Month: November 2024

LEGO has become more than just a children’s brand – many of its sets are now seen as valuable collectibles. In 2023 alone, the company generated $10 billion in revenue, surpassing competitors like Mattel and Hasbro.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, highlights the most valuable LEGO sets today, including both retail and special collector sets.

The list, compiled by BrickEconomy as of October 2024, shows approximate values, which may vary based on demand.

$17K Spider-Man

Topping the list is the Spider-Man minifigure, released at the 2013 San Diego Comic-Con and given to raffle winners. With only 350 units made, it’s now valued at over $17,000.

Another rare set is a custom model of LEGO founder Ole Kirk Kristiansen’s house, with only 32 hand-numbered copies produced in 2009. Each is now worth nearly $10,000.

Third on the list, the UNICEF van was made in 1985 in a partnership with the United Nations Children’s Fund. It features a blue UNICEF truck and a UNICEF worker minifigure. It is now worth $10,500.

For a somewhat more affordable option, the LEGO 375-2 Castle, released in 1978, is available for around $8,700. This 767-piece Castle set, known as the “Yellow Castle,” came with 14 minifigures and was sold only in Europe, the UK, Australia, and Canada.

If you enjoyed this graphic, check out this comparison of LEGO’s revenue with other major toymakers.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Do we have to? Yes, I think we do.

Market Results

U.S. stock markets had an incredible week, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both up around 5%, and the Russell 2000 ripping up almost 9%!

Interestingly, at least from my perspective as an election night bond bull, the 10-year Treasury yield finished 8 bps lower on the week and about 27 bps tighter than its widest levels on Wednesday morning.

Credit did well too, with CDX IG at 47 bps (the lowest in at least 3 years). But the Bloomberg Corporate Bond OAS stole the show, reaching 74 bps, the lowest level this century!

Crypto, as a source of funding for candidates and often an early indicator of market views on the election, saw Bitcoin finish the week at all-time highs.

Election Results

The Fed likely helped, but the market reaction was primarily due to the election results. As of Saturday morning, according to the Bloomberg Map, President-elect Trump (“Trump” going forward for simplicity), had 301 Electoral College votes compared to 226 for Vice President Harris (“Harris”). Arizona still hasn’t been decided and still only had 81% of votes counted. The popular vote stands at 75 million versus 71 million (though that margin will narrow, assuming California manages to count the 37% of votes not yet counted). I did triple check those “percentage counted” statistics, as it seems (at least for me) difficult to believe that it takes so long.

The Senate shows up as 53 to 46 for Republicans with Arizona not yet decided (a lot of votes yet to be counted). I see two listed as independents, so I assume they have been slotted into whatever side they will caucus with, but the Senate has gone Republican, though not filibuster proof.

The House, as of Saturday morning, shows up as 211 versus 200, with a bunch more seats to be decided (with Arizona and California leading the way in undecided races). I’m seeing one site say that the betting odds are at 97% for Republican control, but I cannot tell if that is truly up to date or not, and the link seems sketchy enough that I didn’t include it (but it sounds about right).

We are starting to see proposed cabinet positions and will get a better sense of what the Trump administration is likely to look like.

At the risk of annoying people, on both sides, I think there are two things that I can safely say:

• There is a hope that whatever team is assembled sticks together and authority is delegated to those in charge, so progress can be made.
• There is a hope that the “best” in terms of policy and negotiation comes out, coupled with a fear that the worst elements could also come out.

Trying to figure this out is why we need to understand TrumpSpeak.

Babbel For Trump

I checked the Babbel website and there are 13 languages that I can learn, but TrumpSpeak isn’t one of them.

If I was able to train an AI Large Language Model, I’d be trying to train it on TrumpSpeak. The database of things that he has said (and tweeted) has to be pretty large. Then I would try to train that AI to predict what is likely to come out of all of that TrumpSpeak.

One thing I can say with certainty is that taking TrumpSpeak at face value has rarely been effective. Worse yet is taking the worst parts of TrumpSpeak (and there are some worse parts) and extrapolating them, which might generate a lot of clicks, but it is unlikely to help anyone make good decisions. For those of you in markets and running businesses, making the best decisions possible is what it is all about.

We will do our best to try to figure out what is likely to occur, but I do think some more background is helpful.

Two Sides of Trump

I will never forget Donald Trump speaking at a Bankers Trust High Yield Conference (I think it was before Deutsche Bank, and given the topic, I could probably figure it out, but that’s not overly important to the story).

He was speaking to a large audience of bond investors, many of whom had recently lost money on one of his Atlantic City casinos (I think it was the Taj, but I could be wrong). The audience, while not hostile, was far from receptive to his discussion – which, of course, focused on raising debt for his new project in Atlantic City (the Taj II if memory serves correctly). Yet, by the end, there was a buzz in the audience, all wanting to get a good allocation when the new bonds came out. Even after his lawyer/accountant, came out and “corrected” some things and said some other things that might not have been 100% correct, there was still a buzz. So, from my perspective, don’t underestimate his ability to charm a room, and even if not everything said is accurate, that room can remain charmed. You can argue that this shouldn’t be the case, but I think if we are going to figure out TrumpSpeak together, this should always be at the back of our minds, if not the forefront.

On the other side (assuming that the above reminiscence is a positive about Trump), his business organization looks very different (in my opinion) compared to other large organizations. The various businesses are compartmentalized. Unless things have changed, there isn’t a Golf Course Corp that manages all the golf courses. Properties and businesses stand as individual entities or maybe in small groups. There is also no one who stands out as his “trusted lieutenant.” So many business leaders rely on often a handful of people for advice and help. We all know when “so and so” gets promoted or goes to another firm, who they are going to bring with them. Yet Trump never seemed to have that cadre of trusted people who have important and visible roles in his dealings (he likely has some people that are in his inner circle, but they don’t seem to be well known, which after 8 years in politics seems surprising). So, a concern I had was his ability to delegate, which I think hampered his first term, as turnover was high, and a lot of roles were left vacant. Quite frankly, during this campaign, many people plugged into the campaign told me that several people recommended that he tone down some of his rhetoric and choice of words. He didn’t listen. He still won.

So, as I try to think about TrumpSpeak, I think of someone who can surprise people by getting them to agree with him, but who might not like delegation and having others share in the success.

You are free to disagree with that, but in my building blocks of thinking about TrumpSpeak, I go back to these “first principles” consistently, and it served me quite well the first time he was president.

Tariffs Are Complex

Let’s start with the topic of tariffs as it has garnered so much attention and seems less sensitive than immigration. I also think that if we start with tariffs, it might help us with TrumpSpeak.

