The war in Ukraine is a Godsend for the US, and the best we can hope for is that it will continue for as long as possible, as it will ruin Russia. This is the opinion of an associate fellow from Chatham House, a think tank closely related to the UK Government, and frequent contributor to NATO related institutions as the Atlantic Council. Unfortunately, he probably reflects the thinking of influential circles in the US, UK and NATO. If that is the case, it may indeed end up being a very long war.

In the UN, Russia has been condemned for its war in Ukraine by an overwhelming majority of nations. Despite this, very few countries outside NATO+ are joining the sanctions against Russia. How come that the Global South is unwilling to support the sanctions? And will it be possible for the US to twist the arms of these unwilling countries to get them to align?

Many countries build up reserves of gold and foreign exchange to hedge against sudden adverse events. As the currencies such as the US dollar and the Euro are not linked to any physical asset (as e.g., gold), their value is based on trust (called fiat money). However, the increasing politicization of the international financial system is eroding this trust. This may have far-reaching repercussions as some countries are now looking for alternatives.

It looks as if sanctions haven’t had the expected disastrous consequences for Russia compared to say Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, at least in the short term. But what about the longer perspective? Will the Russian economy implode or stagnate? Or will it be able to survive and perhaps even prosper? History tells us that both scenarios are possible and that the outcome to a high degree depends on how well the situation is managed and the legitimacy of the political leadership.

For sincere journalists in the West, Ukraine presents a dilemma. There is no doubt where the sympathy lies. The war in Ukraine is seen as the good guys against the bad guys and public opinion is strongly against Russia. What then to do with news putting the good guys in a bad light, for example Ukraine losing in the battlefield, their armed forces bombing a nuclear plant in Russian controlled territory, their use of residential areas for shelling the Russians and so on? Ignore them, deny them or tell the facts as they are?

Sometimes you wish you were wrong. In an article on this website around two months before Russia invaded Ukraine, I predicted that war was the most likely outcome, as US and NATO had clearly stated they didn’t accept Russia’s “red line”: the demand that NATO stop its eastward expansion. I asked whether NATO believed the Russians were bluffing, or whether they had decided to throw Ukraine under the bus. Unfortunately, it seems the decision was to sacrifice Ukraine.

Why should we care about whom the US elects as president? It is an internal US affair, and the American electorate is free to choose whoever they want. There is however a cacth. As the US possesses an enormous world-wide military power and dominates the international financial system, it affects all us non-Americans how they are going to use their power. In this sense, both candidates are absolutely unappetizing. Even so, for some countries it may matter who wins: Cuba, Iran, Yemen and Russia. For these four countries Biden may be the better outcome. And for some global issues also: first of all nuclear arms control and climate change.

The recent drop in oil prices is generally referred to as a ‘Saudi-Russian price war’. This is a wrong description. Two things are happening. Firstly, as renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper, oil is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and all countries with large oil deposits are scrambling to get as much as possible out of the ground before it is too late. Secondly, the OPEC+ oil cartel has failed, as outsiders – often called ‘free riders’ – have increased production so much that the cartel is no longer worth while. These two factors are the death knell for OPEC+ and high price oil – the good times for the oil industry will never come back. The fall in demand because of COVID-19 is not the cause, it is only the trigger.

The ongoing US trade war against China will have deep longer term repercussions, independently of whether a trade deal is reached to end it. Had it only been a question of erratic actions by a lunatic president, the effects could have been limited. But Trump is not alone. The general mood in the US establishment is that China should be contained, or even rolled back. So the key-word is now ‘disentangling’ of the US economy from China.

The ongoing trade war that the US has unleashed against China will change the history of the 21st century, independently of whether an agreement is eventually reached between the parties or not. It signals the decision of the US to prevent China from growing into an economic superpower, using whatever means it has at hand. But this is an extremely dangerous and futile policy. China has more than four times the population of the US. As it develops, its economy will inevitably surpass the US. There is nothing the US can do to prevent that, so they will have to find out how best to live with it. Unfortunately, this is not how an important part of the US establishment sees it.