Connect with us


Staff Picks

Russian “liberal” press does not notice the BRICS’ success

BRICS summit was a huge success, but the liberal press refuses to report it.

Dmitry Babich




The BRICS summit in Goa, India has cracked up to be a success, despite numerous predictions about the organization’s “irrelevance” by liberal media around the globe. The members of the organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) signed the so called Goa Declaration, which in general terms reflects Russia’s and China’s opposition to the policy of “regime change,” even though not naming the US and the EU as the main motors of this policy.

The leaders of the five biggest non-Western economies vowed to continue their support for New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement – the two bodies set up by BRICS in order to resist the pressure of the IMF and other US-controlled global institutions.

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin met with India’s prime minister Narendra Modi, and the two leaders found common ground on all the issues discussed (including Syria). So much for the numerous reports of the Western press about Modi’s “reorientation,” presumably favoring an alliance with the United States against China. (

The two leaders of Russia and India signed deals on the deliveries of Russian S400 air defense systems to India, with the contract worth $5 billion. The two countries are also going to set up a joint venture in order to build Russian-designed Kamov helicopters in India.

But just 4-5 days ago the mood about this summit was not so optimistic – at least, in the Russian opposition press. The Goa summit attracted a lot of attention in the liberal Russian press, making it a contrast to the last year’s BRICS summit in Russia’s Ufa. In 2015, when “isolation” of Russia was still name of the game in the mainstream media of the US and the EU, where the Russian liberals take most of their ideas about their own country. This year, however, the attention of the Russian liberal press to the BRICS summit was there – but it was of a negative character. The pro-Western Russian media outlets have pronounced BRICS to be in a “critical condition.” The main reasons cited were the change of the head of state in Brazil and India’s attempts to improve relations with the United States, supposedly inviting the wrath of China.

“Despite the task of creating a “new world order”, BRICS is losing its role of a counterweight to Western institutions, becoming a union of states, whose interests move further apart,” wrote the Moscow-based Kommersant daily, a traditional liberal critic of any Russian government since 1991.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta, which under the guidance of its publisher Konstantin Remchukov, a big friend of the US ambassador in Russia, blasts the Kremlin in its editorials, while from time to time allowing a sober voice to speak out on its foreign policy page, – this newspaper concentrated its attention on India’s “unhappiness” about Moscow’s expanding contacts with China and Pakistan. “Moscow and New Delhi still officially name each other privileged partners,” the newspaper reported. “But these relations are going through a difficult test now. Both friendly powers are subjected to strong pressure from outside… Can their relations take a dip down?”

But then, if Russo-Indian relations were going through such a difficult test, why would Russia suggest selling to India its most sophisticated anti-aircraft system – S400 missiles (also called “Triumph” in Russia)? The latest versions of weapons are in fact never sold to unreliable friends, not to speak of adversaries. Meanwhile, Putin’s chief foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, on the eve of the summit assured the journalists that the deal had been sealed just recently – in the midst of India’s supposed “alienation” from Russia.

“The agreement on deliveries to India of the of the anti-aircraft missiles S400 (“Triumph”) will be signed as a finalization for the talks our president and prime minister Modi are going to have,” Ushakov said on the eve of the summit. “The deal’s signing by Putin and Modi as a conclusion for the talks reflects the similarity of the Russian and the Indian approaches to the problems on the regional and the global agendas,” Ushakov told the journalists in Moscow.

All in all, the Russian side and the Indian side signed 18 documents on various spheres of cooperation in Goa.

In an interview to Russia’s RIA news agency and the Indian news agency IANS, president Putin mentioned 20 priority projects, which will be jointly developed by the Russian and Indian companies. Some of these projects are of high-tech nature, co contradicting the stereotypes about the “oil and gas” nature of Russian exports. For example, the Moscow-based “AFK Systema” group is working on a model of a “smart city” for India.  And the Russian company “Dauria Airspace” plans to help Indians place their telecommunications equipment on the Earth’s orbit.

Speaking to journalists before the summit, Putin sounded confident that his vision of the current developments in international relations will be supported by all of the BRICS’ heads of state, including the newcomer to BRICS’ summits, the new Brazilian acting president Michel Temer.

“BRICS countries do not accept outside pressure on independent states and the attempts to limit their sovereignty. This will be reflected in the declaration of our summit in Goa,” Putin said confidently to RIA. “BRICS is one of the key elements of the world order which is in the process of forming itself… We have similar approaches on the Syrian crisis and on the settlement in the Middle East in general.”

Putin also condemned the attempts of “certain Western states” to push through “one-sided solutions.”

The participants of the summit in Goa adopted the declaration and the Plan of Action, setting the priorities of their cooperation in the next few years.

As for Russo-Chinese ties, the good news is that after a slump of 27.8 percent which the trade between the two countries endured in 2015, bilateral turnover restarted its growth in 2016, gaining 7.1 percent against the level of the first three quarters of the year 2015.

According to the information from the General Administration of Customs (GAC),  the turnover between Russia and China now is $50.27 in the first three quarters of this year.

During their recent meetings, the foreign ministers of Russia and China, Sergei Lavrov and Wang Yi agreed that they saw eye to eye on the dangers of the American deployment of THAAD anti-ballistic-missile systems in South Korea. Formally directed against North Korea, these ABM complexes were obviously aimed at obliterating the importance of both the Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals.

As for the more distant partners, such as Brazil and South Africa, the idea of a free trade zone between the BRICS’ member countries had been floated before the summit. As usual in this kind of situations, the Chinese side has fewer fears of “going global,” than the other countries, which have less competitive industries.

“By setting up a free trade  area, the BRICS countries will be able to remove tariff and non-tariff barriers, giving free play to their comparative advantages,”   said Shen Danyang, the spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce.

In the situation, when the United States did not take Russia and China into its own Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP agreement), it is only natural that the BRICS’ countries, as the biggest emergent economies, strive to develop ties between each other, including the creation of a free trade zone of their own. It is only to their peril that Kommersant and Nezavisimaya refuse to note these trends.



Social media purge continues, as platforms operate as publishers (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 80.

Alex Christoforou



Following the suspension of Alex Jones, Twitter has also moved to restrict Jones’ Infowars account.

BuzzFeed News is reporting that the Infowars account will be restricted from tweeting, but will still be able to browse Twitter and send direct messages to other users, while users will still be able to view the account.

The move, which essentially puts the account in read-only mode, comes less than a day after Twitter temporarily limited Infowars proprietor Alex Jones for a week after he tweeted a link to a video in which he called on his supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready. That video, which was shared on Twitter-owned live streaming service Periscope, was also shared by Infowars earlier on Wednesday.

A Twitter spokesperson confirmed that Infowars’ account, which has more than 430,000 followers, will be prevented from tweeting, retweeting, liking or following other users during a seven-day window. The account will stay online, allowing users to view it during that period.

Via Zerohedge

On Tuesday, Twitter suspended the conspiracy theorist and blogger for violating the social media company’s policies, in a stark reversal for Jack Dorsey who previously bucked the trend by other tech giants to muzzle the Infowars creator.

As CNET first reported, Jones’ account was put in “read only” mode and will be blocked from posting on Twitter for seven days because of an offending tweet, the company said. While Twitter declined to comment on the content that violated its policies, a Twitter spokesperson told CNN the content which prompted the suspension was a video published Tuesday in which he said, “now is time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag.”

A Twitter spokesperson wouldn’t say what would get Jones or Infowars permanently suspended, however they noted “We look at [the] volume and nature of violations before suspending an account,” according to Buzzfeed.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the latest twists and turns in the vicious social media purge of conservative right and libertarian accounts. Platforms are acting like publishers and this may mean the end of monopoly social media services.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Meanwhile, in a censorship move against Libertarian commentary, Ron Paul Institute director Daniel McAdams and Antiwar editor Scott Horton were suspended by Twitter for simply retweeting. Justin Raimondo informs…

Target Liberty reports

Update from Justin:

Neither @scotthortonshow nor @DanielLMcAdams have been reinstated. You can see their tweets: they can’t tweet.


Daniel McAdams explain what happened…

Robert I can give you an update from my perspective regarding what happened:

Yesterday on Twitter, former US diplomat Peter Van Buren (@WeMeantWell) took members of the mainstream media to task for swallowing and printing government lies without even bothering to check them out. He said as a former US government official (turned whistleblower) he also lied to the press on behalf of the government and was astonished that the press swallowed each one, hook, line and sinker.

Several corporate media hacks and in particular one employee of an NGO funded by George Soros — a fellow called Jonathan Katz — piled on Peter, accusing him of all manner of treachery. When Peter ended one response with a sarcastic reference to zombie attacks – “I hope a MAGA guy eats your face” — which is obviously a joke, Katz replied that he is reporting Peter for promoting violence.

So he and his buddies ganged up on Peter and got him banned. Scott Horton and I were incensed over the ban, which seemed to us totally arbitrary. There was no threat of violence and it was no different than millions of Tweets all the time. So Scott and I both joined in and criticized Katz for running off to the authorities in attempt to get someone banned rather than just walk away from the debate.

Katz then did his usual routine and ran to the authorities and had Scott and me banned. Mine was for, as Twitter informed me, because “you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” There is no way at all that my Tweet violated the above rule. In no way did I harass or threaten based on those criteria. I merely strongly criticized Katz for running to the authorities to get Peter banned.