I remember writing a lot about Trade Wars and Tariffs back in the day. I think it may have been before we regularly used our website as all I could find from 2018 was The Battle for IP & Unfair Trade and Time to Price In a Trade War Victory.

I do remember that I was one of only a few economists/strategists who supported tariffs. I argued that we had been in a trade war for decades, but only one side was firing the shots.

2018 was a long time ago, but I remember the back and forth with some economists/strategists who were adamantly against tariffs. In fact, some of the most outspoken people right now were part of that same group. Few, if any, bothered to complain that President Biden left them all in place, and then added some more. I’d be far more worried that the angst is valid, if it didn’t feel like history was repeating itself.

On Friday, I did get to bring up some thoughts on tariffs and protectionist countries in a segment that Bloomberg titled Tchir Says The Gloves Are Coming Off With China. I suspect this is a topic I will cover on Monday (Veteran’s Day) with Charles Payne on Fox Business.

Tariffs are complex!

Before worrying about 100% or 200% or whatever number is being bandied about, let’s just stop for one second on the complexity of tariffs and international trade.

Assembled in America (or USA Assembled). I assume that means something more than just being able to use it as a marketing slogan. That somehow “assembling” here has some impact on tariffs or tax or something. On the glasses, which I like a lot, the assembly is probably a little bit more difficult to do than assembling a Lego kit geared for 6-year-olds, but not by much (I have put the glasses back together after breaking them). I’d guess that the value of the components is about 90% of the value of the product and assembly is 10%. On the golf club, I can only imagine a carton of golf club heads and a carton of shafts being assembled in about 1.5 seconds! Total, not each . But seriously, it is probably more efficient to ship them that way, but why use the sticker “assembled in America?” On this particular product, I vaguely remember reading that it isn’t just for marketing, and it impacted the duty owed.

The above all seems a bit bizarre to me but should be a reminder that international trade is complex and lawyers (as they are apt to do) have built in so many loopholes that you can take very little at face value (who knew the 2018 tariffs would create a surge in Chinese facilities in Mexico?).

We still need to think about tariffs, but as we wade deeper into the discussion, let’s at least be cautious in thinking it is easy to implement tariffs holistically in a way that loopholes aren’t readily available.

Tariffs Are Likely A Negotiating Stance

I’m old enough to remember, back in 2018, when markets would move on trade negotiation headlines. It isn’t like we woke up one day and suddenly tariffs appeared.

While I completely believe Trump is willing to impose significantly large and new tariffs, I don’t think that will be the starting point. Having said that, if I didn’t think he would impose those tariffs, then it wouldn’t be much of a bargaining chip, so he has to convince me, you, and everyone else that the threat is real. Since he has done it before, the threat carries real weight.

So, I fully expect negotiations to begin in earnest once he takes office (and maybe even before). Trump “likes wins” (another thing I take into account in TrumpSpeak) and it is unclear that levying tariffs, especially if they don’t elicit some form of capitulation from China, constitutes a win.

On the other hand, threatening tariffs and getting China to give us some sort of a “deal” to avoid them can easily be spun as a win, and leaves the tariff threat good for another day. The “Art of the Deal” was a popular book (I think) back in the 1980’s. Trump likes to “win” and he likes “deals,” both of which point me to using the threat of tariffs to get some concessions from China.

I am scared of the tariffs – but not for the reason everyone else is.

I mostly fear that “we” will agree to a deal that seems like a “win” but really just gives Xi more time to get the Made By China strategy working well enough that China’s economy can get back to a path that is good for China and the CCP. 2025 was likely a bit ambitious for some of China’s targets, but they have been making a lot of progress towards their stated goals on many fronts, like manufacturing and technology. A deal that gives them more time to build out, with less pressure than they currently face, could prove very detrimental to our interests longer-term, while sounding good in the short-term.

So, I do not lie awake at night worrying about tariffs stoking inflation to unreasonable levels. I do worry that we won’t press our current advantages enough, giving China time to perfect its strategy.

I do agree with those who argue that tariffs alone won’t do much to boost domestic production. Yes, in theory, it will make foreign (Chinese goods) more expensive here, but will the cost be high enough to ramp up domestic production, or will the costs just shift along the existing supply and consumer chain, rather than create a revised, domestic-focused supply chain?
Carefully executed tariffs, that can shift the cost structure enough that domestic production wins out, would be really interesting to see, but might be very difficult to achieve, at least without some sort of additional support.

Which Brings Us to Chips

Let’s start with this article from Politico (which leans left according to an AllSides Media Bias Chart). It states that for the CHIPS Act, only one deal, totaling $123 million, out of a total of $33 billion announced, has been finalized!

I am fully in favor of developing a domestic foundry business (along with more extraction and processing of rare earths and critical minerals). It seems critical to national and corporate security to have a reliable supply chain of domestically manufactured chips, right up to the most state-of-the-art chips being made.

Not only do I fully support the idea of building out foundries, but I also think that with or without tariffs, we will need to create incentives and subsidies to speed up the re-shoring of crucial industries.

So why isn’t the CHIPS Act working well? On the bright side, availability of credit from traditional sources is high and inexpensive, so companies don’t need as much. But we’ve discussed that the Act itself tried to incorporate too many “features.” It didn’t just “help establish foundries,” it “helped establish foundries that meet a lot of additional, often complex, and sometimes very difficult to achieve metrics.” They don’t even sound like the same thing because they aren’t.

From the Politico article:

“The Biden administration is trying to balance business-world speed with a web of political and policy priorities, seemingly leaving none of the participants happy.”

There is a push now to close as many deals as possible while the current administration remains in power. I think that makes sense, as not only do I view chip production as a key element of national security, but I also think the jobs that come with it will allow us to truly re-establish a middle to upper income class of workers. I do hope they finalize some deals as I think this is an area that deserves investment, and so far, TrumpSpeak hasn’t focused on this area, at least not as positively as I’d like it to.

The chip industry, the logistics of supporting it (including water, rare earths/critical minerals, and energy) are all at the top of my investment list for stocks and bonds (while valuations in some sectors seem very stretched, there are immense opportunities here).

Which Brings Us to Not In My Backyard

If we are going to do a CHIPS Act, it would be more effective if we simply focused on the stated goal of developing foundries in the U.S. rather than trying to wedge a lot of other policies into the CHIPS Act. Making a competitive domestic chip manufacturing industry is difficult enough without attaching a lot of bells and whistles. Bells and whistles we may want (and even need), but should be handled in their own right, not haphazardly attached to other projects (if they weren’t haphazardly attached, I suspect we’d have more than one deal finalized).

As a whole, the nation, over time, has established a lot of “dos and don’ts.” We have made commitments to not do things, for a variety of reasons. Often environmental.

