2 Mar 2022

New CDC guidelines and lifting of mask mandates further endanger the lives of Americans

Benjamin Mateus


There is one glaringly apparent contradiction to the new US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that weigh hospitalizations and bed occupancy more heavily than infections that no one in the mainstream media or political establishment bothers to raise. How can these new directives that lift measures to prevent infection during a pandemic that continues to rage and new COVID-19 variants on the horizon protect health systems?

The guidelines are not a masking policy; instead, they are a fabricated risk-reduction adjustment based not on scientific merit but on political expediency that justifies the elimination of any remaining mitigation measures. Overnight, most of the country has become a low- to moderate-risk zone with recommendations that facemasks, which also function as a reminder of the ongoing health crisis and danger that the virus poses, were no longer required.

Following the priorities of the Biden White House, the CDC wants to ensure all attention on infection statistics is wholly disregarded. With the pandemic once and for all forgotten, money-making can be continued without any impediments.

Patrons stand in line to order at Philippe the Original restaurant in Los Angeles, on February 25, 2022. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

In rapid succession, state after state is repealing indoor mask policies. The three Democratic Party-dominated states on the West Coast—California, Oregon, and Washington—have joined forces and lifted obligatory mask requirements in schools affecting 7.5 million school-age children and their teachers and parents. New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina are also among the latest in a series of states that are quickly exiting COVID-19 restrictions.

Not one of these governors has referenced the critical fact that in February 212 children died from COVID, representing 15 percent of all pediatric COVID deaths throughout the pandemic. In the last week of February, in five days, 84 more deaths were added to the statistics, underscoring the danger posed by the infection even for the youngest.

Democratic Governor Kate Brown of Oregon, in a far too glib statement about the lifting of the mandate, said, “Two years ago today, we identified Oregon’s first case of COVID-19. On the West Coast, our communities and economies are linked. Together, as we continue to recover from the Omicron surge, we will build resiliency and prepare for the next variant and the next pandemic.”

Next variant and next pandemic? The hypocrisy is intolerable.

Endlessly, the press and their pundits have continued to flagrantly abuse the terms “personal freedoms” and assert meaningless declarations like “to ensure our nation’s hospitals and health care systems” can treat everyone.

Even CDC Director Rochelle Walensky offered the following bald-faced lie when the guidelines were published: “This updated approach focuses on directing our prevention efforts towards protecting people at high risk of severe illness and preventing hospitals and healthcare systems from being overwhelmed.”

She also lamented earlier, “None of us know what the future may hold for us and this virus. We need to be prepared and ready for whatever comes next. We want to give people a break from things like mask-wearing when levels are low, and then have the ability to reach for them again, should things get worse in the future.”

When the Omicron surge washed over the country like a tsunami wave, the CDC director and Biden administration barely lifted a finger to save health care systems from a deluge of patients. On January 20, 2022, there were nearly 160,000 people admitted to hospitals, with almost 26,500 in ICUs. No objective measure was enacted to stem the tide of infections and spare hospitals. By comparison, on the worst day of last winter’s peak, January 14, 2021, there were 137,000 patients admitted, and just over 29,000 were in the ICUs.

The reported COVID-19 death toll due to the Omicron wave has reached 165,000. Between January 12, 2022, and February 20, 2022, the seven-day average for COVID deaths remained more than 2,000 fatalities every day. At the time, high-level discussions were not on the necessity of shutting down the country and giving nurses and doctors much-needed respite from the onslaught. Instead, they were focused on ending real-time requirements of reporting in-hospital COVID deaths and metrics to the Health and Human Services Department (HHS). The daily death tolls are a constant reminder of the government’s abject failure and must be pushed to the back pages.

Repeatedly, it has been stated by epidemiologists that hospitalizations are a lagging indicator of infections—meaning that by the time the health systems become overwhelmed, community transmission is already very high and out of control.

Implementing public health measures that place weight on the status of health care systems would be short of catastrophic if another wave of infections with a new variant of COVID-19 were to assail the country. What is the purpose of even calling the nation’s public health agency the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when its guidelines obfuscate its stated doctrine and principles to control and prevent disease?

The most obvious and only possible response is that the CDC is not concerned with the health and well-being of the population. It is functioning as a political entity within the state to enact and concretize the oft-stated policy of “living with the virus,” to protect a financial system that relies on the working class to produce the surplus-value.

What has been the cost of disregarding all scientific measures to eliminate the virus so far?

By all reliable trackers, reported COVID deaths in the US have surpassed 950,000. More than 80 million people have reportedly been infected. The CDC estimates that unconfirmed cases are twice as high, meaning that most likely two-thirds of the country’s population have been infected at some point. What is not clear is how many of these infections were breakthrough or repeat infections. Again, the CDC has failed to track or provide the data on these critical figures.

The seven-day average of infections has declined to 60,000 new cases each day but is beginning to plateau again. The average death toll remains high at above 1,800 per day. Meanwhile, the BA.2 subvariant continues to grow in the US exponentially, and it now represents 8.3 percent of all cases. Yet only 65 percent of the population remain fully vaccinated with two doses, and less than 29 percent have been boosted. The seven-day vaccination average has declined to 350,000 per day, meaning the vaccination campaign has stalled. This has significant implications given the latest immune-evading variants.

A report published in JAMA in January found that those who were 50 years of age and boosted had reduced their risk of death nearly 20-fold compared to those only being fully vaccinated but not boosted, based on data from Israel. In Peru, where the country’s population-based health metrics are tied to the person’s national registration number, the risk reduction was 10-fold.

But these were based on recent booster doses. It remains unknown whether additional jabs are required and at what intervals. Limited data did not show much benefit for second boosters unless the individual had significant co-morbidities or was immunocompromised. Additionally, Omicron-specific vaccines did not appear to work better against BA.1 or BA.1 subvariants than the current vaccines.

Despite the criminal neglect demonstrated by the ruling elites in their response to the pandemic for the last two years, the understanding of the science behind the pandemic has risen exponentially.

It is even more critical now to push for elimination. Professor Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute, recently stated that not only is elimination still viable, but it is also “easier to do now.”

Instead, the ruling elites and their media mouthpieces are pushing the false notion that the virus is endemic and therefore no longer a subject of concern and best be forgotten regardless of the continued dangers it poses.

US and NATO intensify “economic warfare” measures against Russia, weapons transfers to Ukraine

Andre Damon


The United States and its NATO allies intensified their economic warfare against Russia through sanctions and restrictions Monday, accompanied by an increased inflow of anti-tank and anti-aircraft arms into Ukraine.

The measures come as Russian forces continue to approach the Ukrainian capital of Kiev and amid widespread reports in the US and European press of intensified shelling of urban areas.

French economic minister Bruno Le Maire declared, “We’re waging an all-out economic and financial war on Russia,” pledging, “We will cause the collapse of the Russian economy.”

“The economic and financial balance of power is totally in favor of the European Union, which is in the process of discovering its economic power,” he added.

Members of Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Forces, volunteer military units of the Armed Forces, train in a city park in Kyiv, Ukraine, Jan. 22, 2022. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky, File)

Le Maire later told French news agency AFP he had misspoken, claiming it was inappropriate to use the term “war” to describe NATO’s actions.

Meanwhile, in a speech before the National Assembly, French Prime Minister Jean Castex declared his country would “take the lead of a multinational battalion which will be deployed this week in Romania.”

Ahead of Biden’s first State of the Union address Tuesday night, the United States announced that Russian aircraft would be banned from overflying the United States.

Earlier on Tuesday, Maersk, MSC, and CMA CGM, the three largest global container shipping companies, announced that they are suspending deliveries to Russia, with the exception of humanitarian supplies.

Britain and Canada also announced that that they are closing their ports to Russian ships. The UK added that the ban applies to any ship with Russian connections, while Canada said its action included fishing vessels operating in its territorial waters.

“We’ve just become the first nation to pass a law involving a total ban of all ships with any Russian connection whatsoever from entering British ports,” British Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said on Twitter.

Also Tuesday, Ford and ExxonMobil announced they would be ending business activities in Russia, while Apple announced that it would shut down all operations in the country, including the end of Apple Pay and suspending all sales of its electronics.

These actions were accompanied by the expansion of weapons shipments to Ukraine. On Monday, Finland announced it would send 2,500 assault rifles and ammunition to Ukraine, along with 1,500 anti-tank weapons. Sweden also announced the imminent arrival of 5,000 anti-tank-weapons.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly is heading to Poland today, according to Politico, “to coordinate the shipment of 100 Carl Gustaf anti-armor rocket launchers, along with 2,000 munitions and other aid.”

On Monday, “the European Union’s high representative, Josep Borrell, said numerous countries were prepared to provide Ukraine with fighter jets. And Ukraine’s parliament said Monday that Poland was among the countries ready to provide Soviet-era MiG-29 fighters,” Stars and Stripes reported.

Polish President Andrzej Duda claimed the aircraft would not arrive by air, saying, “We are not going to send any jets into Ukrainian airspace,” meaning the aircraft would be delivered by land.

On Friday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced the deployment, for the first time, of the alliance’s 40,000-troop–strong rapid response force, created in 2003.

“Yesterday, NATO Allies activated our defense plans,” Stoltenberg said, adding that the alliance’s forces would be positioned “on land, at sea, and in the air.”

“The United States, Canada and European Allies have deployed thousands more troops to the eastern part of the Alliance,” Stoltenberg continued. “We have over 100 jets at high alert operating in over 30 different locations. And over 120 ships from the High North to the Mediterranean. Including three strike carrier groups.”

On Tuesday, Finland’s parliament launched a debate about whether the country should officially join NATO.

As part of the effort to flood Ukraine with weapons, the Biden administration has approved the immediate transfer of $350 million of weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft systems.

“We believe it is getting into the right hands, that they are actively using these systems,” a senior defense official said Tuesday.

Among the 5,500 US troops that have been sent to Poland, a significant number are deployed at the Polish–Ukrainian border, working to funnel arms into Ukraine.

The Wall Street Journal reported that “In Poland, for days, convoys of military transport trucks, escorted by police vehicles, have been headed over land to the Polish border with Ukraine, passing young Ukrainian men hitchhiking to join the fight. These shipments haven’t been hidden; rather, the Polish government has openly boasted of sending lethal aid to Ukraine.”

The Journal continued, “More arms and ammunition are expected to flow through Poland’s overland routes, or those of neighboring countries, as Western governments shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to send Ukraine’s army fresh equipment.”

The Journal noted that “The U.S. government authorized the export to Ukraine of $287 million in defense articles from 2015 through 2019…including $129 million in ammunition and ordnance, $56 million in fire control, laser, imaging, and guidance equipment, and $54 million in firearms and related articles.”

Thousands die in Spain as PSOE-Podemos declares pandemic measures over

Alice Summers


Spain has recorded almost 12,000 deaths during the “sixth wave” of the coronavirus pandemic, since mid-October 2021. More than a sixth of these fatalities occurred just in the week beginning February 14, when 2,003 people lost their lives.

On Wednesday, February 16, Spain recorded a huge 444 deaths in a single day, the highest toll in almost a year. An average of nearly 300 people died across the country every day last week, as around 34,000 daily infections were recorded. Spain has suffered over 122,000 excess deaths since the pandemic began.

Almost 11 million people have been infected with the coronavirus in total—nearly a quarter of Spain’s population. Over 1 million are currently estimated to be suffering with long COVID in Spain, including symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and cognitive dysfunction.

People wearing face masks queue for a COVID-19 test at La Paz hospital in Madrid, Spain, Dec. 28, 2021. (AP Photo/Manu Fernandez, File)

The 14-day incidence rate across the country still remains exceptionally high, at 613 per 100,000 people, well above the 500 per 100,000 bar that the Spanish government considers to be an indicator of a situation of “very high” risk. This in itself is a significant downplaying of the dangers posed by the virus: in mid-November, the PSOE-Podemos coalition doubled this threshold from 250 to 500 per 100,000, supposedly in response to the decreased risks posed by COVID-19 now that a large proportion of the Spanish population is vaccinated. In some regions, the incidence rate is between 800 and 1,000.

Despite mass vaccination, the pandemic still claims thousands of lives a week and infects tens of thousands, giving the lie to the claim that widespread inoculation and the prevalence of the supposedly “milder” Omicron variant have made the virus harmless. Vaccination is a powerful tool in the fight against COVID-19, but it does not on its own suffice to prevent death and disease.

The enormous death toll and the incalculable impact on the lives and health of Spain’s population are a direct result of the criminal policy of “herd immunity” pursued by the Socialist Party (PSOE)-Podemos government. It has refused to follow a scientifically guided policy to defeat the pandemic in Spain, and is now proceeding to eliminate even the most basic mitigation measures that are still in place.

Following the example of European countries such as Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which have recently lifted all or almost all of their pandemic-related health restrictions, PSOE Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced last week that even the requirement to wear masks in indoor spaces would soon be waived.

In a press conference last Monday with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Sánchez said Spain would soon be in the same epidemiological situation as Denmark, which ditched all of its pandemic measures at the start of February—the first European country to do so. Referring to ending the use of masks indoors, Sánchez stated, “It would be a good measure that Spanish society will appreciate. We hope that it can be done sooner rather than later.”

Meanwhile, the regional government of Catalonia announced that quarantines in schools would be ended after a positive coronavirus case as of Wednesday last week. It was also reported that schools would no longer have to record COVID-19 cases that had broken out on their premises, and parents would no longer have to tell school officials if their child’s absence was due to the virus. Teachers will also no longer receive testing kits to ensure they are not infected with the disease.

The PSOE-Podemos government has for months been waging a concerted propaganda campaign to depict the coronavirus as “endemic” and for it to be treated like seasonal influenza. The term “endemic” implies a predictable and controllable level of disease in a given geographic region.

This definition has nothing in common with the current trajectory of the pandemic. The virus is far from under control, as a result of the refusal of the ruling class in Spain and internationally to implement the necessary measures to eliminate and ultimately eradicate the virus. Instead, a policy of “letting it rip” has been pursued in virtually every country bar China, leading to continued waves of entirely preventable death and disease.

As a demonstration of the continuing severe and widespread impact of the pandemic, in mid-February it was reported that around 2.4 million people have had to take time off work during the sixth wave as a result of infection with or exposure to COVID-19. This is around 56 percent of total workplace absences since March 2020, when the pandemic first hit Spain in force.

A record 678,000 absences were reported in December 2021. This all-time high was rapidly exceeded in January this year, when a staggering 1.7 million people were off sick. This represents roughly 12 percent of the Spanish workforce.

Despite the appalling toll the pandemic has had on lives and health, 2021 was a bonanza year for the banks and big businesses in Spain. Last year, Spain’s largest companies reported record profits of over €53 billion, even as tens of thousands lost their lives, millions were infected and hundreds of thousands struggled to make ends meet after losing jobs or seeing their hours cut.

Telephone operating companies made some of the biggest profits in 2021, at €8.137 billion—a 414 percent increase on 2020. Banking companies in Spain’s Ibex 35 stock market index reported a collective profit of nearly €20 billion, compared to losses of around €5 billion the previous year.

The energy sector was the other great beneficiary of the last year of the pandemic. Energy and petrochemical company Repsol recorded profits of around €2.5 billion, while gas supplier Naturgy made gains of €1.24 billion. At the same time, consumer utility prices reached record highs in December 2021, with electricity costing €360,02 per megawatt hour, forcing many workers to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table over the winter.

The record sums going into the coffers of Spain’s banks and businesses are a stark demonstration of the profits before lives strategy pursued by the PSOE-Podemos government. This anti-scientific and criminal policy has support across the entire political establishment, from the fascistic Vox party to the PSOE, Podemos and the various middle class groups which orbit them.

Macron intensifies mass infection policy ahead of French presidential elections

Samuel Tissot


Amidst relentless pro-war propaganda in the press, the COVID-19 pandemic is still raging in France a little over a month away from the 2022 presidential elections.

The total death toll is approaching 140,000. In the last seven days 1,427 people died from the virus. Over 2,500 remain on ventilators in French hospitals. Even though cases have continued to fall in France since the peak of over half a million cases on January 25 they remain high, the seven-day average is still above 54,000. This is equivalent to the peak of the devastating second wave in the winter of 2020 to 2021.

Nonetheless, the Macron government is removing all but the most limited health restrictions. On February 28, the requirement to wear masks in indoor venues requiring the vaccination pass was removed. This primarily applies to theatres, cinemas, and museums. Public transport and indoor shops are the only places where masks remain mandatory.

Emmanuel Macron [Sebastien Nogier, Pool via AP]

There was also a further reduction in mandatory isolation for contact cases. Now only one negative antigen test after two days of isolation is sufficient for release. It is still the case that vaccinated individuals who test positive can be released after only five days of isolation and a negative antigen test.

Antigen tests are unreliable and are only effective when patients are at their most symptomatic. As has been well known since the beginning of the pandemic, and has been shown in studies of the Omicron variant, individuals are infectious both pre- and post-symptomatically. The new policy therefore will mean the even earlier release of infectious individuals back to workplaces, schools, and throughout society.

The latest rollback follows weeks cutting down what remained of health measures to combat COVID-19. On 16 February, nightclubs and concert venues reopened without capacity restrictions. On 2 February, the requirement to encourage remote work was also cancelled. Mandatory masks in French high schools have also been progressively dropped in the past three weeks.

According to the National Institute for Demographic Studies, over 20,000 people have died from the Omicron-driven fifth wave of the virus in France. Fifty-five percent of victims had received at least two doses of the vaccine, bursting through the notion that a vaccine-only strategy is sufficient to protect human life.

However, the same figures also show the necessity of combining mass vaccination with social distancing measures. In January 2022, the unvaccinated French population had 142 deaths per 100,000 compared to 10 deaths per 100,000 for those who had received a booster. This makes clear that the effectiveness of vaccines is indisputable. However, had a scientific zero-COVID policy been implemented then none of these deaths, including the 120,000 before the fifth wave, would have taken place.

Children have experienced skyrocketing levels of infection during the Omicron wave. As a result of the conscious mass infection policy pursued in schools, 16 children aged between 0 and 9 years-old died from COVID-19 just in January and February 2022. Since the beginning of the pandemic, millions of unvaccinated children have been infected, 10 to 15 percent of whom will be victims of Long COVID.

Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, France’s presidential candidates were muted on the pandemic, or where it was discussed, this was only to criticize the remaining health restrictions.

Neither Macron, Blanquer, nor Véran, have made a statement on COVID-19 since a January 20 press conference. In early January, Macron sought to shift blame for the consequences of his own deadly pandemic policy onto the France’s small unvaccinated population, declaring, “the unvaccinated, I really want to cover them in sh*t.” Since then, Macron’s government has pursued a rapid rollback of the limited health restrictions that were in place.

In early January, right-wing Les Républicains candidate Valerie Pécresse stated that if she were president her only additional measure would be a lockdown of the unvaccinated. Pseudo-left La France Insoumise candidate Jean Luc Mélénchon has scarcely mentioned the pandemic, except to attack Macron’s limited measures from the right, notably by continuing his party’s support for far-right anti-vaccine protesters.

The far-right candidates have attacked what limited measures were in line with anti-vaccination activists and eugenicists. On January 19, Le Pen stated that vaccination of children is “a form of abuse.' Fascistic candidate Eric Zemmour has also denounced this measure, also insisting that COVID-19 must be lived with “as we have done for centuries with other respiratory diseases like influenza.”

Contrary to the anti-scientific claims coming from every section of the French ruling elite, it is not the case that society must “learn to live with the virus.” COVID-19 is not equivalent to influenza. It continues to have much higher mortality rate than the flu despite much more widespread vaccination coverage. It not only attacks the lungs, but also leads to inflammation of the heart, brain, and other vital organs.

Amongst its known long-term effects are diabetes, cognitive decline, and a dramatically increased mortality rate from twenty diseases, including heart failure, at least one year after infection. The effects of wave after wave of mass COVID-19 infection on France’s 300,000 immuno-suppressed individuals will be catastrophic.

With tens of thousands of daily infections in France and hundreds of thousands throughout Europe, the evolution of a dangerous new variant is only a matter of time. Vaccine effectiveness against infection and severe disease also declines over time. In these conditions, the roll back of the most basic measures to combat the virus, masking and proper isolation of infected cases leaves the population in France and internationally as sitting ducks for the next major variant.

Nonetheless, the French ruling class is united in its aim to continue its mass infection policy, regardless of the cost in lives. Thus, in the third year of the pandemic and at nearly 140,000 deaths France faces a remarkable situation where, except for Zemmour’s openly fascistic program, no leading presidential candidate has any detailed outline of their pandemic policy for a presidential election little over a month away. This mix of silence and far-right agitation on the pandemic reflects the capitalist class’ intention to continue to rule with a policy of mass infection.

The working class must also be aware that the current NATO-led war drive following the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be utilized by capitalist governments across the continent to divert attention away from pandemic and its impact on the population.

Class tensions in France and across Europe have been massively accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Much like its allies in Europe and across the Atlantic, large sections of the French ruling class sees an external war as a crucial tactic to suppress internal divisions.

1 Mar 2022

AMIDEAST Fulbright Foreign Student Program 2023/2024

Application Deadline: Deadlines vary per country.

Eligible Countries: Algeria (Apply for Fulbright visiting scholar), Egypt, Libya, Morocco (Apply for Fulbright Study Grant), Tunisia.

To be taken at (country): USA

About the AMIDEAST Fulbright: The Fulbright Program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, is the flagship international educational exchange program designed to foster mutual understanding among nations through educational and cultural exchange.

The Fulbright Foreign Student Program is administered by binational Fulbright Commissions and U.S. Embassies. All Foreign Student Program applications are processed by these offices. AMIDEAST is one of the cooperating agencies contracted by the U.S. Department of state to administer the Fulbright program. AMIDEAST administers the Fulbright Foreign Student Program for the Middle East and North Africa on behalf of ECA.

The scholarship is a merit-based grant that provides up to two-years of funding for graduate-level study at a U.S. university.  For over four decades AMIDEAST has been placing students from across the MENA region into universities throughout the United States. It has been integral to the success of the Fulbright Program, serving as a convener of academic and cultural exchange and dialogue. AMIDEAST continues today to support countless Fulbrighters to experience the opportunity of exchange and successfully complete their grants in the United States.

Type: Applications in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) are highly encouraged.

Eligibility: 

  • This is not a program exclusive for students. This program is for students who are about to graduate, recent graduates and professionals from diverse social, economic, academic and professional backgrounds.
  • A competitive applicant should have an excellent academic record, strong English language skills, and the commitment to return to their home country for at least two years upon completion or termination of the scholarship upon completion of the program. They will be ineligible for an U.S.-immigrant visa until the two-year home residency requirement has been fulfilled.
  • Preference will be given to applicants who have not previously studied in the United States.
  • Applications in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) are highly encouraged.

Number of Awardees: Limited.

Value of AMIDEAST Fulbright Scholarship: The scholarships cover expenses incurred for travel to and from the United States, tuition, books, health insurance, and room and board. Funding is NOT available to meet expenses related to Fulbright grantees dependents (husbands, wives, children, parents, etc).

Duration of Scholarship: 2 years

How to Apply for AMIDEAST Fulbright: Applicants can select their country of origin and apply online.

  • It is important to go through the Application requirements of your country before applying.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Some Economic Consequences of the War in Ukraine

Jack Rasmus



Major existing and planned natural gas pipelines supplying Russian gas to Europe. Photograph Source: Samuel Bailey (sam.bailus@gmail.com) – CC BY 3.0

It may be premature somewhat to consider economic consequences of the Ukraine war with the Russian invasion still less than a week old.  However, certain outlines of where things are going are nonetheless possible.  With that caveat, the following represent some early considerations of the likely—in some cases already occurring—economic consequences of the war for Russia, European Union, and the USA.

Economic Consequences for Russia

The immediate effect on the Russian economy in the initial days was a sharp fall in its stock and financial asset markets. Investors began cashing out and running for the sidelines to wait out subsequent developments.  But not too much should be made of that.  Financial asset price deflation is just paper value and doesn’t impact the Russian consumer or its general economy all that much.

A large collapse of financial markets is typically accompanied by a fall in the value of a country’s currency and Russia’s Ruble was no exception. It too fell.  A currency collapse means a country must pay more for imports of goods.  However, existing import contracts don’t change in price. Thus there’s a delay for new contracts to reflect a price hike only when the prior contracts have ended.  So there’s a delay in the inflation effect caused by a fall in the country’s currency. That may not stop retailers from raising prices, however, in the interim in anticipation of the rise in import costs due to Russia’s currency fall. In short, some inflation is an immediate effect with more coming later.

To offset the inflation effect, Russia could impose some price controls to limit the impact on consumers in essential consumer goods.  Similarly, the central bank can take steps to put a floor under the collapse of the currency.  A government can even step in and purchase certain strategic stocks to mitigate a stock market contraction if it wants. Japan has been buying stocks for years to prop up its financial markets.  It appears Russia’s central bank has taken steps to stabilize the Ruble. No actions as yet have occurred to control prices or prop up the stock markets, however.

More medium and longer term is what are the effects of increased sanctions by the USA and NATO EU countries on Russia’s economy?

Sanctions on Russian Goods Flows (Exports & Imports)

There are sanctions on goods and services flows, sanctions on individuals, and sanctions targeting banking and money capital investment flows, and on international payments.

Traditionally US sanctions have focused on cutting off goods (products) flows into and from Russia. That is, imports from the rest of the world economy into Russia (inflow) as well as exports from Russia (outflows) from Russia to the rest of the world economy.

A reduction of imports into Russia would result in a reduced supply of the particular product in Russia and therefore a rise in its price—i.e. more inflation. A reduction of exports from Russia can mean a fall in production in Russia and therefore layoffs in those industries affected. The negative impact on production and employment, however, occurs only with a significant time lag. The impact on imports depends on how much of an inventory the country, Russia, has accumulated prior to the sanction. So sanctions impact on goods flows typically take weeks and months, as does in turn any consequent effect on either inflation and unemployment. In the meantime there are numerous ‘work arounds’ Russia could implement in order to ensure the flow of key goods via alternative channels of trade. Russia could continue to purchase or sell through a third country, most notably China perhaps.

In the longer run a reduction of Russian exports due to sanctions over time results in Russia earning less in foreign currencies (especially dollars). Cutting off Russian oil and gas sales would deny Russia its major source of earning foreign currency which is needed for trade for other goods and services. Cutting Russia off from obtaining dollars from oil-gas sales would be especially significant, since 85% of all global oil transactions are done in the global trading and reserve currency—i.e. the US dollar!

That cut off would seriously disrupt global oil supplies as well as crude oil prices. Russia is the second largest producer of oil in the world, generating more than 10 million barrels per day. (The USA is the first due to its fracking technology, producing 11m per day normally).  Cutting off Russian oil sales reduces the global supply of crude by around 15%. A 15% reduction of supply results in massive roiling of oil markets and likely historic increases in the price of oil. Gasoline prices at the pump in the US could rise a $1 a gallon or more.

While the US is the largest producer of oil, it also purchases oil from other countries—notably Canada, Mexico, and even some from Russia. Why is that, if it’s the largest producer? Because US oil companies export a lot of refined US oil products to the rest of the world while it also imports crude.  It is unknown what the impact of a 15% reduction in global oil supplies would have on US oil prices or oil prices globally.  Major market restructuring and shifts would have to occur. It may not go smoothly.  Disruptions could be chaotic. That is why the US and EU have been reluctant to target Russian oil and gas deliveries to Europe.

This brings up two areas also potentially affected by sanctions on Russia: the effect of the suspension of the Russia-German Nordstream 2 gas pipeline and the possible consequences of the US/NATO/EU decision to deny Russia access to the SWIFT international payments system. Let’s examine the possible effects of both, on Russia as well as rest of the world.

Nordstream 2 Natural Gas Pipeline 

Much is made in the media about the Russia-Germany Nordstream 2 natural gas pipeline. To listen to US media, Biden has permanently shut off its gas flow.  But how can one shut down what has not even been opened up yet? There is no gas flow via Nord2 yet. Moreover, Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Sholtz, has merely indicated Nord2 won’t be opened soon. It has been suspended. Not shut down. Meanwhile, Germany depends on more than 50% of its natural gas from Russia. That is not going to change soon, since it gets that 50% from 7 pipelines that flow through Ukraine to southeast Europe and from there to Germany. Additional gas pipelines flow from Russia through Turkey into Europe.  There is no talk by the USA or Europe about shutting down those pipelines. So Russia will continue to earn significant foreign currency from gas sales to Europe. In fact, it may earn even more gas revenue since gas prices are spiking and the volume sold will be at a higher price.

Sanctions are thus irrelevant so far as Nord2 is concerned, since they don’t exist. There’s only the ‘shutdown’ of the gas pipeline, Nord2, that doesn’t yet even provide gas.

A lot is said about the USA and other countries (Qatar, Azerbaijan, etc.) providing Germany and Europe natural gas in lieu of Nord2. But that’s irrelevant in the short run. Germany lacks port facilities to accept US liquid natural gas (LNGs). And it will take five years to build those facilities. In addition, it will take Qatar and other sources two years just to expand its production facilities in order to generate the extra gas to sell to Germany.

It should be noted as well that all of the current inflow of Russian natural gas to Europe comes from the existing seven gas pipelines flowing through Ukraine into East Europe and from there to Germany and the west. Several more pipelines flow through Turkey to Europe. It’s unclear if US sanctions are intended to cut this gas flow as well.  Reportedly all of Europe gets 40% of its gas from these pipelines currently.  To cut that off means a likely collapse of EU industries.

The US has been trying for years to get Europe to buy US natural gas in lieu of Russian. US gas is multiple times more expensive due to transport costs and the need to convert it into liquid form (LNG) and then back again to gas form when offloaded again at European ports. When the US introduced widespread fracking under Obama it raised the production of US natural gas (and oil) significantly.  Exporting that oil and gas serves to prevent a supply glut in the USA that would reduce prices in the US. So getting Europe to buy US gas raises US energy corporations’ profits: it achieves more sales revenue from Europe and it gets to keep prices high in the US as well. It’s been difficult to convince the Germans up to now to buy much more expensive US gas. The war in Ukraine is the answer to this US dilemma. It may now get Europe to shift to US gas even though the cost is so much higher. (Some estimate five times as high).

SWIFT International Payments System

The international payments system refers to how countries and their businesses selling of goods and services are paid for. The payments for purchases and sales—i.e. the money flow—occurs through the network of connected global banks, of which the US banks are the biggest players since most of the payments are in the global trading currency, the US dollar.

SWIFT is the means by which the US banks and government can ‘look into’ global inter-bank transactions to identify which country or business might be violating US official sanctions. US big banks are at the center of SWIFT and can determine the violators on behalf of the US government.  But SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium and the US would have to get the EU on board to deny Russian banks access to SWIFT to sell its oil or any export. Initially the EU—and especially Germany and Italy, was not at all amenable to doing that. So SWIFT has been initially exempted from Biden’s US announcement of recent sanctions. On the other hand, political forces in the US and especially in Ukraine and East Europe NATO began immediately to push hard to implement SWIFT sanctions on Russia.  Biden and the US have been pushing hard to get the rest of the EU/NATO countries (especially Italy and Germany) on board.

The US has apparently succeeded in doing so. As this writer predicted at the outset of the Russian invasion, US/NATO would include denial of SWIFT to Russia as one of its sanctions. This is a qualitative new step—and a risky one— in the history of sanctions on Russia.  It can backfire causing serious economic impact on US, EU and global oil markets and thus consequent sharp rise in oil related inflation globally and via oil prices into the economies in general price inflation.  Already rising everywhere due to the structural impacts on supply chains by Covid and the recent recessions, inflation could accelerate even higher in Europe and US and ret of the global economy.  That price acceleration might bring the tentative, weak recovery of the US, EU and global economy to a halt.  Nonetheless, it appears that including denial of SWIFT to Russia with the goal of shutting down its oil and gas revenues is on the agenda and likely within days.  The political war hawks pushing more confrontation with Russia in Ukraine have thus won the day so far as SWIFT is concerned.  Russia’s responses to this move can be expected.

There are ways Russia could do an ‘end run’ around SWIFT. It could simply use the China Yuan currency in its transactions.  Or it could join with China and others to establish a parallel international payments system bypassing SWIFT.  That possibility was raised and piloted as far back as 2012 when the USA imposed sanctions on Iran’s sale of its oil.

There’s yet another ‘work around’ SWIFT possible:  Russia could join China using digital currency. China is already well on its way to a digital currency, having already introduced it in China.

Whether SWIFT sanctions are introduced soon (likely) or not, it is clear that US control of the SWIFT system—through the US dollar and dominance of US banks globally—is a key instrument of US financial imperialism. It is as important as US control of other global economic institutions, like the IMF, World Bank, and the US dollar as global trading and reserve currency.

Many US Corporations Exempted from Russian Sanctions

Thus far Biden has not imposed sanctions directly on Russian oil and gas because its impact on global oil supplies and prices would be significant. (Denial of SWIFT would of course mean indirectly a major sanction).  But at the behest of US and EU oil companies Biden specifically exempted oil and gas from sanctions.  Initially SWIFT was excluded as well. But that’s not the entire list of exemptions. Biden in day 2 of the invasion announced Aluminum exports from Russia are exempt, after he met with US auto, Boeing, and canning industry CEOs who it seems are dependent on Russian raw aluminum imports to the US.  At least 10% of raw aluminum comes to the US from Russia. Europe is even more dependent on Russian aluminum imports. So the corporate lobbyists have gotten themselves exempted from Russian sanctions as well.  It can be expected other critical metal based commodities imports from Russia will lobby and quietly get exemptions from sanctions as well.

Russian Banking Sanctions

Biden initially announced sanctions on Russian banks, but left big holes in those initial sanctions exempting Russia’s two biggest banks, Sber bank and VTB bank.  These two were central to the processing of SWIFT on the Russian side. Clearly, big US oil corporations did not want to roil the global markets.  Pressure on Biden, however, rose to expand the sanctions. VTB was added to the list. Sberbank apparently still is not although that may have, or soon will, changed.

Banking sanctions not only mean interrupting the flow of payments revenue from sale of exports from Russia, whether oil and other resource commodities and productions. Banking sanctions are designed to prevent Russian banks and investors’ access to financial markets in the west.

Russian corporate and government bonds are often initiated for sale in the west, mostly it appears in London financial markets. Banking sanctions are designed to cut this off. Banking sanctions mean Russian companies’ ability to sell debt (bonds, etc.) in western markets may also be cut off. So may raising of investment capital in the west for Russian start up companies.  Russian government debt (i.e. sovereign bonds) sales through foreign banks would be cut off as well, according to the new sanctions.  But Russia’s central bank could step in here and absorb (buy) both the corporate and government debt as a ‘buyer of last resort’ in the crisis—just as the US central bank, the Fed, and other central banks in the west due in emergency situations.

It’s reported that Russia in recent years accumulated up to $680 billion in an emergency cash hoard in anticipation of getting out from under US and western dependence on the US dollar and banking system. That cash hoard, in liquid currencies and gold, is available to offset western sanctions on its banking & financial system.  It could also be used to subsidize Russian investor-Oligarchs’ interim losses from the US sanctions levied on individual wealthy businessmen. It should also be noted in turn, however, that US sanctions tactic cut both ways: Russia can in turn freeze foreign investors’ assets in Russian banks. And there’s a lot of western investors’ deposits held in Russia’s big five banks that serve Russia’s giant oil and gas producing industries.

Summing up Russian Sanctions

To sum up the recently announced Biden sanctions: they won’t likely prove very effective—except perhaps if the access to the SWIFT payments system is quickly implemented.  Sanctions on Russian exports and imports do not have an immediate effect and there are third source ‘work arounds’ that western companies (and even governments) would be willing to ‘look the other way’ in order to ensure the supply of critical Russian commodities sales. The same applies to sanctions on the Russian banks and global money capital flows. There will be some disruptions longer term, but no major short term impact on Russia’s economy. Goods and money capital flows sanctions all have potential ‘work arounds’.

Financial experts and investors know this. That’s why, when US and EU financial markets initially fell by 800 points when Russia invaded the first day, the financial markets quickly bounced back quickly when Biden announced initial sanctions that same day.  Global investors know the Biden sanctions are full of perforations. And if slipping out one or more of the holes is not possible, Russia has a big back door through which it can exchange money and goods with the rest of the world. It’s called China.

Russia will therefore experience in the short run significant volatility in its financial markets and its currency. It will experience inflation—as will all economies worldwide as supply disruptions of commodities (oil, gas, metals, even grains and other food) results in higher prices worldwide. It may even experience some initial production slow down, and thus unemployment, as goods markets and therefore demand are disrupted globally.  But it won’t suffer a major economic crisis due to the war in Ukraine.  And should that worst scenario occur, it has its cash hoard of reportedly more than $680 billion.

The major wild card in the US sanctions is the SWIFT system. If it is denied to Russia, it will have to create work arounds that will be somewhat more difficult—either using the China Yuan and other currencies or even joining China in significantly expanding the use of digital currencies in foreign trade transactions.

European Economic Impact

Like Russia, the EU will experience significant financial market and currency volatility in the short run. Both declined sharply first day of the invasion and then recovered.

Europe is far more energy insufficient compared to the USA which is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. The EU will therefore experience more significant price inflation driven by the chronic and steady rise in the global price of oil and gas.  Global oil prices are projected to rise from around current $100/barrel levels for benchmark Brent (northsea) crude at the time of the invasion, rising to at least $120-25/barrel. As noted previously, natural gas prices will rise as well in the shorter run. And should in the longer run the EU have to purchase natural gas from the Mideast or USA in the form of LNG, prices will be much higher.

Europe’s economic recovery from Covid is also more tentative compared to the US economy’s. As its central bank plans to raise interest rates as inflation rises, it’s more likely those rate increases will dampen the recovery of the real economy more quickly than would a similar rate hike by the US central bank on the US economy.  Wage increases have also been slower to recover in the EU compared to the US recently.  Rising energy and commodity prices will discourage household consumption more and sooner in the case of the EU as well. Food prices may also rise as the EU obtains some agricultural goods from the Ukraine. In short, the inflation and greater EU real economy’s sensitivity to central bank interest rates will slow its economic recovery further.  Added to the slowdown may be the new Covid Omicron2 variant that appears even more infectious than the earlier Omicron and currently is spreading rapidly in parts of the EU and will exacerbate the trends toward economic slowdown and recovery due to the war effect via inflation and interest rate policy.

Europe will also feel the effects relatively more of Russian reciprocal response to Russian banks’ asset freezes, Russian debt access, and export-import sanctions on Russia.  Europe’s economy is integrated with Russia’s not just in energy, but in a long list of industrial and consumer products.

Yet another negative effect in the longer run is that the US will likely demand that the EU shoulder a still greater share of its total defense burden and expenditures.  Diversion of tax revenues from social spending programs to defense will result in a net real disposable income decline for many European households. Like inflation, that too will impact consumer spending and slow economic recovery and growth.EU government debt and corporate debt will likely rise in the longer run due to slower growth and inflation.

In short, the EU stands to experience significant negative real affects to its economy as a result of the Ukraine war.  In the shorter run more asset and currency volatility, but in the longer term higher chronic inflation, declines in real wage incomes, loss of markets in Russia, and consequent slower economic recovery and growth.  Central bank monetary policy response stability are also not promising. Will the European Central Bank raise interest rates to try to slow inflation? When it’s economy is simultaneously experiencing war related developments that are already slowing its recovery and economy?

The USA Economic Impact

Like the EU the USA was already experiencing significant consumer price inflation before the war’s occurrence. In fact, higher chronic inflation than Europe.  While the USA is more energy independent than the EU, it will nevertheless have to deal with still higher inflation due to the global energy shock in oil markets.  Oil companies raise prices not because of legitimate supply or demand causes, but because as monopolies in their respective home economies they simply can.  That has already been going on in the US economy before the Ukraine war. Recent US consumer inflation has been driven by oil prices. Nearly half of its latest 7.5% annual inflation rate has been oil price related.

US financial markets in the short run have also fallen sharply but recovered just as quickly—as in Europe and to a lesser extent in Russia.  The US currency, the dollar, has been less volatile than the Euro and even less so than the Ruble.  US financial markets may soon, however, experience a second major negative impact from its central bank, the Fed, rise in interest rates in March. That rate hike will likely be larger than any Europe may take.  So the higher inflation, combined with higher rate hike, plus the Ukraine war may constitute a combination of negative economic events that cause a second more volatile fluctuation in US financial asset markets.

The combined rate hikes, inflation, and war perception—should the latter continue and deteriorate—will also slow the US economy recovery, as it will Europe’s.

A relatively greater effect on the US economy, compared to the EU’s, will be a further surge in US defense/war spending in the wake of the Ukraine war.  With Pentagon spending this year already at $778 billion (and more than $1 trillion for all sources of US defense spending), tens of billions more in military spending can be expected as a result of the Ukraine war. That spending will surge in what remains of the current fiscal year, but continue thereafter as well in subsequent annual defense budgets for next and following years. That will exacerbate still further US deficits and national debt and, with higher interest rates, cause a higher cost of debt servicing that impacts later budget deficits as well.  Rising deficits and debt—in the wake of already record deficits and debt due to Covid related policies, 2020-21, may lead to political pressures to cut social spending programs once again—i.e. austerity fiscal policies.

Chronic rising inflation, social program spending cuts, and rising central bank interest rates will together slow an already tentative economic recovery. If all these are severe in scope and magnitude, it may very well result in a double dip recession sometime late 2022 or early 2023.

In short, the US economy will feel the contributing negative effects of the Ukraine war in terms of inflation, disposable household incomes, and unstable central bank monetary policies. In some ways the effects of the war will be less than the effects felt in Europe; in other ways perhaps more severe.

Long Run Consequences for Global Capitalism

The global capitalist economy today is highly integrated: In the flow of real goods and services; in money capital flows between financial markets; in currency relative exchange rates; and in banking systems and interest rates—to name but the most obvious. The Ukraine war’s economic consequences will impact all the three economies—Russia’s, Europe’s and America’s.  The impacts may be relatively different qualitatively and quantitatively. But actions taken against one have their inevitable economic reverberations on all.

Inflation due to escalating oil and commodity price inflation will negatively impact all.  Central bank policy responses will be weaker across the board.  Slower economic growth will result as goods and services flows are interrupted and global supply chain problems continue and perhaps even worsen. The war and US-EU economic and political policy responses will likely accelerate fundamental structural changes in relations between countries and global economic institutions.

It remains to be seen whether these economies, and the global capitalist economy itself, can absorb the stresses of the war and its fallout—so soon after the devastating impact of the Covid global crisis.  Meanwhile, the other two systemic challenges will likely not disappear either: the worsening global health crisis of constantly mutating viruses and the deteriorating climate.

While nations continue to fight each other in wars hot and cold the War of Nature against Man—in the form of chronic diseases and global warming—will also continue.  As nations fight the former, the latter will likely not be attended to. And if so, the scenario for mid-century will not be pleasant.