell under not the most violent blows of the Taliban, overshadowed all other world events.
And no wonder: after all, this is the most grandiose military and foreign policy fiasco of the United States since the end of the Vietnam War.
The failure of the world hegemon was so deafening that the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell at an unscheduled meeting of the European Parliament committees on foreign affairs called to prevent Russia and China from “taking control of the country and becoming sponsors of Kabul.”
The concern of the collective West is understandable since there are already interested players lining up along the perimeter of Afghanistan who can offer it much more than military occupation and control through a puppet government. And it’s not just about Moscow and Beijing. Afghanistan is extremely rich in minerals, there are nearly one and a half thousand deposits, including oil, gas, coal, copper, iron, precious and semi-precious stones.
The permanent state of war makes it extremely difficult to explore and clarify the available reserves, but even what the British, Soviet, and American geologists managed to reconnoiter in turn hints: the power that can stop the endless flywheel of war and organize some semblance of peace, security and stability will simply swim in money.
The economic theory claims that energy is always the basis of state development in the modern world, and the Taliban if they show a pearl of certain political wisdom, have every chance to go down in history as reformers who pulled Afghanistan out of the Middle Ages.
Let us briefly consider what Kabul has as a strategic reserve.
First, there is a huge Hajigak iron ore deposit in Afghanistan. Its main feature is that the ore lies very close to the surface, which allows it to be mined openly – simply with the help of excavators.
At the same time, in the neighboring areas of Shabashak and Dar-l-Suf there are industrial deposits of coking coal, that is, nature itself has created ideal conditions for the development of metallurgy.
This combination of conditions was simply doomed to attract the attention of India, which approved a state program to conquer the world steel market.
Delhi is very serious about becoming the world’s premier home. Therefore, back in 2016, India, Iran, and Afghanistan signed a trilateral agreement, under which Delhi invested in the modernization of the Iranian port of Chahbehar, and Tehran built a direct railway line that reached Herat from the northwestern border.
India needs Afghan ore and coal so much that it is ready to invest ten billion dollars in the construction of a mine and a direct railway to Chahbehar. The project was stopped due to the aggravation of the situation in the country, and the Taliban, who seized the province, kept a pause.
In the northern province of Balkh, along the Amu Darya and the border with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, large reserves of hydrocarbons have been discovered.
The US Geological Survey, which conducted field surveys under the cover of the American army, estimated the potential of the basin at 1.8 billion barrels of oil, 440 billion cubic meters of gas, and more than 560 thousand barrels of gas condensate.
For Afghanistan, which consumes a paltry five thousand barrels of oil a day, this is simply fabulous wealth that can solve the problem of energy hunger for decades to come.
To the sadness of Washington, China has its eyes on the oil and gas region. In 2011, Kabul agreed with the state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation. The corporation received a concession for the development of three fields, and in return undertook to build three refineries, which was done over the next three years.
China’s main interest here is lithium. Ten years ago, the same US Geological Survey published data from which it follows that three trillion dollars worth of lithium reserves are hidden in the bowels of Afghan soil.
An obligatory remark should be made here. Often, data on lithium reserves in Afghanistan are presented as fact, but this is not entirely true. For two years, American military geologists managed to conduct only surface exploration, identifying the basins, where, focusing on mining and geological conditions, there could potentially be metal deposits. At the same time, the Americans did not find or extract physical lithium.
However, geological exploration has long passed the stage of walking with a hammer, and modern modeling with a very high degree of probability predicts the presence of the coveted rare earth metal. For China, the world’s leading manufacturer of electric vehicles and battery technology, this was more than enough.
Just a couple of hours after the Taliban seized the capital, Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang announced that China is counting on “the most friendly cooperation with Afghanistan.” It is noteworthy that the Chinese Embassy in Kabul was also not damaged and is now guarded by armed representatives of the new government.
On the pages of the American press, a real hysteria unfolded in this regard. For example, CNBC writes that now not only lithium will fall into the hands of America’s main rival, but also cerium, neodymium, lanthanum, zinc, and mercury present in Afghanistan. If China gains a foothold in the region, it will become an almost monopoly in the processing and use of rare earth metals.
And what about Russia – do the Russians have nothing to offer and also to stake out our presence in the region? Of course, they have.
You need to start with the signature dish that Moscow traditionally offers to everyone who wants to cooperate – the main gas pipelines. In 2010, a quadripartite agreement was signed on the construction of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline with a length of 1.7 thousand kilometers and a capacity of 33 billion cubic meters.
The reason is still the same: endless instability, fighting, and power that does not control most of its remote provinces.
If the situation in Afghanistan stabilizes, Russia can not only become the main supplier of pipes but also help increase fuel supplies by at least redirecting the five and a half billion cubic meters of Turkmen gas purchased annually to the south. But this is not the main thing either.
Afghanistan is experiencing, without any exaggeration, an enormous shortage of electricity. The country with a population of 38 million, that is, more than modern Ukraine has only seven power plants with a combined installed capacity of 3.1 gigawatts.
For comparison: in Ukraine, the same figure is 55 gigawatts. For more than a decade, Moscow has under the cloth a project of an energy bridge between Azerbaijan and Iran, which, after consolidating the current status quo in Karabakh, has every chance of being implemented. In case of interest from the Afghan side, the energy bridge can be extended further to the east. It is much easier to install power lines than to pull a railway line.
In addition, despite all the hardships, two hydroelectric power plants operate in Afghanistan, Darunta and Pul-I-Khumri, and in recent years Russia has gained a wealth of experience both in modernizing its hydroelectric power plants and building new ones, including small and medium-sized power plants built even in difficult high altitude conditions.
The very near future will show how events in the region will develop, but the given trend hints that the pattern of presence of the main world powers there is likely to change beyond recognition.
Pharma Contaminant in Moderna COVID-19 vaccine vials found in Japan was metallic particles: report
by Kevin Dunleavy | Aug 27, 2021 Japan has suspended the use of 1.63 million doses of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine. (Moderna)
Moderna is getting more clarity on the contamination in vials of its COVID-19 vaccine that were discovered in Japan.
The contaminant is believed to be a metallic particle, said Japanese public broadcasting outlet NHK, citing health ministry sources.
Wednesday, Takeda, Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine partner in Japan, suspended the use of 1.63 million doses that had been distributed to 863 vaccination centers in the country. Contaminants were found in vials of one lot, and, as a precaution, Moderna said it put two adjacent lots on hold.
The suspension of the doses comes as 80% of Japan's population is under coronavirus restrictions.
Moderna has traced the issue to a production line in Spain, where one of its manufacturing partners produces the vaccines. In a regulatory filing Thursday, the biotech's Spanish production partner, Rovi Laboratories, said the contamination was limited to the one product lot bound for Japan. The company added it is investigating the issue and is in communication with health authorities in Japan.
The particulate matter, whose composition has not been determined, was discovered in roughly 40 unused vials across eight vaccination sites in Japan, NHK reported. Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, Katsunobu Kato, told reporters that contaminated doses were administered to an unspecified number of people.
Moderna said it hasn't identified any safety concerns, and it has not received any reports of adverse reactions among vaccine recipients.
In June of 2020, Rovi signed on to produce Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine. In April, the company revealed that it would begin producing bulk drug substance—in addition to bottling doses—from its plant in Grenada, Spain. Previously, the manufacturer received active vaccine ingredient from Switzerland.
Compared to manufacturing problems that have hampered COVID-19 shots made by Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, it’s been a relatively smooth ride for Moderna’s vaccine rollout. The company expects to make $19 billion in sales of the vaccine this year.
mRNA Was Supposed To Stay Ahead Of Variants. Why Aren't We Using Its Full Potential?
In this Dec. 14, 2020, file photo, a vial of the Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19 sits on a table at Hartford Hospital in Hartford, Conn. (Jessica Hill/AP File)
Part of the exciting promise of modified mRNA technology that built Moderna and Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccines was an assurance against variants that might one day evade the vaccines’ protection.
If any troublesome mutations arose, researchers said, manufacturers would be able to reprogram the string of genetic code inside the vaccines to counter that.
Manufacturers have indeed created shots updated for the delta variant, says Dr. Dan Barouch, an immunologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center who worked on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Delta has quickly become the dominant strain in the U.S., and it appears to spread even among fully vaccinated people. So, you might think it would make sense to start distributing shots tailored to the delta variant's genome.
And yet, at the moment, vaccine makers are still cranking out their original formulas for new inoculations and the booster shots that the Biden administration plans to authorize in September.
These vaccines contain a string of genetic letters that shows the body's cells how to create the spike protein, which the coronavirus uses to attack human cells. The immune system can then build antibodies that can target and neutralize the spike protein. In the original vaccines, this genetic code was developed using the genome from the coronavirus that first sparked the pandemic. Updated vaccines could use the genome from the delta variant, rather than the ancestral coronavirus, and generate antibodies that are theoretically better at fighting delta.
Except — they probably wouldn’t be much better, Barouch says.
This transmission electron microscope image shows SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, isolated from a patient in the U.S. The spikes on the outer edge of the virus particles give coronaviruses their name, crown-like. Image captured and colorized at NIAID's Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana.
Credit: NIAID. (Photo by: IMAGE POINT FR/NIH/NIAID/BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
That’s because the delta variant’s spike protein isn’t that different from the elder coronavirus in shape and appearance, so it’s still vulnerable to the antibodies that the vaccines create. Instead, Barouch thinks the reason why delta is able to cause so many breakthrough infections has more to do with its “hyper infectiousness rather than its intrinsic ability to evade antibodies,” Barouch says.
Compared to the ancestral variant, the delta variant tends to cause people to gush with viral particles. That means if you are exposed to delta, you’re likely exposed to a great deal more of the virus, and you’re more likely to get exposed in the first place thanks to the variant’s high infectiousness.
“If you’re exposed with a lot more virus, then the chance the vaccine will protect you is lower,” Barouch says. “And if you go to a crowded venue with many people in a closed space, you might be exposed not once but maybe 10 or 100 times.”
There are also public health and economic considerations that may explain holding off on a new vaccine. There are currently millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses in the U.S. going unused. Suddenly switching to a new version of the vaccine might increase the chances those doses go to waste, says Dr. Benjamin Linas, an epidemiologist at Boston University
.
A sign promotes COVID-19 vaccines at Lake Charles Memorial Hospital on August 10, 2021 in Lake Charles, Louisiana. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
“I don’t know what message it would give if [Pfizer or Moderna] said, ‘Oh we have a specially engineered vaccine for delta.’ Would that generate concern that the original vaccine didn’t work? Which is absolutely not true. These vaccines still work,” Linas says.
Data from the U.S. show the vaccines remain very effective at preventing the most severe outcomes: hospitalization and death. And studies from Israel suggest that giving a third shot of the current Pfizer or Moderna vaccines does help with the delta variant and further reduce hospitalizations, severe illness and death, says Bronwyn MacInnis, a genomic epidemiologist at the Broad Institute. She argues it may not be worth the effort to rebuild the country's vaccine supply with shots re-engineered around the delta genome.
“Given the current vaccines still work and boosting with them seems to help, it may make more sense to continue to go with the bird in hand, and possibly leverage the reprogrammability of the mRNA [vaccines] for future threats,” she says.
After all, the ability to re-code the vaccines is not going away, MacInnis points out. If another variant pops up that does make the current vaccines obsolete, it might be better to incur the cost of revamping the vaccine for that new danger, instead of one that the current vaccines can already defeat.