Those decisions were made when we had no real competition globally.

• From an economic standpoint, we were far ahead of everyone. The European Union, which in theory should have thrived, hasn’t emerged as a powerful economic block (in fact, the EU seems, at least to me, to have hampered much of the entrepreneurial and business side of things through a “robust” list of regulations and rules). China was making some goods, largely for us, but didn’t really have their own brands and hadn’t fully embraced the Belt and Road Initiative giving them global economic influence.
• From a military standpoint, the Soviet Union collapsed, China could not project power via a strong navy, and the rest of the world seemed very weak against a military that had a global presence and had consistently defeated its enemies, often with what seemed like ease.

I am not arguing that we should abandon all the protections we put in place, but I do think we need to re-evaluate many of them as the world has changed and we may no longer have the luxury to do everything we said we would or wouldn’t do.
The Keystone pipeline comes to mind (only because it seemed so close to getting done).

But more importantly, chips, rare earths, critical minerals, refineries, etc., are all likely to be crucial to our success and we may need to figure out why they aren’t getting done or built, and if there is something we can do about that. In case I’m sounding like I’m preaching from a soapbox and have some moral high ground, I’m perfectly capable of being hypocritical and fighting a cell phone tower my town plans to build – hypothetically that is .

Seriously, there are no easy answers, but we made a lot of decisions over the past few decades, where the competitive landscape has changed, and we should at least think about re-evaluating some things in the new world we face.

The War in Russia and Ukraine

Wow, I’ve gone on so long already, and despite having more to say, we will end this by examining the TrumpSpeak of ending the war in Ukraine.

I think there is a very good opportunity to end the war.

• I have the privilege of participating in many discussions with members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group (“GIG”). The war in Ukraine comes up over and over again (as you would expect). The problem, as I see it, is that most of our experts seem to be forming a consensus around the status quo.
  • We can get more weapons into the hands of the Ukrainians, and give them more flexibility to use those weapons to their fullest capabilities, but how many more fighters can Ukraine come up with? How long can this go on and still allow displaced Ukrainians to return home?
  • The Russians, while often ineffective, and getting out-strategized by Ukraine, have more able bodies to put into the conflict. While their weaponry might not be very sophisticated, working at a wartime production level has given them a lot of mediocre weapons. As many of our GIG members state – quantity has a quality of its own. With Iran’s help – both directly and by diverting attention to the Middle East, and with North Korea’s help – first with equipment and now with some troops, the Russians are likely able to keep up this pace longer than Ukraine can, without really “winning.”
• If that is the “status quo,” where neither side can really “win,” why not come to some form of peace?

My take on TrumpSpeak related to this subject, once again, varies from much of what I see or hear in the media. There is a lot of concern that since the Republicans and Trump have not been supportive of weapons, they will somehow cut off the supply and demand peace. That is possible, but I don’t think it fits with TrumpSpeak very well. I see it playing out more like this:

• Trump tells Putin – here is what you get – Crimea (which they’ve had now for a long time), some of the Donbas region (which they’ve also had for quite some time), and a bunch (but not all) of your frozen dollar reserves. You, Putin, will accept a path towards Ukraine achieving NATO status (though he might tell him that he doubts Ukraine will achieve the level of governance needed to achieve that). It does fit TrumpSpeak for him to do that. But he will warn Putin that not accepting this deal will force his hand to give Ukraine better equipment, training, and free them up to unleash it, since he will be very disappointed that Putin couldn’t see the value in the deal. And he finishes by reminding him of how much difficulty they are already having in the war, so just imagine how bad it will be for you if I have to really support the Ukrainians.
• Trump tells Zelensky – you aren’t going to win this, and we are tired of supporting you. Let’s be honest, the part of the country I’m telling you to give up was always more Russian than Ukrainian (my presumption of TrumpSpeak). Listen, you have a lot to be proud of. People who had never heard of Ukraine now have, and respect you and your valor! You fought hard, now is the time to keep what is really Ukrainian and we will give you a bunch of $$$ to rebuild. We aren’t going to let Putin get back all of his money. There is a price he has to pay. So, you have world recognition, all the land that is obviously Ukrainian, and a bag of cash to rebuild! Just imagine the buildings you can have with all that money! (TrumpSpeak again). And, to make it sweeter, so it doesn’t happen again, we will create a path for you to join NATO. You will have some work to do to get there, but you can bring your great nation there. Sadly, if you can’t see the sensibility of all of this, and end the suffering of your people, I cannot commit to more weapons going forward. We’ve done a lot, and it is time for the U.S. to step back.

So, I see it more as stopping a playground fight (though I don’t mean to diminish the deaths and brutality) by telling both sides what they already know to be true and using a mix of rewards and threats.

I don’t see why that cannot be done and I don’t think it is at all contradictory to the TrumpSpeak we’ve heard.

If Not Economic Growth, Much Less Risk of a Recession

I am not sure I’m fully on board with the idea that the markets are moving a lot higher because of significantly improved growth prospects. It is possible, and I think there are a lot of potential positives, but that might be the market getting ahead of itself.
What I can argue vehemently for is that the risk of a meaningful economic slowdown in the next year or two has been dramatically reduced:

• The Fed wants to get to the “neutral rate” and whatever it is, they think it is lower than where monetary policy is set today.
• The Republicans might not give Trump everything he wants (and we don’t even know what he really wants) but they certainly will be quick to react to slowdowns with fiscal stimulus since they look likely to control what they need to accomplish that.

I think bigger projects might come to fruition, but the first 100 days is likely to be less overwhelming than the market seems to expect (the bond market has regained some of its sense in that respect). The new administration will want to get some big things done while they control everything, but that will likely take time.

I’m also in the camp, that while a mandate was given to the Republicans, many will be cautious on how to use it, as Trump will not be standing for re-election (unless you believe some of the more aggressive conspiracy theories).

In the meantime, we will all figure this out, and please take time to remember and thank veterans on Veterans Day. I’m very proud to work with the team at Academy and have learned a lot about what it takes to be a veteran and to have served! I have not served but I can thank my teammates and hope that we can continue to flourish and do our part to hire and train more veterans.

I can also point you to In Flanders Fields, which I think is a poignant and inspirational poem and appropriate for the day!

My apologies if I offended anyone, but I’m trying to explain how I think about this, and in any case, figuring out how to think about a lot of issues, and getting that analysis correct, will be a key component of success for you, your companies, and your investments.

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

An essential mission for many educators throughout the country is the indoctrination of their students. The newest arrival on the propaganda front is Israel. In August, one of the topics of a United Teachers of Los Angeles meeting was “How to be a teacher & an organizer. . . and NOT get fired.”