Continue Reading


“I’m Not A Racist, But I’m A Nationalist”: Why Sweden Faces A Historic Election Upset

Sweden is set to have a political earthquake in September.



Via Zerohedge

“Trains and hospitals don’t work, but immigration continues,” Roger Mathson, a retired vegetable oil factory worker in Sweden, told Bloomberg on the same day as the violent, coordinated rampage by masked gangs of youths across five Swedish cities.

We noted earlier that Swedish politicians were quick to react with anti-immigrant party ‘Sweden Democrats’ seeing a surge in the polls ahead of the September 9th election.

“I’m not a racist, but I’m a nationalist,” Mathson said. “I don’t like seeing the town square full of Niqab-clad ladies and people fighting with each other.”

Is Sweden set to have its own political earthquake in September, where general elections could end a century of Social Democratic dominance and bring to power a little known (on the world stage), but the now hugely popular nationalist party often dubbed far-right and right-wing populist, called Sweden Democrats?

Sweden, a historically largely homogeneous population of 10 million, took in an astounding 600,000 refugees over the past five years, and after Swedes across various cities looked out their windows Tuesday to see cars exploding, smoke filling the skies, and possibly armed masked men hurling explosives around busy parking lots, it appears they’ve had enough.

Over the past years of their rise as a political force in Swedish politics, the country’s media have routinely labelled the Sweden Democrats as “racists” and “Nazis” due to their seemingly single issue focus of anti-immigration and strong Euroscepticism.

A poll at the start of this week indicated the Sweden Democrats slid back to third place after topping three previous polls as the September election nears; however, Tuesday’s national crisis and what could legitimately be dubbed a serious domestic terror threat is likely to boost their popularity.

Bloomberg’s profile of their leader, Jimmie Akesson, echoes the tone of establishment Swedish media in the way they commonly cast the movement, beginning as follows:

Viking rock music and whole pigs roasting on spits drew thousands of Swedes to a festival hosted by nationalists poised to deliver their country’s biggest political upheaval in a century.

The Sweden Democrats have been led since 2005 by a clean-cut and bespectacled man, Jimmie Akesson. He’s gentrified a party that traces its roots back to the country’s neo-Nazi, white supremacist fringe. Some polls now show the group may become the biggest in Sweden’s parliament after general elections on Sept. 9. Such an outcome would end 100 years of Social Democratic dominance.

The group’s popularity began surging after the 2015 immigration crisis began, which first hit Europe’s southern Mediterranean shores and quickly moved northward as shocking wave after wave of migrants came.

Jimmie Akesson (right). Image source: Getty via Daily Express

Akesson emphasizes something akin to a “Sweden-first” platform which European media often compares to Trump’s “America First”; and the party has long been accused of preaching forced assimilation into Swedish culture to be become a citizen.

Bloomberg’s report surveys opinions at a large political rally held in Akkeson’s hometown of Solvesborg, and some of the statements are sure to be increasingly common sentiment after this week’s coordinated multi-city attack:

At his party’s festival, Akesson revved up the crowd by slamming the establishment’s failures, calling the last two governments the worst in Swedish history. T-shirts calling for a Swexit, or an exit from the EU, were exchanged as bands played nationalist tunes.

Ted Lorentsson, a retiree from the island of Tjorn, said he’s an enthusiastic backer of the Sweden Democrats. “I think they want to improve elderly care, health care, child care,” he said. “Bring back the old Sweden.” But he also acknowledges his view has led to disagreement within his family as his daughter recoils at what she feels is the “Hitler”-like rhetoric.

No doubt, the media and Eurocrats in Brussels will take simple, innocent statements from elderly retirees like “bring back the old Sweden” as nothing short of declaration of a race war, but such views will only solidify after this week.

Another Sweden Democrat supporter, a 60-year old woman who works at a distillery, told Bloomberg, “I think you need to start seeing the whole picture in Sweden and save the original Swedish population,” she said. “I’m not racist, because I’m a realist.”

Sweden’s two biggest parties, the Social Democrats and Moderates, are now feeling the pressure as Swedes increasingly worry about key issues preached by Akesson like immigration, law and order, and health care – seen as under threat by a mass influx of immigrants that the system can’t handle.

Bloomberg explains further:

But even young voters are turning their backs on the establishment. One potential SD supporter is law student Oscar Persson. Though he hasn’t yet decided how he’ll vote, he says it’s time for the mainstream parties to stop treating the Sweden Democrats like a pariah. “This game they are playing now, where the other parties don’t want to talk to them but still want their support, is something I don’t really understand,” he said.

Akesson has managed to entice voters from both sides of the political spectrum with a message of more welfare, lower taxes and savings based on immigration cuts.

With many Swedes now saying immigration has “gone too far” and as this week’s events have once again thrust the issue before both a national and global audience, the next round of polling will mostly like put Sweden’s conservative-right movements on top

Continue Reading


The Turkish Emerging Market Timebomb

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s populist economic policies have finally caught up to him.

The Duran



Authored by Jim O’Neill, originally on Project Syndicate:

As the Turkish lira continues to depreciate against the dollar, fears of a classic emerging-market crisis have come to the fore. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s populist economic policies have finally caught up to him, and sooner or later, he will have to make nice with his country’s traditional Western allies.

Turkey’s falling currency and deteriorating financial conditions lend credence, at least for some people, to the notion that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” I suspect that many Western policymakers, in particular, are not entirely unhappy about Turkey’s plight.

To veteran economic observers, Turkey’s troubles are almost a textbook case of an emerging-market flop. It is August, after all, and back in the 1990s, one could barely go a single year without some kind of financial crisis striking in the dog days of summer.

But more to the point, Turkey has a large, persistent current-account deficit, and a belligerent leader who does not realize – or refuses to acknowledge – that his populist economic policies are unsustainable. Moreover, Turkey has become increasingly dependent on overseas investors (and probably some wealthy domestic investors, too).

Given these slowly gestating factors, markets have long assumed that Turkey was headed for a currency crisis. In fact, such worries were widespread as far back as the fall of 2013, when I was in Istanbul interviewing business and financial leaders for a BBC Radio series on emerging economies. At that time, markets were beginning to fear that monetary-policy normalization and an end to quantitative easing in the United States would have dire consequences globally. The Turkish lira has been flirting with disaster ever since.

Now that the crisis has finally come to pass, it is Turkey’s population that will bear the brunt of it. The country must drastically tighten its domestic monetary policy, curtail foreign borrowing, and prepare for the likelihood of a full-blown economic recession, during which time domestic saving will slowly have to be rebuilt.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s leadership will both complicate matters and give Turkey some leverage. Erdoğan has  constitutional powers, reducing those of the parliament, and undercutting the independence of monetary and fiscal policymaking. And to top it off, he seems to be reveling in an escalating feud with US President Donald Trump’s administration over Turkey’s imprisonment of an American pastor and purchase of a Russian S-400 missile-defense system.

This is a dangerous brew for the leader of an emerging economy to imbibe, particularly when the United States itself has embarked on a Ronald Reagan-style fiscal expansion that has pushed the US Federal Reserve to raise interest rates faster than it would have otherwise. Given the unlikelihood of some external source of funding emerging, Erdoğan will eventually have to back down on some of his unorthodox policies. My guess is that we’ll see a return to a more conventional monetary policy, and possibly a new fiscal-policy framework.

As for Turkey’s leverage in the current crisis, it is worth remembering that the country has a large and youthful population, and thus the potential to grow into a much larger economy in the future. It also enjoys a privileged geographic position at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, which means that many major players have a stake in ensuring its stability. Indeed, many Europeans still hold out hope that Turkey will embrace Western-style capitalism, despite the damage that Erdoğan has done to the country’s European Union accession bid.

Among the regional powers, Russia is sometimes mentioned as a potential savior for Turkey. There is no doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin would love to use Turkey’s crisis to pull it even further away from its NATO allies. But Erdoğan and his advisers would be deeply mistaken to think that Russia can fill Turkey’s financial void. A Kremlin intervention would do little for Turkey, and would likely exacerbate Russia’s own .

The other two potential patrons are Qatar and, of course, China. But while Qatar, one of Turkey’s closest Gulf allies, could provide financial aid, it does not ultimately have the wherewithal to pull Turkey out of its crisis singlehandedly.

As for China, though it will not want to waste the opportunity to increase its influence vis-à-vis Turkey, it is not the country’s style to step into such a volatile situation, much less assume responsibility for solving the problem. The more likely outcome – as we are seeing in Greece – is that China will unleash its companies to pursue investment opportunities after the dust settles.

That means that Turkey’s economic salvation lies with its conventional Western allies: the US and the EU (particularly France and Germany). On August 13, a White House spokesperson confirmed that the Trump administration is watching the financial-market response to Turkey’s crisis “very closely.” The last thing that Trump wants is a crumbling world economy and a massive dollar rally, which could derail his domestic economic ambitions. So a classic Trump “trade” is probably there for Erdoğan, if he is willing to come to the negotiating table.

Likewise, some of Europe’s biggest and most fragile banks have significant exposure to Turkey. Combine that with the ongoing political crisis over migration, and you have a recipe for deeper destabilization within the EU. I, for one, cannot imagine that European leaders will sit by and do nothing while Turkey implodes on their border.

Despite his escalating rhetoric, Erdoğan may soon find that he has little choice but to abandon his isolationist and antagonistic policies of the last few years. If he does, many investors may look back next year and wish that they had snapped up a few lira when they had the chance.

Continue Reading



Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter