I think Elon Musk, like Bill Gates and George Soros, is a dangerous megalomaniac who views the world as his personal Frankenstein laboratory. If a regular guy had the kinds of ideas these billionaires have, they would simply be viewed as the neighborhood kook, but because these uber-wealthy men have insane amounts of money and clout they can implement their kooky ideas to the detriment of humanity. – Natylie

YouTube link here.

By Alan MacLeod, MintPress News, 2/11/25

Donald Trump has announced his intention to build a gigantic anti-ballistic missile system to counter Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, and he is recruiting Elon Musk to help him. The Pentagon has long dreamed of constructing an American “Iron Dome.” The technology is couched in the defense language – i.e., to make America safe again. But like its Israeli counterpart, it would function as an offensive weapon, giving the United States the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response. This power could upend the fragile peace maintained by decades of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that has underpinned global stability since the 1940s.

A New Global Arms Race

Washington’s war planners have long salivated at the thought of winning a nuclear confrontation and have sought the ability to do so for decades. Some believe that they have found a solution and a savior in the South African-born billionaire and his technology.

Neoconservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a video last year stating that Musk might have “solved the nuclear threat coming from China.” It claimed that Starlink satellites from his SpaceX company could be easily modified to carry weapons that could shoot down incoming rockets. As they explain:

Elon Musk has proven that you can put microsatellites into orbit, for $1 million apiece. Using that same technology, we can put 1,000 microsatellites in continuous orbit around the Earth, that can track, engage and shoot down, using tungsten slugs, missiles that are launched from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.”

Although the Heritage Foundation advises using tungsten slugs (i.e., bullets) as interceptors, hypersonic missiles have been opted for instead. To this end, a new organization, the Castelion Company, was established in 2023.

Castelion is a SpaceX cutout; six of the seven members of its leadership team and two of its four senior advisors are ex-senior SpaceX employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, including Mike Griffin, Musk’s longtime friend, mentor, and partner.

Castelion’s mission, in its own words, is to be at the cutting edge of a new global arms race. As the company explains:

Despite the U.S. annual defense budget exceeding those of the next ten biggest spenders combined, there’s irrefutable evidence that authoritarian regimes are taking the lead in key military technologies like hypersonic weapons. Simply put – this cannot be allowed to happen.”

The company has already secured gigantic contracts with the U.S. military, and reports suggest that it has made significant strides toward its hypersonic missile goals.

War And Peace

Castelion’s slogan is “Peace Through Deterrence.” But in reality, the U.S. achieving a breakthrough in hypersonic missile technology would rupture the fragile nuclear peace that has existed for over 70 years and usher in a new era where Washington would have the ability to use whatever weapons it wished, anywhere in the world at any time, safe in the knowledge that it would be impervious to a nuclear response from any other nation.

In short, the fear of a nuclear retaliation from Russia or China has been one of the few forces moderating U.S. aggression throughout the world. If this is lost, the United States would have free rein to turn entire countries – or even regions of the planet – into vapor. This would, in turn, hand it the power to terrorize the world and impose whatever economic and political system anywhere it wishes.

If this sounds fanciful, this “Nuclear Blackmail” was a more-or-less official policy of successive American administrations in the 1940s and 1950s. The United States remains the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb in anger, doing so twice in 1945 against a Japanese foe that was already defeated and was attempting to surrender.

President Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a show of force, primarily to the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. government wished to use the atomic bomb on the U.S.S.R. President Truman immediately, however, reasoned that if America nuked Moscow, the Red Army would invade Europe as a response.

As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the Soviet Union and its military. War planners calculated this figure at around 400, and to that end—totaling a nation representing one-sixth of the world’s landmass—the president ordered the immediate ramping up of production.

This decision was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community, and it is widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario.

In the end, the Soviet Union was able to successfully develop a nuclear weapon before the U.S. was able to produce hundreds. Thus, the idea of wiping the U.S.S.R. from the face of the Earth was shelved. Incidentally, it is now understood that the effects of dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons simultaneously would likely have sparked vast firestorms across Russia, resulting in the emission of enough smoke to choke the Earth’s atmosphere, block out the sun’s rays for a decade, and end organized human life on the planet.

With the Russian nuclear window closing by 1949, the U.S. turned its nuclear arsenal on the nascent People’s Republic of China.

The U.S. invaded China in 1945, occupying parts of it for four years until Communist forces under Mao Zedong forced both them and their Nationalist KMT allies from the country. During the Korean War, some of the most powerful voices in Washington advocated dropping nuclear weapons on the 12 largest Chinese cities in response to China entering the fray. Indeed, both Truman and his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly used the threat of the atomic bomb as a negotiating tactic.

Routed on the mainland, the U.S.-backed KMT fled to Taiwan, establishing a one-party state. In 1958, the U.S. also came close to dropping the bomb on China to protect its ally’s new regime over control of the disputed island – an episode of history that resonates with the present-day conflict over Taiwan.

However, by 1964, China had developed its own nuclear warhead, effectively ending U.S. pretensions and helping to usher in the détente era of good relations between the two powers—an epoch that lasted well into the 21st century.

In short, then, it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.

Nuking Japan? OK. Nuking Mars? Even Better!

Musk, however, has downplayed both the probability and the consequences of nuclear war. On The Lex Friedman Podcast, he described the likelihood of a terminal confrontation as “quite low.” And while speaking with Trump last year, he claimed that nuclear holocaust is “not as scary as people think,” noting that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but now they are full cities again.” President Trump agreed.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are over 12,000 warheads in the world, the vast majority of them owned by Russia and the United States. While many consider them a blight on humanity and favor their complete eradication, Musk advocates building thousands more, sending them into space, and firing them at Mars.

Musk’s quixotic plan is to terraform the Red Planet by firing at least 10,000 nuclear missiles at it. The heat generated by the bombs would melt its polar ice caps, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rapid greenhouse effect triggered, the theory goes, would raise Mars’ temperatures (and air pressure) to the point of supporting human life.

Few scientists have endorsed this idea. Indeed, Dmitry Rogozin, then-head of Russian state space agency Roscosmos, labeled the theory completely absurd and nothing more than a cover for filling space with American nuclear weapons aimed at Russia, China, and other nations, drawing Washington’s ire.

“We understand that one thing is hidden behind this demagogy: This is a cover for the launch of nuclear weapons into space,” he said. “We see such attempts, we consider them unacceptable, and we will hinder this to the greatest extent possible,” he added.

The first Trump administration’s actions, including withdrawing from multiple international anti-ballistic missile treaties, have made this process more difficult.

Elon And The Military-Industrial-Complex

Until he entered the Trump White House, many still perceived Musk as a radical tech industry outsider. Yet this was never the case. From virtually the beginning of his career, Musk’s path has been shaped by his exceptionally close relationship with the U.S. national security state, particularly with Mike Griffin of the CIA.

From 2002 to 2005, Griffin led In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capitalist wing. In-Q-Tel is an organization dedicated to identifying, nurturing, and working with tech companies that can provide Washington with cutting-edge technologies, keeping it one step ahead of its competition.

Griffin was an early believer in Musk. In February 2002, he accompanied Musk to Russia, where the pair attempted to purchase cut-price intercontinental ballistic missiles to start SpaceX. Griffin spoke up for Musk in government meetings, backing him as a potential “Henry Ford” of the tech and military-industrial complex.

After In-Q-Tel, Griffin became the chief administrator of NASA. In 2018, President Trump appointed him the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. While at NASA, Griffin brought Musk in for meetings and secured SpaceX’s big break. In 2006, NASA awarded the company a $396 million rocket development contract – a remarkable “gamble,” in Griffin’s words, especially as it had never launched a rocket. National Geographic wrote that SpaceX “never would have gotten to where it is today without NASA.” And Griffin was essential to this development. Still, by 2008, both SpaceX and Tesla Motors were in dire straits, with Musk unable to make payroll and assuming both businesses would go bankrupt. It was at that point that SpaceX was saved by an unexpected $1.6 billion NASA contract for commercial cargo services.

Today, the pair remain extremely close, with Griffin serving as an official advisor to Castelion. A sign of just how strong this relationship is that, in 2004, Musk named his son “Griffin” after his CIA handler.

Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse, with yearly revenues in the tens of billions and a valuation of $350 billion. But that wealth comes largely from orders from Washington. Indeed, there are few customers for rockets other than the military or the various three-letter spying agencies.

In 2018, SpaceX won a contract to blast a $500 million Lockheed Martin GPS into orbit. While military spokespersons played up the civilian benefits of the launch, the primary reason for the project was to improve America’s surveillance and targeting capabilities. SpaceX has also won contracts with the Air Force to deliver its command satellite into orbit, with the Space Development Agency to send tracking devices into space, and with the National Reconnaissance Office to launch its spy satellites. All the “big five” surveillance agencies, including the CIA and the NSA, use these satellites.

Therefore, in today’s world, where so much intelligence gathering and target acquisition is done via satellite technology, SpaceX has become every bit as important to the American empire as Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Simply put, without Musk and SpaceX, the U.S. would not be able to carry out such an invasive program of spying or drone warfare around the world.

Global Power

An example of how crucial Musk and his tech empire are to the continuation of U.S. global ambitions can be found in Ukraine. Today, around 47,000 Starlinks operate inside the country. These portable satellite dishes, manufactured by SpaceX, have kept both Ukraine’s civilian and military online. Many of these were directly purchased by the U.S. government via USAID or the Pentagon and shipped to Kiev.

In its hi-tech war against Russia, Starlink has become the keystone of the Ukrainian military. It allows for satellite-based target acquisition and drone attacks on Russian forces. Indeed, on today’s battlefield, many weapons require an internet connection. One Ukrainian official told The Times of London that he “must” use Starlink to target enemy forces via thermal imaging.

The controversial mogul has also involved himself in South American politics. In 2019, he supported the U.S.-backed overthrow of socialist president Evo Morales. Morales suggested that Musk financed the insurrection, which he dubbed a “lithium coup.” When directly charged with his involvement, Musk infamously replied, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it!” Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium reserves, a metal crucial in producing batteries for electric vehicles such as the ones in Musk’s Tesla cars.

In Venezuela last year, Musk went even further, supporting the U.S.-backed far-right candidate against socialist president Nicolás Maduro. He even went so far as to suggest he was working on a plan to kidnap the sitting president. “I’m coming for you Maduro. I will carry you to Gitmo on a donkey,” he said, referencing the notorious U.S. torture center.

More recently, Musk has thrown himself into American politics, funding and campaigning for President Trump, and will now lead Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE’s stated mission is to cut unnecessary and wasteful government spending. However, with Musk at the helm, it seems unlikely that the billions of dollars in military contracts and tax incentives his companies have received will be on the chopping block.

At Trump’s inauguration, Musk garnered international headlines after he gave two Sieg Heil salutes – gestures that his daughter felt were unambiguously Nazi. Musk – who comes from a historically Nazi-supporting family – took time out from criticizing the reaction to his salute to appear at a rally for the Alternative für Deutschland Party. There, he said that Germans place “too much focus on past guilt” (i.e., the Holocaust) and that “we need to move beyond that.” “Children should not feel guilty for the sins of their parents – their great-grandparents even,” he added to raucous applause.

The tech tycoon’s recent actions have provoked outrage among many Americans, claiming that fascists and Nazis do not belong anywhere near the U.S. space and defense programs. In reality, however, these projects, from the very beginning, were overseen by top German scientists brought over after the fall of Nazi Germany. Operation Paperclip transported more than 1,600 German scientists to America, including the father of the American lunar project, Wernher von Braun. Von Braun was a member of both the Nazi Party and the infamous elite SS paramilitary, whose members oversaw Hitler’s extermination camps.

Thus, Nazism and the American empire have, for a long time, gone hand in hand. Far more disturbing than a man with fascist sympathies being in a position of power in the U.S. military or space industry, however, is the ability the United States is seeking for itself to be impervious to intercontinental missile attacks from its competitors.

On the surface, Washington’s Iron Dome plan may sound defensive in nature. But in reality, it would give it a free hand to attack any country or entity around the world in any way it wishes – including with nuclear weapons. This would upend the fragile nuclear peace that has reigned since the early days of the Cold War. Elon Musk’s help in this endeavor is much more worrying and dangerous than any salutes or comments he could ever make.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as anumberofacademicarticles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 2/24/25

Note: this article is from 2/24/25 and obviously much has happened since then and the deal between Ukraine and the US is apparently dead, but this is useful information to know. – Natylie

Lots of action over the weekend as US President Donald Trump doubled down on his $500bn “rare earth metals” deal with Ukraine, sending a revised agreement after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy complained the first one was too harsh. Trump made the new offer even harsher.

Unsurprisingly, Zelenskiy rejected this one too, but he has stopped being polite about it. At a press conference he said that Ukraine was being asked to pay a $50bn surcharge on every $100bn it earned from mining minerals and that it might produce, and if that was the case on any aid it would open a Pandora’s box. Moreover, he pointed out that the money the US gave him was in the form of grants, ie does not have to be paid back. It’s not debt, he said. Zelenskiy refuses to sign off on a deal that will mortgage “the next ten generations of Ukrainians.”

He is of course completely right. As bne IntelliNews reported, Trump is in effect asking Ukraine to pay reparations on a war where it is not the aggressor; it’s the victim. Russia should be the one paying, but instead it looks very much like it will be offered deals instead.

They are dancing in the corridors of the Kremlin. It was suggested Russia might be willing to give up its frozen $300bn as part of the bargain (if part of that money is spent on redeveloping the regions it annexed) and even more extraordinarily, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his government to prepare the way for Western companies to return to Russia. Boeing was singled out, which is desperate to buy Russian titanium again. Putin also said that Russia should start mining its own considerable deposits of lithium.

Zelenskiy was incautious in his rejection of Trump’s mineral deal. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump really doesn’t like Zelenskiy at all. Presumably he is still angry over the Hunter Biden investigation affair from his first term in office and Trump is such a child that he bears long and deep-seated grudges.

But he is still talking to Bankova because he wants basically all of Ukraine’s natural resources, especially its treasure trove of r”are earth metals.”

Except Ukraine doesn’t have any rare earth metals.

It does have metals and minerals. It is home to significant deposits of lithium, titanium and copper, for example. But these are not “rare earth” metals, but normal, “strategically important” metals.

Rare earth metals (REMs) are a group of 17 elements in the periodic table, including the 15 lanthanides, that sit in a row at the bottom of that block in the middle of the periodic table most people don’t know anything about, plus scandium and yttrium (in the third column). All have similar and useful, albeit esoteric, properties.

The strategically important metals on the other hand are scattered all over the period table and are only important as each one does something different, but very useful, but are not that abundant.

What happened here? Everyone is talking about the rare earth metals deal, but no one seems to have bothered to check their facts as the difference between something like lithium and says lanthanum is basic chemistry. Ok, I realise none of us paid that much attention in chemistry lessons in school, but still, journalists are supposed to check these things and even I registered that lithium, the sister of the far more common sodium (one half of table salt) is not a rare earth metal without having to look it up.

What is driving this is US Sinophobia, as China controls 80-95% of global supplies. At the same as we become a silicone-based economy these elements are increasingly important as they are needed to build super-fast chips etc. The fact that China holds all cards in rare earth production is a huge national security problem for the US which has said it wants to stay “at least one, if not two” generations ahead of everyone else in the tech race.

According to a congressional report issued a few years ago, the level of US rare earth metal production is currently “none.” I think everyone is aware of this problem, even if they are not sure how to pronounce yttrium, let alone praseodymium, so the idea that Ukraine is stuffed full of this stuff is appealing.

The confusion seems to have stemmed from a report by the “Nato Energy Security Centre of Excellence” that claimed Ukraine is home to a plethora of “rare earth minerals” that are worth “trillions of dollars.” It listed a string of these metals and minerals as an example in the report, except none of the elements it named were actually rare earth metals.

It turns out that the organisation, despite bearing Nato’s name, is an autonomous body based in Lithuania, which is home to some of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters.

This report seems to have had a big impact. I don’t know if Senator Lindsey Graham (another avid Ukraine supporter) read it or not, but he was parroting the findings of the report to Fox News last year and selling the idea that Ukraine has “trillions of dollars-worth” of rare earth metals – he specifically called them “rare earth metals.” Trump was sold on the idea, and no one bothered to check.

Until now. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Javier Blas wrote a piece at the end of last week calling bullshit on this story, pointing out that Ukraine doesn’t have any REMs.

I spent the weekend digging into the details and while Ukraine doesn’t have any REMs it does have valuable strategic metals of which lithium and graphite are probably the most important, but titanium and copper are the most valuable. Taken all together, based on the sketchy estimates of the size of the reserves, bne IntelliNews estimates the value of all these minerals and metals is around $775bn, which is a lot, but far short of the $2-$7 trillion that Graham was selling.

However, the huge hole in Trump’s deal is that Ukraine has not developed these resources. It has the fourth largest copper deposits in Europe that on paper are worth $340bn, but it has zero copper mines or production. Likewise, its titanium reserves are worth around $420bn, but last year it exported titanium slurry (it doesn’t have the technology to produce the far more valuable titanium sponge used to make planes) that earned a pathetic $11.6mn.

Taken all together, we estimate that Ukraine earned less than $100mn from the export of all its strategically important minerals in 2024. Almost all of these minerals and metals are still in the ground and untouched. What Ukraine exports is also the basic ingredients like raw uranium, not the valuable refined “yellow cake” version Russia makes that can be burned in a nuclear power plant (NPP).

The upshot is that Trump’s $500bn mineral deal is a pipedream. The problem is not that the US demanding to take 50% of all the revenues. The problem is where are the billions of dollars needed to build, more or less from scratch, all the mines and processing plants to realise the value of these raw materials going to come from? And these plants are huge, very expensive and take years to construct.

It seems Trump has been sold a dud deal as instead of taking cash out of Ukraine – based on last year’s figures he’d be entitled to only $50mn – he would be putting it in and for years, before he saw a penny returned on his investment. Once he realises this, he will drop the mineral deal like a hot brick.

YouTube link here.

Transcript, Substack, 2/12/25

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Two years ago, when Michael and I first testified before your Weaponization of Government Subcommittee, Democratic members called us “so-called journalists,” suggested we were bought-off “scribes,” and questioned our ethics and loyalties. When we tried to answer, we were told to shut up, take off our tinfoil hats, and remember two things: one, there is no digital censorship, two, if there is digital censorship, it’s for our own good.

I was shocked. I thought the whole thing had to be a mistake. No way the party I gave votes to all my life was now pro-censorship. Then last year I listened to John Kerry, whom I voted for, talk to the World Economic Forum. Speaking about disinformation, he said “our First Amendment stands as a major block” to our ability to “hammer it out of existence.”

He complained that “it’s really hard to govern” because “people self-select where they go for their news,” which makes it “much harder to build consensus…”

I defended Kerry when people said he “looks French,” but Marie Antoinette would have been embarrassed by this speech. He was essentially complaining that the peasants are “self-selecting” their own media. What’s next, letting them make up their own minds?

“Building consensus” may be a politician’s job, but it’s not mine as a citizen or as a journalist. In fact, making it hard to govern is exactly the media’s job. The failure to understand this is why we have a censorship problem.

This is an Alamo moment for the First Amendment. Most of America’s closest allies have already adopted draconian speech laws. We’re surrounded. The EU’s new Digital Services Act is the most comprehensive censorship law ever instituted in a democratic society.

Ranking member Raskin, you don’t have to go as far as Russia or China to find people jailed for speech. Our allies in England now have an Online Safety Act that empowers the government to jail people for nebulous offenses like “false communication” or causing “psychological harm.” Germany, France, Australia, Canada, and other nations have implemented similar ideas.

These laws are totally incompatible with our system. Our own citizens have been arrested in some of these countries, but our government hasn’t stood up for them. Why? Because many of our bureaucrats believe in these laws.

Take USAID. Many Americans are in an uproar now because they learned about over $400 million going to an organization called Internews, whose chief Jeanne Bourgault boasted to Congress about training “hundreds of thousands of people” in journalism. Her views are almost identical to Kerry’s.

She gave a talk about “building trust and combatting misinformation” in India during the pandemic. She said that after months of a “really beautifully unified Covid-19 message,” vaccine enthusiasm rose to 87%, but when “mixed information on vaccine efficacy” got out, hesitancy ensued.

We’re paying this person to train journalists, and she doesn’t know the press doesn’t exist to promote “unity” or political goals like vaccine enthusiasm. That’s propaganda, not journalism.

Bourgault also once said that to fight “bad content,” we need to “work really hard on exclusion lists or inclusion lists” and “really try to focus our ad dollars” toward “the good news.”

Again, if you don’t know the fastest way to erode “trust” in media is by having government sponsor “exclusion lists,” you shouldn’t be getting a dollar in taxpayer money, let alone $476 million. And USAID is just a tiny piece of a censorship machine Michael and I saw across a long list of agencies. Collectively they’ve bought up every part of the news production line: sources, think-tanks, research, “fact-checking,” “anti-disinformation,” commercial media scoring, and when all else fails, censorship.

It’s a giant closed messaging loop, whose purpose is to transform the free press into a consensus machine. There’s no way to remove the rot surgically. The whole mechanism has to go.

Is there “right-wing misinformation”? Hell yes. It exists in every direction. But I grew up a Democrat and don’t remember being afraid of it. At the time, we didn’t need censorship because we figured we had the better argument.

Obviously, some of you lack that same confidence. You took billions from taxpayers and blew it on programs whose entire purpose was to tell them they’re wrong about things they can see with their own eyes.

You sold us out, and until these “rather tiresome” questions are answered, this problem is not fixed. Thank you.

Kremlin website, 2/24/25

Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, we have just watched your meeting on rare-earth metals. Forgive me, but I believe that right now, all journalists around the world are interested in rare-earth metals, although in a slightly different context. The United States, and I will put it mildly, is strongly urging Zelensky to sign an agreement with the US regarding these resources as payment for the aid Ukraine received from the former administration, the Biden administration. In your opinion, what are the prospects of such an agreement?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: That has nothing to do with us. I do not have an opinion, nor do I even want to think about it. Of course, these resources should be evaluated – whether they exist, what is their amount, how much are they worth, and so on. But, again, that is not our concern.

Our concern is what we have just discussed during the meeting. Rare and rare-earth metals are crucial resources for modern industries. So far, we have not done enough in this area, and we need to do more. The purpose of the meeting today was to direct administrative resources to developing this sector in the initial phase.

By the way, we would be open to cooperation with our American partners – and when I say “partners” I mean not only administrative and government agencies but also private companies – as long as they show interest in working together.

It is important to emphasise that Russia possesses significantly – I want to stress this – significantly larger resources of this kind than Ukraine. Russia is one of the uncontested leaders when it comes to rare and rare-earth metal reserves. We have deposits in the north, in Murmansk, and in the Caucasus, in Kabardino-Balkaria, as well as in the Far East, in the Irkutsk Region, in Yakutia and Tuva. Developing these resources requires substantial capital investment. We would be happy to cooperate with any foreign partners, including American companies.

The same is true for the new territories: we are open to foreign partnerships. Our historical territories that have become part of the Russian Federation again also hold certain reserves. We are ready to work there with international partners, including Americans.

Pavel Zarubin: In the new regions too?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Pavel Zarubin: We are seeing an avalanche of statements and debates these days, with everyone discussing Trump and why he is so adamant that Zelensky must hold elections and that his approval rating is just at four percent. There has been a lot of criticism among the Europeans regarding Trump’s statements. Some even believe that the current stance of the US President is actually playing into Russia’s hands. Do you believe this is actually the case?

Vladimir Putin: I think this is absolutely not the case. I have my own point of view on that and it runs counter to what you have just said.

In fact, the person who currently stands at the helm of the Kiev regime is becoming a toxic figure for the Ukrainian armed forces. He issues clumsy, poorly thought-out orders guided by a political agenda instead of military imperatives, and it is unclear where they are coming from. This results in huge losses for the Ukrainian army that cannot be justified, or should I say, to major or catastrophic losses. He is also becoming increasingly toxic for society in general. Today’s vote in the Rada on extending his powers proves this point, as far as I can judge.

Finally, he has boxed himself into a corner by signing an order banning peace treaty talks with the Russian Federation. He was the one who stopped these talks. What is this all about? What this means is that he evades talks. Why? Because once the talks begin, sooner or later, and probably quite quickly, they will bring about an end to martial law. Once this happens, he will have to hold an election. In that case, there will be no grounds for not holding an election anymore, since martial law currently serves as a pretext for not holding an election. But if you initiate the talks and they quickly bring about an end to martial law, this means that you need to hold an election right away. The current head of the regime has a problem with that.

Why? His approval rating, be it four percent or any other number, does not matter all that much. What matters is that his approval ratings – and according to the information at our disposal this is objective data – is exactly half that of his closest potential political rival. I am referring to Mr Zaluzhny, the former commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who was sent, or should I say exiled, to London. His approval rating is twice as high as that of the current regime leader.

Once we consider the possibility that other political leaders, including former prime ministers and presidents, may support Zaluzhny’s possible candidacy, it becomes clear that the current regime leader will stand absolutely no chance of winning an election. His chances are zero – unless, of course, he blatantly rigs the election in one way or another, which would also be detrimental for him since everyone would be able to see through these attempts.

This is why he has become a destabilising factor for the army, society and the state. I am certain that the current US President, Mr Trump, understands this, which explains why he has been pushing the head of the Kiev regime to hold elections. As I see it, Trump’s goal is to restore political stability in Ukraine, consolidate society and enable the Ukrainian state to survive. Overall, this benefits Ukraine more than Russia, since our conflict is with the current regime, not the country itself.

All other things aside, the current [US] President has openly stated that he wants to achieve peace. By the way, this is something we want too, and the quicker this happens, the better. But the current [Ukrainian] regime leader stands in the way of achieving this goal. That, in my view, is the reasoning behind Trump’s position. It is not about advancing Russia’s interests. But it probably serves the interests of Ukraine, Ukrainian statehood and could help preserve it. We have no objection to that, even if we do not want this territory to be used as a launchpad for aggression against the Russian Federation, or as a hostile outpost targeting us. At the end of the day, we want it to evolve into a friendly neighbourly state.

Pavel Zarubin: Every day we hear many different statements from Trump. You have met with him more than once and you had a telephone conversation with him just recently. Do you think he is driven by his emotions?

Vladimir Putin: Of course not. Naturally, the current leader of the Kiev regime gives him plenty of reasons to express emotions. But based on what I have just said, a different picture emerges: his actions are not driven by emotions but rather by cold calculation and a rational assessment of the situation.

It may sound strange but frankly, in this situation, we would be interested in him staying in power and continuing to weaken the regime with which we are involved in an armed conflict. However, if the goal is to strengthen Ukrainian statehood, then a different approach is needed – bringing to power those who have the trust of the Ukrainian people.

Pavel Zarubin: In your opinion, do European leaders realise the current dynamics around Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You would have to ask them. But judging by their actions, I do not believe they fully grasp the situation. More importantly, unlike the US President, European political leaders are deeply entangled with the Kiev regime. They have made too many statements and promises and now, frankly speaking, it is very difficult or almost impossible for them to backtrack without losing face. Given that they are also facing internal political challenges, including elections, re-elections, parliamentary struggles, and so on, changing their stance is practically unthinkable in these circumstances.

In contrast, the newly-elected President of the United States, has far more freedom of action. He is not bound by past commitments that would prevent him from moving forward and working towards a resolution of this conflict. His direct and unrestrained approach reflects his character. He is in a unique position: not only does he say what he thinks but he says whatever he wants. And that, after all, is a privilege of a leader of a major global power.

Pavel Zarubin: Several days ago in St Petersburg, I asked you a question about everyone’s desire these days to have some kind of say in Russia-US talks, with Europeans insisting and demanding to be able to weigh in on the Ukraine talks.

What do you think about it?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think there is anything wrong with that. But no one can make demands in this situation – certainly not of Russia. Let them submit their demands and requests to someone else. In fact, they have been making demands from their vassals for thousands of years, but now they are the ones facing demands. So let them stay home and keep their demands to themselves so that they can think it over and understand how they got where they are today.

However, it is important that they take part in the negotiating process, of course. As for us, we have never turned down anyone’s requests. In fact, we kept the conversation going with them at all times. But then came a point when they came up with this far-fetched and illusionary idea of defeating Russia on the battlefield. So they were the ones who rejected all contacts with us. Should they wish to come back, we would only welcome it.

I observed the response to my telephone conversation with the US President, and I saw the response to the high-level meeting in Riyadh. It was emotional and devoid of any common sense. Why? Because in order to resolve challenging and urgent matters, including on the Ukrainian track, Russia and the United States must make the first step.

What will it be about? This first step must consist of increasing the level of trust between our two nations. This is what we focused on in Riyadh, and this will be the focus for the possible upcoming high-level contacts. Otherwise, it would be impossible to address any issues, including the Ukraine crisis with all its challenges and urgency.

But what do Europeans have to do with this? This is a matter of bilateral Russia-US relations. What role do Europeans see for themselves here? What can they contribute? Yes, the Ukraine crisis was mentioned in both the telephone conversation and at the Riyadh meeting, but without discussing its substance. All we did was agree to move in this direction. In this sense, of course, we do not deny European countries the right to be part of this process.

Let me emphasise that we also respect the position of our BRICS friends, who have established the Friends of Peace group. I talked to the President of the People’s Republic of China today, and we discussed this too. He informed me that the Friends of Peace group will hold another meeting in New York soon to discuss this agenda.

Not only do we welcome these efforts, but we are also grateful to all our partners who have been raising these issues and want to bring about a peace deal. Why am I saying this? This is not just about the Europeans – other countries also have the right to and can participate in this process, and we respect that.

Pavel Zarubin: May I ask you to comment on a few more statements made by President Trump, which, as I mentioned earlier, are many.

Vladimir Putin: Not all of them, alright?

Pavel Zarubin: Not all. For example, he said he wanted to propose to you and the head of China to cut the defence budgets in half. What do you think about this idea?

Vladimir Putin: I am aware, or I think I know where it comes from. It is likely based on the calculations by a British think tank, which calculated our respective spending in terms of purchasing power parity. Last year, the United States had, I think, US$968 billion, and if you put Russia and China’s spending together, it will roughly add up to the same amount. Russia’s and China’s spending combined add up to what the United States is spending.

First, we need to run the numbers. The British calculations may be correct, or may be not too correct, or not correct at all. They need to be looked at closely. This is my first point.

Second, I am not in a position to comment on how the People’s Republic of China would feel about this. The US side tried different approaches regarding strategic offensive weapons and other critical matters. So, this is a matter for the People’s Republic of China to decide on. However, we could come to an agreement with the United States, we are not against it. I think this is a good idea: the United States would cut their spending by 50 percent, and we would cut ours by 50 percent. The People’s Republic of China could then join in if it wants to. We think this is a good proposal, and we are open to discussing it.

Pavel Zarubin: President Trump also imposed 25-percent tariffs on aluminium and steel imports from all countries without exception. Our aluminium business with the United States used to be quite extensive. What do you think of this trade policy?

Vladimir Putin: I am not going to comment on the US trade policy, since it has been driven by sanctions for many years now. We believe sanctions are illegal and harm global trade and economy. I believe sanctions are bad for us and those who impose them.

With regard to trade policy, higher rates, tariffs and so on, each country decides for itself what is good for it and what is not. I can understand the logic behind it. They want to bring the manufacturers into the country, to create new jobs, and to have them pay taxes to all levels of the taxation system, and so on. Without a doubt, at some point, these actions will run into certain difficulties caused by inflationary pressure, higher costs of goods, and so on. Experts are well aware of this, and they can provide every detail of how it works.

As regards aluminium, in 2017, I think, about 15 percent of US [aluminium] imports came from Russia. If memory serves, the United States produces about 60 percent of the aluminium it needs, and imports the remaining 40 percent, of which 15 percent used to come from the Russian Federation. The main importer today is Canada.

If a decision is made to open the US market to our producers, we could sell about two million tonnes on the US market, which would not drastically affect prices, but, I think, would still have a restraining influence on prices.

In addition, and what is most importantly, in my opinion, we could think about working together with US companies in this area. For example, back in Soviet times, there were plans to build a new hydroelectric power plant and to create additional aluminium production facilities in the Krasnoyarsk Territory. After all, aluminium is, first of all, about energy, preferably cheap energy. Hydropower is cheap and environmentally friendly.

To reiterate, such plans have been in place since the Soviet times. However, these are capital- and investment-intensive projects. In today’s money, according to preliminary estimates, they will cost around 15 billion. We can think about it.

Indeed, the US President’s policy is to deploy production facilities in the United States. But if the US companies come to work in Russia, it will also benefit them greatly, because the companies will turn decent profit, and the corresponding amounts of aluminium will be supplied to their domestic market at absolutely acceptable market prices. There are things to ponder in this area, as well as in our potential joint work on rare and rare-earth metals and other areas, including, for example, energy.

Pavel Zarubin: I just read the latest news coming from the United States: President Trump said the United States and Russia were discussing major economic projects as part of Ukraine talks.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, some of our respective companies are in contact and are discussing such projects.

Pavel Zarubin: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 2/7/25

Sanctions were supposed to hurt Russia’s economy and impoverish the people, right? Do you remember when early in the war there was the hope that the quality of life would sink so far that the population would rise up and oust Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Well, not only has that not happened, but for regular Russians life hasn’t been this good for years. The Central Bank of Russia (CBR)’s sky high interest rates are a major problem and hurting companies who are now laying off staff to cut costs – especially their IT departments. But for the man on the street they are a boon and people are cashing in on them.

In around 2019 Russia was booming again and the CBR cut the overnight rate to below 4% for the first time since 1991. Russia has always suffered from high inflation for most of the last three decades, but that fell to record lows too. Good news at a macroeconomic level. Bad news for the population as the interest rates on bank deposits tumbled to next to nothing.

One of regular Russian’s obsessions is how to protect your life savings against the ravages of inflation. And this is a very serious problem. In 1993 I fell into conversation with a babushka selling knitted socks on the street. It turned out that she had a PhD and had formerly been the chief engineer at a factory. But during the collapse of the Soviet Union her factory stopped working and her life savings – some $5000 worth of rubles, which was a lot in Soviet times – got hyperinflated away to less than $1 in a matter of months.

Russian banks have long relied on deposits as their main source of funding and offer decent rates. So when the prime rate fell to next to nothing in 2020 Russian punters started casting about for something else to invest into and for the third time started buying stocks.

It was a real boom market, as we reported at the time, and after two previous failed attempts to get regular Russians to buy stocks, it looked like this time it was really working and that Russia’s capital markers had finally come of age.

Of course, it all blew up again in 2022 after the invasion of Ukraine and the markets tanked yet again. Every time there has been a wave of retail investment into stocks the market has always blown up about a year later.

Now the setup has been turned on its head. The banks are paying at least 21% on term deposits. Inflation is high at around 10%, but that still leaves an 11% real interest rate spread on money in the bank – a very nice return indeed.

And it’s safe as houses. It’s tempting to assume that putting money in the crisis-prone Russia is very risky, but actually the opposite is true. Yes, the banking sector has blown up a few times, but the CBR’s deposit insurance scheme works extremely well and if your bank goes bust, punters will get their money back within a few weeks – provided you have less than about $30,000 in your account. (The EU equivalent is €100,000 – on a par with the Russian limits in price adjusted terms.)

And people have cash to save as currently after being stagnant for much of the last decade, Russian real disposable incomes were up to a record 9.6% in July. So for regular Russians, there are plenty of jobs, nominal wages are rising by about 12% a year, again ahead of inflation, banks are paying a healthy profit on deposits and on top of that Moscow just had a very warm winter so even the weather is nice.

That may change later this year when the economic problems are expected to get worse, but for now, for most people, life is good.