History teacher Ron Gochez elaborated on stealth methods for indoctrinating his students. He talked about transporting busloads of kids to an anti-Israel rally—during the school day—without arousing suspicion.

“A lot of us that have been to those [protest] actions have brought our students. Now, I don’t take the students in my personal car,” Gochez told the crowd. Then, referring to the Los Angeles Unified School District, he explained: “I have members of our organization who are not LAUSD employees. They take those students and I just happen to be at the same place and the same time with them.”

Gochez further explained, “It’s like tomorrow I go to church, and some of my students are at the church. ‘Oh, wow! Hey, how you doing?’ We just happen to be at the same place at the same time, and look! We just happen to be at a pro-Palestine action, same place, same time.”

The unionistas then burst into approving laughter.

John Adams Middle School teacher and UTLA panelist William Shattuc agreed. Wearing a keffiyeh around his neck, he said, “We know that good history education is political education. And when we are coming up against political movements, like the movement for Zionism, that we disagree with, that we’re in conflict with—they [Zionists] have their own form of political education and they employ their own tools of censorship.”

Guadalupe Carrasco Cardona, ethnic studies teacher at Edward R. Roybal Learning Center in Los Angeles, who received a National Education Association Foundation Award for excellence in teaching, insists that the course she teaches, and whose curriculum she helped develop—ethnic studies—is fundamentally incompatible with supporting Israel. “Are you pro-Israel—are you for genocide?”

In Portland, OR, the Intifada begins in kindergarten. For example, the teachers union suggests that kindergarteners be gathered into a circle and taught the history of Palestine: “Seventy-five years ago, a lot of decision-makers around the world decided to take away Palestinian land to make a country called Israel. Israel would be a country where rules were mostly fair for Jewish people with white skin. There’s a BIG word for when indigenous land gets taken away to make a country; that’s called settler colonialism.”

The brainwashing is hardly limited to Israel.

In the San Diego Unified School District, students must confront and examine their “white privilege” and acknowledge when they “feel white fragility.” Additionally, children are told to “understand the impact of white supremacy” in their work.

Courtesy of the 520-page Black Studies Curriculum, public school students in New York City now receive lessons on the tenets of the Black Lives Matter movement and that Black Americans should receive reparations. Students also learn about the evils of capitalism, that student loans are equivalent to “debt peonage,” and the difference between defunding, reforming, and abolishing the police.

At an unspecified school in California, a parent confronted a teacher who told students that “only those who voted for Kamala Harris in their mock election will get a pizza party.”

The educator explained that there were five periods and only one would not get the party. “The Democrats are more for feeding the hungry, free medical care, more services—just pay higher taxes, so I would be willing to buy pizza for the class,” the teacher told the parent.

The teacher confirmed that the class that voted for Trump would not get free pizza, explaining “They just do what the conservatives do—which is pay for yourself.”

And then there is the transgender obsession, which shows no sign of abating. The invaluable Parents Defending Education lists the school districts that have policies that openly state district personnel can or should keep a student’s transgender status hidden from parents. As of Oct. 30, there were 12,222,924 students in 20,951 schools across the country affected by this protocol.

Not only is indoctrination a moral disgrace, it is also very expensive. A recent report surveying 467 superintendents in 46 states reveals that culturally divisive conflict in schools costs public K-12 schools, i.e., taxpayers, about $3.2 billion during the 2023-24 school year.

The cost of school-based culture wars includes “additional security, communications, and legal expenses. Schools incurred indirect costs from using staff time to address misinformation, social media threats, media inquiries about book bans, and growing demands for public information requests.”

John Rogers, a UCLA education professor, and lead researcher for the poll, claimed in a media release, “This research makes clear that culturally divisive conflicts in the nation’s schools are generating fear, stress, and anxiety that is disrupting school districts and taking a personal toll on the educators and staff members who work in them. Sadly, as superintendents have told us, the cost of these conflicts not only has a financial impact but is also eroding teaching and learning and undermining the trust between schools and the communities so essential to our democracy and civic life.”

Notably, according to many of the superintendents interviewed for the report, members of Moms for Liberty and those speaking out about such controversial topics shouldn’t get a platform.

Tiffany Justice, cofounder of Moms for Liberty, responded that the report’s findings are “ridiculous” and a “gaslighting tactic” to make it look like the parents are the problem for opposing sensitive topics being taught to their children without their consent.

Justice adds, “This is more obfuscation, this is more deflection by school districts for not liking the fact that parents are calling out a failing system, and we will not be silenced to protect a failing system.”

“What would be the better thing?” Justice asked. “We just shut up and go along with the indoctrination and the demoralization of our children so we don’t cause a problem and cost the school district money? If they weren’t doing so much nonsense, they wouldn’t have to deal with the ire of parents.”

Fortunately, many adults are indeed catching on to the problems with our wayward schools. According to the results of a Gallup poll released in August, only 43% of American adults indicated they are somewhat or completely satisfied with the quality of education students receive in kindergarten through grade 12 in the United States today.

Additionally, the EdChoice Schooling in America Survey asked respondents about the trajectory of K–12 education in the United States. The responses to this question were red flags for both parents and the broader public. Fully 70% of the public and 64% of parents of school-age children think K–12 education is on the wrong track.

A Pew Research Center poll found that only 16% of Americans were willing to say things are going in the right direction in education.

The 2022 NAEP, or “Nation’s Report Card” shows that Americans’ concerns are valid. The test revealed that nationwide, 29% of the nation’s 8th-graders are proficient in reading, while just 26% are proficient in math.

Clearly, all parents need to be aware of the massive indoctrination going on in the nation’s government-run schools and act accordingly. They have options, which I will delve into in a future post.

Several media reports and sources have been claiming that the government of Qatar has ordered the leaders of Hamas to leave the country, following pressure from Washington.

Financial Times is among those major outlets who are reporting that “The request was made around 10 days ago after intense discussions with US officials, according to one person familiar with the matter.” Wall Street Journal and others have said the same on Saturday.

Hamas leadership has been present in the capital of Doha since 2012. Prior to that it had long been based out of Damascus. But the Assad government booted Hamas after it sided against him and allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda forces during the decade long proxy war in Syria.

The tiny oil and gas-rich Gulf nation of Qatar has been central to on-and-off ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas, but these talks have of late been declared completely off. 

Given that these negotiations have been cut off, and as fighting continues in the Gaza Strip, Washington believes it’s time for Qatar to no longer play ‘neutral’ host nation to the group widely designated as a terror organization by the US and its allies. FT details:

But the talks have since been deadlocked, and Doha was told that after the failure of “repeated proposals to release hostages, [Hamas’s] leaders should no longer be welcome in the capitals of any American partner”, said a senior Biden administration official. “We made that clear to Qatar following Hamas’s rejection weeks ago of another hostage release proposal,” the official said.

The official added that while Qatar had played a key role in trying to negotiate a ceasefire and the release of the remaining Israeli hostages held by the militant group over the past year, “following Hamas’s repeated refusal to release even a small number of hostages, including most recently during meetings in Cairo, their continued presence in Doha is no longer viable or acceptable”.

Hamas leaders being in Doha has remained an awkward and contradictory arrangement as Qatar is also host to the largest US troop presence in the Middle East. US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Forward Headquarters is located at Al Udeid Air Base, which can house more than 10,000 American troops.

There is growing frustration among Qatari mediators about statements made regarding the intentions of officials in Doha, I’m told. With some western officials publicly attacking Qatar while privately asking for diplomatic assistance.

This was communicated to the Americans.

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) November 9, 2024

While Qatar’s foreign ministry has confirmed that efforts “to mediate between Hamas and Israel are currently stalled” it also doesn’t appear happy with the pressure campaign coming from Washington to boot Hamas leaders.

There has also been some confusion, despite all the current international reports, over whether Qatar is actually complying with the US demand:

Hamas has not been informed they are unwelcome in Doha, the Qatari Al-Araby news outlet reports, citing informed sources. Al-Araby says that information reported by media outlets, including The Times of Israel, is inaccurate.

However, an Arab official tells The Times of Israel that the Al-Araby report is false, calling it a “smokescreen” put on by sources who do not support the decision to oust Hamas.

How to read Qatar’s bombshell to oust Hamas:
1- Qatar pivoting to Gulf fold
2- Terminating mediation efforts: slap to all (Israel, US, Hamas)
3- Adjusting to Republican Congress, less so to Trump

Outsource the nightmare to someone else (Turkey, Iran) https://t.co/UPjkVKyh9n

— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) November 9, 2024

But if and when Hamas does relocate its political headquarters, Turkey or even Iran would be likely fits as the next host countries.

In the case of Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been vocal in his support of the group all while fiercely condemning Israel for what Ankara and others have said is genocide being conducted against Palestinians.

By Liz Helin of Remix News

A 33-year-old woman was returning home to Germany from Iran on Oct. 28 when she ran into some trouble with customs officers at Hamburg airport. When asked whether she had brought any goods that required declaration from her five-week trip, she denied having any, reports Bild. 

However, it turns out that was not the case.

“During the inspection, the customs officers discovered a total of 18 pieces of gold jewelry, 16 of which were stored in a shoulder bag with a lock in the backpack,” reports Maurice Douce, press spokesman for the Itzehoe main customs office. 

The woman then tried to say that some of the jewelry was for a friend.

“What matters when importing goods is not who the goods are intended for, but who is importing them,” Douce clarified.

The total value of the items was some €15,000, with the woman facing a charge of €3,400 in customs duties for her undeclared souvenirs.

Officials also discovered that the woman receives a citizen’s allowance in Germany. This means that she is only allowed to go on holiday for a maximum of 21 days and only if the trip is approved by her benefit provider. Otherwise, her social benefits can be reclaimed.

Germany has been struggling with the welfare demands of its open borders policy. In its 2025 budget draft, the country outlined standard rates and accommodation costs expected to total €45.6 billion, a far cry from the €36 billion set in the 2025 citizen’s allowance budget.

Continued reading on Remix News.

President-elect Donald Trump has won Arizona, completing a sweep of all seven battleground in the 2024 election.

The Associated Press called the race at 9:21 p.m. ET on Nov. 9. With this win, Trump’s total electoral college count moves to 312 to Vice President Kamala Harris’s 226.

Trump was projected to win the election on the morning of Nov. 6. Harris conceded the race later the same day.

As The Epoch Times’ John Haughey reports, Trump’s Arizona victory follows candidate Joe Biden’s upset win in the state in 2020, a 0.3-percent squeaker that marked the first time since Bill Clinton’s 1996 win that The Grand Canyon State had voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. In 2016, Trump won Arizona by 3.5 percentage points.

Polls presaged the former president’s Arizona win. The FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate had Trump leading by 2.2 percentage points on Nov. 4.

Maricopa County, where 62 percent of the state’s 7.4 million residents, and more than half its 4.367 million voters, live, proved pivotal. Trump won the Phoenix-area vote CC to CC percent, according to the Maricopa County Elections Department.

Trump fared better in the key county than in 2016 when he won it with less than 48 percent and in 2020 when he lost it with 47.65 percent, becoming the first GOP presidential candidate to lose Maricopa County in 72 years.

As in Nevada, winning the Latino vote drives Arizona campaigns, especially in Maricopa County where one-third of voters are Hispanic, compared to less than 19 percent nationally.

While many media declared Trump the winner of Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes in the preceding days, the AP withheld doing so until all mail-in ballots had been counted. Reported results had not changed much for more than a day by late-afternoon Nov. 8.

On Nov. 7, the Arizona Secretary of State’s office added tens of thousands of votes to the tally, but said there were hundreds of thousands of ballots left to count, including nearly 500,000 in Maricopa County. Therefore, the presidential race and the U.S. Senate contest between Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Kari Lake remained too close to call by late afternoon Nov. 8.

At 5 p.m. EST—2 p.m. PST—on Nov. 8, those numbers, largely frozen for more than a day, had Trump with 1.4 million votes, 52.5 percent of the total tally, to Harris’s 1.2 million votes, or 46.5 percent.

Despite the president-elect’s 161,000 vote lead, a significant 6 percentage point advantage, since most Arizona voters cast ballots by mail, and counting typically takes days. the AP withheld the call until it was mathematically impossible for Harris to overcome Trump’s lead.

Trump also dominated Harris in the popular vote with the vice president receiving around 10 million less votes than Biden did in 2020…

Additionally, as Modernity.news’ Steve Watson reports, CNN’s data analyst Harry Enten did a deep dive into the gains president Trump made with specific demographics in the election, highlighting how crushing they were for Democrats.

The numbers are truly astounding, and incredibly bad for the party of ‘joy.’

Enter pointed out that Trump made the greatest improvements over a previous presidential election performance from the same party since 1992.

“When was the last time a party gained in so many different places?” Enten asked, explaining that “You have to go all the way to back to 1992 when Bill Clinton improved on Michael Dukakis’ performance in 49 states, plus the District of Columbia.”

“Donald Trump’s performance on Tuesday was the best for a Republican presidential candidate in exit poll history,” Enten further urged, adding “He literally goes all the way back through history and breaks history.” 

Enten pointed to how Trump improved his party’s election performance in 49 states and Washington, D.C. over the 2020 election, with Washington state the single one where he didn’t do better.

“You know, I think the breadth of the improvement that Donald Trump had – Holy Toledo!” Enten declared.

Trump’s mandate:

1. More states (49 + DC) swung in his direction vs. last election than anyone since 1992.
2. Best GOP showing w/ age 18-29 in 20 yrs, Black voters in 48 yrs, Hispanics in 52+ yrs.
3. Coattails: best GOP showing in House popular vote in prez year since 1928. pic.twitter.com/xDEjHVJFAm

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) November 8, 2024

Trump has the biggest mandate imaginable.

If there was ever a mandate, this looks like it. Trump’s coalition is clearly reshaping the political map.

— Marie Jett (@Marie_Jett1) November 8, 2024

The party of joy failed to instil anyone with any.

The political landscape has completely changed forever.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Trump’s reported plan for a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine places Russia in the dilemma of either preempting this with another large-scale nationwide offensive, targeting those forces after they enter at the risk of sparking World War III, or tacitly accepting this endgame.

The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine envisages the creation of an 800-mile demilitarized zone that would be patrolled by Europeans adds a lot of urgency to Russia’s nearly 1000-day-long struggle to achieve its maximum goals in this conflict. The potential entrance of conventional Western/NATO forces into Ukraine as peacekeepers places Russia in the dilemma of accepting yet another “red line” being crossed or risking World War III by targeting them.

To refresh everyone’s memory since it’s been so long since the special operation started, Russia officially aims to: 1) demilitarize Ukraine; 2) denazify it; and 3) restore its constitutional neutrality, among other supplementary and informal goals. September 2022’s referenda then added the official goal of removing Ukrainian forces from the entirety of the four regions that Russia now claims as its own, including the areas of Kherson and Zaporozhye on the other side of the Dnieper, which will be challenge.

At the same time, Putin has repeatedly refused to reciprocally escalate in response to egregious Ukrainian provocations like its bombing of the Kremlin, early warning systems, strategic airfields, oil refineries, and residential buildings, et al, all due to him not wanting the conflict to spiral out of control. For as responsible of an approach as this is, the drawback is that it created the perception that he might accept the crossing of even more “red lines”, including conventional Western/NATO forces in Ukraine.

Putin’s aversion to escalation might therefore be exploited by Trump, who was reportedly handed a plan in June advising him to give Ukraine whatever it wants if Russia refuses whatever peace deal he proposes, ergo the high likelihood of a conventional Western/NATO intervention to decisively freeze the conflict. Trump’s track record of “escalating to de-escalate” with North Korea and Iran suggests that he’d also go through with this plan against Russia, hence why it should take this scenario seriously.

Provided that Putin lacks the political will to risk an unprecedented escalation by targeting those conventional Western/NATO forces, and his behavior thus far in response to other provocations suggests that this is indeed the case, then he’ll have to race against the clock to achieve his maximum goals. It’ll still take some time for the US to get key stakeholders like Poland on board, where 69% of the public is against dispatching troops to Ukraine in any capacity, so this likely won’t happen by mid-January.

In any case, Russia no longer has a hypothetically indefinite amount of time like before to: 1) demilitarize Ukraine; 2) denazify it; 3) restore its constitutional neutrality; and 4) remove Ukrainian forces from the entirety of the four regions that Russia now claims as its own, including those areas across the Dnieper. Even though the military-strategic dynamics of the conflict favor it, and capturing Pokrovsk could lead to huge gains in Donetsk, it’ll be very difficult to achieve all these goals by the time an intervention occurs.

To explain in the order that they were mentioned, Ukraine was initially supposed to be demilitarized upon the swift success of the special operation in its early phase, but the UK and Poland (whose role most observers aren’t aware of) convinced Zelensky to rubbish spring 2022’s draft peace treaty. That document would have greatly slashed its military capabilities, but it’s no longer realistic to imagine that he’d agree to this, especially after being given tens of billions of dollars’ worth of NATO arms.

NATO is also unlikely to agree to ask for them back due to the perception (regardless of its veracity) that Ukraine must be able to “deter” Russia from supposedly recommencing the conflict after it finally ends. The Taliban’s swift capture of Afghanistan after Biden’s bungled withdrawal from there was viciously lambasted by Trump, who’d go down in history as an even bigger loser if he agreed to “demilitarize” Ukraine and was then played for a fool by Putin if Russia steamrolls through it sometime later.

The only viable way in which Russia could implement Ukraine’s demilitarization in today’s context is to control as much of its territory as possible in order to ensure that no threatening weapons are deployed there. The problem though is that Russia is unlikely to obtain military control over all of Ukraine, or even just significant parts of its territory east of the Dnieper in proximity to the internationally recognized border across which Kiev’s shells still regularly fly, by the time of a Western/NATO intervention.

One of the reasons why the special operation’s opening phase didn’t result in ending the conflict on Russia’s terms is because the West informed Zelensky about how overextended its military logistics had become and thus encouraged him to exploit that to push it back like he ultimately did. Given how cautious of a leader Putin is, he’s unlikely to act out of character once more by ordering a repeat of this same risky strategy even if the frontlines collapse and Russia is able to roll into other regions.   

Another unforeseen challenge that Russia experienced during the special operation’s opening phase was actually holding the broad swaths territory that it nominally controlled. Ukraine’s hidden Javelin and Stinger stockpiles inflicted enough losses behind Russia’s lines to engender the large-scale pullback that coincided with the failure of spring 2022’s peace talks. There’s also the obvious difficulty of swiftly capturing large cities like Kharkov, Sumy, and Zaporozhye, which hasn’t yet happened.

Moving along to Russia’s second maximum goal of denazifying Ukraine after explaining how tough it’ll be to achieve the first one of militarizing it, this too can’t succeed without a political agreement that’s no longer realistic in today’s context after such a chance slipped away in spring 2022. What Russia has in mind is Ukraine promulgating legislation that aligns with these goals, such as banning the glorification of World War II-era fascists and rescinding restrictions on ethnic Russians’ rights.

Zelensky has no reason to go along with this anymore like he flirted with doing in early 2022 and Trump’s team doesn’t seem to care all that much about this issue anyhow. It’s therefore unclear how Russia can achieve this before a Western/NATO intervention except in the unlikely scenario of a Russian-friendly Color Revolution and/or military coup, neither of which the US would accept, and both of which would probably thus prompt the aforesaid intervention out of desperation to salvage “Project Ukraine”.

The third maximum goal of restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality is comparatively more likely but nevertheless moot at this point given that the raft of security guarantees that it already clinched with NATO states since the start of this year de facto amount to continued Article 5 support. Contrary to popular perceptions, this clause doesn’t obligate the dispatch of troops, but only for each country to do whatever it deems fit to help allies under attack. Their existing military aid to Ukraine aligns with this.

Coercing Ukraine to rescind 2019’s constitutional amendment making NATO membership a strategic objective would therefore be a superficial concession to Russia on the US’ part to make Trump’s peace plan a little less bitter for Putin to swallow. As with the previous two maximum goals, Zelensky has no reason to comply with Putin’s demands in this regard since the latter’s forces aren’t in a position to impose this upon him, thus meaning that it can only realistically be done if Trump orders him to.

As the reader probably already picked up on, the common theme is that Russia’s inability to militarily coerce Zelensky into complying with its maximum goals greatly reduces the possibility that they’ll be achieved, which also holds true for the final one of obtaining control over all its new regions’ land. It’s unimaginable that Zelensky will voluntarily cede Zaporozhye with its over 700,000 population, for example, or that Trump will accept the Western opprobrium that would follow coercing him to do so.

The same goes for letting Russia cross the Dnieper to obtain control over that region’s and Kherson’s areas on the other side, thus creating the opportunity for it to build up its forces there in the future for a lightning strike across Ukraine’s western plains in the event that the conflict ever rekindles after it ends. There’s no way that Trump would ever give Putin such an invaluable military-strategic gift so Russia’s supporters shouldn’t deceive themselves by getting their hopes up thinking that this will happen.

The only way in which Russia can achieve its maximum goals before the entrance of Western/NATO troops into Ukraine as peacekeepers is through military means, which would require another large-scale multi-pronged offensive of the sort that characterized the special operation’s early days. Even then, however, the high risk of once again overextending its military logistics, being ambushed by Stingers/Javelins, and thus risking reputational costs and even on-the-ground losses, will remain.

As such, there are really only three options left for Russia:

1) escalate now before Western/NATO troops enter Ukraine and either coerce Zelensky into agreeing to these demands or capture and hold enough land in order to demilitarize as much of the country as possible;

2) escalate after they enter at the risk of sparking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that could spiral into World War III; or

3) accept the fait accompli of freezing the conflict along the Line of Contact and begin preparing the public accordingly.

It’s unclear which option Putin will choose since he hasn’t yet signaled a preference for any of them. Nevertheless, it’s timely to quote 19th-century Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov, who famously said that “Russia is not sulking; she is composing herself.” Russia knows that the clock is ticking for achieving its maximum goals before Trump likely orders Western/NATO peacekeepers to enter Ukraine. The Kremlin is quiet for now precisely because policymakers have yet to decide what to do.

According to data by the OECD, a quarter of wage earners in the United Kingdom lag significantly behind median full-time earnings in their country. 24.7 percent of Brits earned less than two thirds of gross median pay, qualifying them as low wage earners in OECD statistics. 

But, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports, in the United States, this number was not much lower at 22.7 percent. Another low-wage country identified in the figures was Israel.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In Poland and Germany, 18.5 percent and 16 percent, respectively, still earned low wage if following this definition.

Fewer low wage earners were found in France, Norway and New Zealand, with results in the single digits.

While the United States did not report the incidence of high pay, Israel’s and the United Kingdom’s share there was also above average at 26.4 percent and 24.0 percent, respectively.

In the OECD on average, 21.9 percent of people earned high wages – 1.5 times the median gross pay or higher – while 13.5 percent earned low pay.

Denmark was the only country with a higher share of low-wage earners – 9.8 percent – than high-wage earners – 2.5 percent (among those reporting both figures).

By Thomas Brooke of Remix News

Germany’s collapsing government has responded to Elon Musk calling Chancellor Olaf Scholz a “fool” by claiming that the tech billionaire’s X platform has become a place for extremists.

Musk commented on the news that the traffic light coalition in Berlin was faltering following the dismissal of Christian Lindner, leader of the co-governing FDP, from the finance ministry, by writing in German, “Olaf ist ein Narr” (Olaf is a Fool).

Olaf ist ein Narr https://t.co/Yye3DIeA17

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 7, 2024

Deputy government spokeswoman Christiane Hoffmann attempted to brush off Musk’s comment, claiming, “There is freedom for fools on X.”

She, however, justified the federal government’s continued presence on the social media site despite claiming it is “increasingly offering extremists a platform,” by claiming that social media is “an important means for the federal government to explain and communicate its work.”

Her response, though, has only drawn more attention to the government’s unsuccessful approach to Germany’s severe economic challenges.

Scholz is facing a wave of criticism over his handling of the economy and mounting government gridlock. His abrupt firing of FinMin Lindner signaled the collapse of a coalition already struggling to manage, with all three parties plummeting in the national polls to the benefit of the center-right CDU/CSU and nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD).

And yet, while the coalition government seems intent on squabbling among themselves, Musk’s blunt appraisal of Scholz’s leadership echoes the frustration of a growing number of Germans.

Berlin’s inability to stabilize Europe’s largest economy has resulted in soaring energy costs, stagnant growth, and a considerable decline in its competitiveness with the likes of China.

The German automotive sector is in the process of cutting thousands of jobs as it grapples with a global shift toward electric vehicles — a transformation Musk himself has been at the forefront of.

The economic crisis is having a knock-on effect throughout the country, with Remix News reporting this week that bankruptcies have soared to their highest level in 20 years.

A total of 1,530 individuals and corporations filed for bankruptcies in October, 17 percent more than last month, according to research from the Leibniz Institute for Economic Research Halle (IWH).

Similarly, German industrial orders fell 5.8 percent in August compared to July, it was reported last month. The slump is far higher than the 2 percent drop anticipated, with economists now warning of a recession and doubting a quick recovery.

In September, a survey by the Ifo Institute revealed that the German economy is expected to shrink by 0.1 percent in 2024, following a 0.3 percent contraction last year, while business sentiment worsened for the fourth consecutive month and business activity contracted at its fastest rate in seven months.

Despite the political chaos, Scholz appears reluctant to act immediately with reports suggesting he could call a vote of no confidence in the new year paving the way for new elections possibly by March, a time when Donald Trump will already be back in the White House and implementing his ‘America First’ policies many believe will be to the further detriment of the German economy.

Opposition politicians in Germany are demanding decisive action with the AfD’s Bernd Baumann calling for “immediate new elections,” citing the latest results of the Politbarometer which revealed that 84 percent of Germans support this move.

Continue reading at Remix News.

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

President Putin’s plenary session performance (address + Q&A) at the annual Valdai Club meeting in Sochi felt like a high-speed train on cruise control.

Totally cool, calm, comfortable, in full command of a Himalaya of facts, no political leader anywhere – recent past and present – would even come close to delivering what amounts to an extensive, detailed world view deeply matured over a quarter of a century at the highest geopolitical level.

Putin began his address referring to the October 1917 revolution, drawing a direct parallel with our turbulent times: “The moment of truth is coming”. In a clear tribute to Gramsci, he stated how a “completely new world order” is “being formed before our eyes.”

The subtle reference to the recent BRICS summit in Kazan could not possibly escape critical minds across the Global Majority. Kazan was a living, breathing testimony that “the old order is irrevocably disappearing, one might say, has already disappeared, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the formation of a new one. Irreconcilable, first of all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence, this is a clash of the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built at the next historical stage.”

As concisely as possible, that should be taken as the current Big Picture framework: we are not mired inside a reductionist clash of civilizations or the “end of History” – which Putin defined as “myopic” – but facing a make-or-break systemic clash of fundamental principles. The result will define this century – arguably the Eurasia Century, as “the dialectics of History continues.”

Putin himself quipped that he would drive into “philosophical asides” during his address. In fact that went much further than a mere refutation of unilateral conceptual fallacies, as “the Western elites thought that their monopoly is the final stop for humanity” and “modern neoliberalism degenerated into a totalitarian ideology.”

Referring to AI, he asked rhetorically, “will human remain human?” He praised the building of a new global architecture, moving towards a “polyphonic” and “polycentric” world where “maximum representation” is paramount and the BRICS are “coming up with a coordinated approach” based on “sovereign equality.”

Six Principles For Global Sustainable Development

Sovereignty had to be one of the predominant themes during the Valdai Q&A. Putin was adamant that Russia must “develop our own sovereign AI. As algorithms are biased and give massive power to a few big companies that control the internet, the need is imperative for “sovereign algorithms.”

Answering a question on Eurasian security and the US as the dominant maritime power v. a multipolar Eurasia, he stressed the “consensus and desire in Eurasia for an anti-hegemonic movement”, and not for Eurasia constituted “as a bloc”. That’s the appeal of Eurasia’s “multi-vector foreign policy”, implying “more political independence”. The key example of “harmonizing interests”, Putin stressed, is the Russia-China partnership, and that was also what “made BRICS successful.”

Compare it in contrast to “the inability in Europe to establish a system of “indivisibility of security” and to “overcome bloc politics”; Europe instead went for NATO expansion: “After the end of the Cold War there was an opportunity to overcome bloc politics. But the US had fear of losing Europe. The US installed almost a colonial dependence. Honestly I did not expect that.”

Putin introduced a fascinating personal experience tidbit referring to a conversation – in German – with former German chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1993, when Kohl said flat out that “the future of Europe” is linked to Russia.

Yet that ended up leading to “the most important problem on our Eurasian continent, the main problem between Russia and European countries: the trust deficit (…) When they tell us that ‘we signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and we had no intention of resolving this conflict peacefully,’ what kind of trust can we talk about? (…) You have directly publicly stated that you have cheated us! Lied to us and deceived us! What kind of trust is that? But we need to get back to that system of mutual trust.”

Putin then added that Europe should consider becoming part and parcel of a Chinese concept straight from Chinese philosophy (“they do not strive for domination”). With panache, he stressed that the Chinese uber-geoeconomic trade/connectivity project should be interpreted as One Belt, One Common Road.

And that extrapolates to Central Asia, with all those nations “very young in their statehood” interested in “stable development”. For Russia-China, there’s “no competition” in the Heartland: “we only have cooperation.”

Putin once again enumerated what he considers the 6 key principles for global sustainable development: openness of interaction (implying no “artificial barriers”); diversity (“a model of one country or a relatively small part of humanity should not be imposed as something universal”); maximum representativeness; security for all without exception; justice for all (erasing “the gap between the ‘golden billion’ and the rest of humanity); and equality.

“Make Civilizations, Not War”

On Ukraine, this was the money quote: “If there is no neutrality, then it’s difficult to imagine any kind of good neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine.” In a nutshell: Moscow is ready for negotiations, but based on facts on the battlefield and what was agreed upon in Istanbul in April 2022.

That may be interpreted as a direct message to President Trump. To whom the door is open: “Russia has not damaged its relations with the US and is open to their restoration, but the ball is in the Americans’ court.”

Putin on US Presidents (he met quite a few): “All of them are interesting people.” On Trump: “His behavior when there was an attempt on his life, I was impressed. He is a courageous person. He acquitted himself valiantly.” On the open door: “Whatever he does it’s up to him to decide.” Then Putin offered his own congratulations for the re-election – on the record. The dialogue may be on: “We are willing to talk to Trump.”

Putin extolled Russia-China relations as part of their strategic partnership as being “at the highest level in modern history.” He also praised his own personal relation with Xi Jinping. That paved the way for the real killer, when it comes to US-Russia-China: “If the US had chosen a trilateral cooperation instead of double constraint – everyone would win.”

An excellent question by Brazilian economist Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr – a former vice-president of the NDB, the BRICS bank – led Putin to clarify his own position on de-dollarization. He stated flatly that “my role is to see ideas shaped that we then propose to our partners”.

The key target is “proposing to create a new investment platform using electronic payments.” That will address the “most promising markets” in the near future – South Asia, Africa, parts of Latin America: “They will need investment, technologies.” And “tools independent from inflation” – with regulation “through Central Banks and the NDB. We agreed to have a working group meeting regularly at government level. We are in no hurry.”

So that puts to rest any scenario of an immediate BRICS financial bombshell – even as “two-thirds of our trade is being serviced in national currencies” and among BRICS the figures are also high.

BRICS Bridge will be tested – soon. As for creating a single currency, that’s “premature. We need to achieve greater integration of economies, increase the quality of economies to a certain – compatible – level.”

Then, the bombshell: “We never wanted to abandon the dollar!” That goes a long way to explain Putin’s own view on de-dollarization: “They are undoing it with their own hand – the power of the dollar.”

All of the above is just a sample of the width and breath of themes addressed by the President during the Valdai Q&A. The forum itself offered precious nuggets all across the spectrum. Some participants – correctly – noted the absence of “the majority of the majority”: youth and women. Africans were impressed with “the sharp mind of Russian bureaucracy.”

A Chinese view noted how “the Chinese don’t swim against the current; they cross the river and reach the other bank.” There was a near consensus that development should be “based in different cultural values of civilizations” – actually Putin’s own view. Also imperative is the “need for aggregate authority” among the Global South.

A Greek insight was particularly powerful when it comes to the civilizational approach to politics: “Civilizations don’t clash. States do.” Thus the new – playful – motto that could guide not only BRICS but the whole Global Majority: “Make Civilizations, Not War.”