Connect with us

RussiaFeed

Politics

Russia and Britain continue to mend economic ties

Here’s why the future of Britain’s economy rests in choosing the right “company”.

Haneul Na'avi

Published

on

20 Views

Mock on; thou hast a place of refuge; I am alone, an exile soon to be.” — Euripides, “Medea”

The 29 November Russo-British Business Forum (RBBF), held at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London, hallmarked continued efforts to mend Anglo-Russian business ties.

Russo-British Chamber of Commerce (RBCC) Patron HRH Prince Michael of Kent opened the event, followed by speeches from UK Trade Representative Boris Abramov, UK Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko, Tatarstan President Rustam Minnikhanov, delegates from the House of Lords and Commons, and many others.

Over 35 high-profile speakers in politics, business, AgriTech, FinTech, engineering and finance addressed pertinent topics. Bloomberg Radio’s Caroline Hepker moderated several open panel discussions and delegates signed numerous bilateral agreements.

Other notable projects were showcased, such as the Tatarstan Investment Development Agency (TIDA) and the Western Europe-Western China Transport Corridor (WE-WC), which aims to facilitate trade for the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) Initiative into the European Union.

In an interview, RBCC Board of Directors’ Chairman Roger Munnings expressed that “Brexit is going to require British companies to think adventurously and be faster on their feet — all of which is good,” drawing parallels to Russia’s economic rebound from international sanctions.

Many guests spoke on promising trends in increasing bilateral trade whilst underscoring the importance of closing trade deficits, to which Abramov noted, “Russia sells to Britain 1.7 times more goods and services than Britain sells to Russia”.

An RBBF press release extrapolates,

Over the first 9 months of 2017 Russian exports to the UK increased by 29.4% to US$ 6.5 billion compared to the 9 months of 2016 [whilst imports] from the UK, based on the results of the first 9 months of 2017, increased by 18.7% compared to the same period in 2016.

However, the event, full of optimism, laughter, and networking, was obscured by a dearth of attention to one of the most important obstacles sat in the way of progress: the British state.

In order to determine the future Russo-British ties, this issue must be addressed.

The “Special Relationship” and the State

Capitalism is an unabated sea of competition, alienation and monopolisation, which “always becomes the more destructive for bourgeois relations”, with the state determining such relations.

Vladimir Lenin defines it as,

[…] an organ for the oppression of one class by another [which] legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes.

Dialectically, Britain is undergoing a painful loss: its “special relationship” with the US empire, a product of the Cold War rising with former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill and falling with current PM Theresa May.

Friedrich Engles saliently noted that,

The State was the official representative of society as a whole [only] in so far as it was the State of that class which itself represented […]

In this case, it operates solely for the dominant bourgeoisie to crush opposition at home with social-democracy and austerity, or abroad with NATO—the “strange fruits” of such a relationship.

Karl Marx highlights that,

The value of a thing consists solely in its relation to our wants [where] we wish to part with a useless thing, in order to get one that we need [and] exchange something superfluous for something necessary.”

A contradiction ensues: as the British state coalesces capital and power, sections of the bourgeoisie will revolt in order to circulate their commodities to accessible markets.

These two relationships find expression in diametrically opposed value-forms, with the former in the US petrodollar, a money-form used to suspend the production of commodities, and the latter commodities, which must circulate in return for money-forms; Solve et Coagula, in other words.

Marx also notes that hoarding becomes,

…a constantly extending market for gold and silver, unconnected with their functions as money [and] a latent source of supply [principally] in times of crisis and social disturbance.

One particular crisis—Brexit—has become so severe that the British state is compelled to hoard as it prepares for an uncertain future. The material evidence for this must be explored further.

Material Origins of Deteriorating UK-Russian Relations

Post 9/11, Russo-British relations began disintegrating with former UK PM David Cameron, whom reinvigorated the UK-US special relationship with former US president Barack Obama in 2010, cumulating with the 2014 fascist Ukrainian coup, in order to mitigate the EU-Russian trade deficit.

The Guardian quacked that,

[Cameron] said Russia cannot expect to continue enjoying access to European markets and pushed for stronger sanctions against the country, after both the UK and US said they strongly suspect the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was struck down in Ukraine by separatists using Russian-made Buk missiles.

Pandering to Washington and Brussels, Cameron rallied against Russia by joining US-EU sanctions, military and media (propaganda) regimes, of course, for completely material reasons.

A Russian embassy communique from Ambassador Yakovenko noted,

The [2013 EU-Ukraine Association] Agreement stipulates that 80% of export tariffs are to be cancelled or lowered right away and further 15% – within 5 years. As a result, we expect the Ukrainian market to be saturated with European goods and components quite quickly, which can lead to Russian goods being displaced from Ukraine and EU [and] that Ukraine will be used as a low-cost transit channel for European goods, […] bypassing the agreed tariff schedule.

This is where the destructive power of capitalist alienation began. Cameron, hoping to alienate British goods to Ukraine via the agreement, was instead alienated by his European counterparts.

The Normandy Four—France, Germany, and Ukraine, and Russia—negotiated the Minsk agreements without London’s participation, infuriating Cameron.

A Russian Embassy resumé discloses that,

Outside the ‘Normandy Four’ and with no stake in the political solution, Britain became the most vociferous critic of Russia and supporter of Kiev’s flawed strategy of military solution.

Thus, Cameron begot Brexit—the perfect alibi. Kowtowing Brussels, Washington and Kiev cost London billions due to collapsing exports to the EU and Russia, with nothing in return.

The OEC stresses that,

During the last five years the exports of the United Kingdom have decreased at an annualized rate of -11.966%, from $446B in 2011 to $404B in 2016.

RT elucidates the timing even further,

Russia-UK trade has almost halved in 2015 as a result of the tit-for-tat sanctions between Russia and the European Union [and that] the total trade between the two countries fell by nearly 50 percent compared with 2014, and the loss is estimated at about $10 billion.

In short, there was nothing special about the special relationship. Even worse, whilst the UK accuses Moscow of hostile “aggression”, it was Britain who severed diplomatic ties to Moscow.

The Russian Embassy highlights,

[At] the moment Russo-British political dialogue is non-existent. London unilaterally froze all the bilateral formats of Inter-Governmental cooperation which proved their worth […] Regular consultations between the foreign ministries have actually ceased.

It continues,

London is not ready either to drop its [visa] sanctions [against] Russian officials, introduced earlier [and still refuses] to fully restore the contacts between special services, [damaging] Russo-British counter-terrorism cooperation.

Not since the 1927 ARCOS incident has a Tory-led government become such a cacophony of Russophobia. Even today, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson channels the humiliation of 1st Earl Stanley Baldwin of Bewdley. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

To understand why, a UK Parliament paper explains,

EU statistics indicate that EU goods exports to the UK amounted to €314 billion in 2016; more than EU goods exports to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined.

So, betrayed by the EU and US, yet dependant on the American state and European economy. Alienated by Brussels, and, under US president Donald Trump, alienated “at the back of the queue”, Britain becomes a shameless Ouroboros of self-destruction. Potentially without markets to which it can alienate its commodities, Britain began doubling down on hoarding.

An Inc. article details why,

[Imagine] you’re in charge of a large public company [and every] three months, investors are picking apart your balance sheets. […] Companies look better on the balance sheet if they hoard their cash–or spend it on low-risk, short-term, in-the-box, incremental innovations.

The British superstructure is being devoured by its material reality, ab irato, whilst its capital and stability remain under constant scrutiny from investors, the European Commission, and the public.

Unfortunately, after PM Tony Blair’s transatlantic honeymoon in Iraq and Afghanistan, British gold reserves plummeted from 588.27 to roughly 310 tonnes (2000-2002) and never recovered, which threatens British quantitative easing plans post-Brexit.

The 2008 global financial crises also aggravated matters to the point where QE began failing for the Bank of England. So, instead of hoarding gold, Britain hordes money-forms via austerity and prints cash via the BoE, to the chagrin of its citizens.

Should Westminster not change course, one can expect several phenomena to come to pass:

  1. With EU productive forces merging with the OBOR, defeat in ALL Brexit negotiations.
  2. To avoid a monetary collapse, hoarding via social welfare cuts and military/ security spending
  3. Massive capital flights to other European finance centres and tax havens
  4. A rapid collapse in Conservative (Tory) leadership and violent in-fighting
  5. A rise in the UK Labour Party (social-democrats) to capitalise on and mitigate capitalist crises

To survive, Britain must choose the OBOR, where commodity and money-form exchanges (non-USD) can prosper via emerging markets and kickstart its sluggish growth. Many EU nations are already doing so, and as Europe’s third-largest Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank member since 2015, it makes perfect sense. However, if it chooses the opposite, then prepare for the worst.

Furthermore, it is senseless why the British bureaucracy refuses to exploit all possibilities with organisations like the RBCC, even from a realpolitik perspective, or a Machiavellian one. It must integrate, not alienate itself from emerging economies like Russia, China, and countless others, particularly in the absence of the European market, and increase production of commodities of use-value, not exchange value. Cameron understood this when he joined the AIIB, and subconsciously, Theresa May also understands this and is reshuffling her cabinet in response.

As a final anecdote, one should recall the prophetic “wisdom” of Karl Kautsky,

There is no economic necessity for continuing the arms race [as] the capitalist economy is seriously threatened precisely by the contradictions between its States.

Every far-sighted capitalist today must call on his fellows: capitalists of all countries, unite!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Foreign Banks Are Embracing Russia’s Alternative To SWIFT, Moscow Says

Given its status as a major energy exporter, Russia has leverage that could help attract partners to its new SWIFT alternative.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


On Friday, one day after Russia and China pledged to reduce their reliance on the dollar by increasing the amount of bilateral trade conducted in rubles and yuan (a goal toward which much progress has already been made over the past three years), Russia’s Central Bank provided the latest update on Moscow’s alternative to US-dominated international payments network SWIFT.

Moscow started working on the project back in 2014, when international sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea inspired fears that the country’s largest banks would soon be cut off from SWIFT which, though it’s based in Belgium and claims to be politically neutral, is effectively controlled by the US Treasury.

Today, the Russian alternative, known as the System for Transfer of Financial Messages, has attracted a modest amount of support within the Russian business community, with 416 Russian companies having joined as of September, including the Russian Federal Treasury and large state corporations likeGazprom Neft and Rosneft.

And now, eight months after a senior Russian official advised that “our banks are ready to turn off SWIFT,” it appears the system has reached another milestone in its development: It’s ready to take on international partners in the quest to de-dollarize and end the US’s leverage over the international financial system. A Russian official advised that non-residents will begin joining the system “this year,” according to RT.

“Non-residents will start connecting to us this year. People are already turning to us,”said First Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Russia Olga Skorobogatova. Earlier, the official said that by using the alternative payment system foreign firms would be able to do business with sanctioned Russian companies.

Turkey, China, India and others are among the countries that might be interested in a SWIFT alternative, as Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed out in a speech earlier this month, the US’s willingness to blithely sanction countries from Iran to Venezuela and beyond will eventually rebound on the US economy by undermining the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.

To be sure, the Russians aren’t the only ones building a SWIFT alternative to help avoid US sanctions. Russia and China, along with the European Union are launching an interbank payments network known as the Special Purpose Vehicle to help companies pursue “legitimate business with Iran” in defiance of US sanctions.

Given its status as a major energy exporter, Russia has leverage that could help attract partners to its new SWIFT alternative. For one, much of Europe is dependent on Russian natural gas and oil.

And as Russian trade with other US rivals increases, Moscow’s payments network will look increasingly attractive,particularly if buyers of Russian crude have no other alternatives to pay for their goods.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

US leaving INF will put nuclear non-proliferation at risk & may lead to ‘complete chaos’

The US is pulling out of a nuclear missile pact with Russia. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty requires both countries to eliminate their short and medium-range atomic missiles.

The Duran

Published

on

Via RT


If the US ditches the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), it could collapse the entire nuclear non-proliferation system, and bring nuclear war even closer, Russian officials warn.

By ending the INF, Washington risks creating a domino effect which could endanger other landmark deals like the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and collapse the existing non-proliferation mechanism as we know it, senior lawmaker Konstantin Kosachev said on Sunday.

The current iteration of the START treaty, which limits the deployment of all types of nuclear weapons, is due to expire in 2021. Kosachev, who chairs the Parliament’s Upper House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that such an outcome pits mankind against “complete chaos in terms of nuclear weapons.”

“Now the US Western allies face a choice: either embarking on the same path, possibly leading to new war, or siding with common sense, at least for the sake of their self-preservation instinct.”

His remarks came after US President Donald Trump announced his intentions to “terminate” the INF, citing alleged violations of the deal by Russia.

Moscow has repeatedly denied undermining the treaty, pointing out that Trump has failed to produce any evidence of violations. Moreover, Russian officials insist that the deployment of US-made Mk 41 ground-based universal launching systems in Europe actually violates the agreement since the launchers are capable of firing mid-range cruise missiles.

Leonid Slutsky, who leads the Foreign Affairs Committee in parliament’s lower chamber, argued that Trump’s words are akin to placing “a huge mine under the whole disarmament process on the planet.”

The INF Treaty was signed in 1987 by then-President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The deal effectively bans the parties from having and developing short- and mid-range missiles of all types. According to the provisions, the US was obliged to destroy Pershing I and II launcher systems and BGM-109G Gryphon ground-launched cruise missiles. Moscow, meanwhile, pledged to remove the SS-20 and several other types of missiles from its nuclear arsenal.

Pershing missiles stationed in the US Army arsenal. © Hulton Archive / Getty Images ©

By scrapping the historic accord, Washington is trying to fulfill its “dream of a unipolar world,” a source within the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“This decision fits into the US policy of ditching the international agreements which impose equal obligations on it and its partners, and render the ‘exceptionalism’ concept vulnerable.”

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov denounced Trump’s threats as “blackmail” and said that Washington wants to dismantle the INF because it views the deal as a “problem” on its course for “total domination” in the military sphere.

The issue of nuclear arms treaties is too vital for national and global security to rush into hastily-made “emotional” decisions, the official explained. Russia is expecting to hear more on the US’ plans from Trump’s top security adviser, John Bolton, who is set to hold talks in Moscow tomorrow.

President Trump has been open about unilaterally pulling the US out of various international agreements if he deems them to be damaging to national interests. Earlier this year, Washington withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program. All other signatories to the landmark agreement, including Russia, China, and the EU, decided to stick to the deal, while blasting Trump for leaving.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Kiev ‘Patriarch’ prepares to seize Moscow properties in Ukraine

Although Constantinople besought the Kiev church to stop property seizures, they were ignored and used, or perhaps, complicit.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The attack on the Eastern Orthodox Church, brought about by the US State Department and its proxies in Constantinople and Ukraine, is continuing. On October 20, 2018, the illegitimate “Kyiv (Kiev) Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko who is calling himself “Patriarch Filaret”, had a synodal meeting in which it changed the commemoration title of the leader of the church to include the Kyiv Caves and Pochaev Lavras.

This is a problem because Metropolitan Onuphry of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is canonically accepted and acts as a very autonomous church under the Moscow Patriarchate has these places under his pastoral care.

This move takes place only one week after Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople unilaterally (and illegally) lifted the excommunications, depositions (removal from priestly ranks as punishment) and anathemas against Filaret and Makary that were imposed on them by the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate.

These two censures are very serious matters in the Orthodox Church. Excommunication means that the person or church so considered cannot receive Holy Communion or any of the other Mysteries (called Sacraments in the West) in a neighboring local Orthodox Church. Anathema is even more serious, for this happens when a cleric disregards his excommunication and deposition (removal from the priesthood), and acts as a priest or a bishop anyway.

Filaret Denisenko received all these censures in 1992, and Patriarch Bartholomew accepted this decision at the time, as stated in a letter he sent to Moscow shortly after the censures. However, three years later, Patriarch Bartholomew received a group of Ukrainian autocephalist bishops called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA, who had been in communion with Filaret’s group. While this move may have been motivated by the factor of Bartholomew’s almost total isolation within Istanbul, Turkey, it is nonetheless non-canonical.

This year’s moves have far exceeded previous ones, though, and now the possibility for a real clash that could cost lives is raised. With Filaret’s “church” – really an agglomeration of Ukrainian ultranationalists and Neo-Nazis in the mix, plus millions of no doubt innocent Ukrainian faithful who are deluded about the problems of their church, challenging an existing arrangement regarding Ukraine and Russia’s two most holy sites, the results are not likely to be good at all.

Here is the report about today’s developments, reprinted in part from OrthoChristian.com:

Meeting today in Kiev, the Synod of the schismatic “Kiev Patriarchate” (KP) has officially changed the title of its primate, “Patriarch” Philaret, to include the Kiev Caves and Pochaev Lavras under his jurisdiction.

The primate’s new official title, as given on the site of the KP, is “His Holiness and Beatitude (name), Archbishop and Metropolitan of Kiev—Mother of the cities of Rus’, and Galicia, Patriarch of All Rus’-Ukraine, Svyaschenno-Archimandrite of the Holy Dormition Kiev Caves and Pochaev Lavras.”

…Thus, the KP Synod is declaring that “Patriarch” Philaret has jurisdiction over the Kiev Caves and Pochaev Lavras, although they are canonically under the omophorion of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, the primate of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Philaret and his followers and nationalistic radicals have continually proclaimed that they will take the Lavras for themselves.

This claim to the ancient and venerable monasteries comes after the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced that it had removed the anathema placed upon Philaret by the Russian Orthodox Church and had restored him to his hierarchical office. Philaret was a metropolitan of the canonical Church, becoming patriarch in his schismatic organization.

Representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate have clarified that they consider Philaret to be the “former Metropolitan of Kiev,” but he and his organization continue to consider him an active patriarch, with jurisdiction in Ukraine.

Constantinople’s statement also appealed to all in Ukraine to “avoid appropriation of churches, monasteries, and other properties,” which the Synod of the KP ignored in today’s decision.

The KP primate’s abbreviated title will be, “His Holiness (name), Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus’-Ukraine,” and the acceptable form for relations with other Local Churches is “His Beatitude Archbishop (name), Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’-Ukraine.”

The Russian Orthodox Church broke eucharistic communion and all relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over this matter earlier this week. Of the fourteen local Orthodox Churches recognized the world over, twelve have expressed the viewpoint that Constantinople’s move was in violation of the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church. Only one local Church supported Constantinople wholeheartedly, and all jurisdictions except Constantinople have appealed for an interOrthodox Synod to address and solve the Ukrainian matter in a legitimate manner.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending