Apr 042023
 April 4, 2023  Posted by at 10:54 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Georgia O’Keeffe Red poppy No. VI 1928


Andrew Korybko:


The Old Cold War Paradigm Is Irrelevant In The New Cold War”, which Indian Professor of International Relations Rajesh Rajagopalan just discovered, but it’s important for everyone else to be aware of this as well. Unlike during the Old Cold War where the US and USSR competed to promote their capitalist and communist worldviews correspondingly, the New Cold War is being fought over whether the global systemic transition continues evolving towards multipolarity or retains most of unipolarity’s trappings.

Multipolar conservative-sovereigntists (MCS) respect every country’s sovereign right to develop according to whichever models they’d like while unipolar liberal-globalists (ULG) want to force everyone to apply Western models. For the most part, the Sino-Russo Entente and the Global South embrace MCS while the US-led West’s Golden Billion and its vassals promote ULG. There are a few notable exceptions, but this insight represents the simplified geopolitical-ideational fault lines of the New Cold War.

Intrepid readers can learn more about the dynamics of this competition in the following analyses:

* 15 May 2022: “What’s Dishonestly Smeared As ‘Russian Propaganda’ Is Just The Multipolar Worldview

* 5 August 2022: “The Russian Foreign Ministry Comprehensively Explained The Global Systemic Transition

* 29 October 2022: “The Importance Of Properly Framing The New Cold War

* 9 March 2023: “Towards Tri-Multipolarity: The Golden Billion, The Sino-Russo Entente, & The Global South

* 21 March 2023: “China’s Global Civilization Initiative Is Its Response To The West’s Liberal-Globalism

The abovementioned analyses add context to Russia’s new foreign policy concept that can be read here.

The present piece focuses on the 58th paragraph and its four subclauses concerning Russia’s relations with Latin America, which are of relevance to the Western Hemispheric dimension of its grand strategy as articulated in the preceding hyperlinked document from 31 March. For everyone’s convenience, this part of that detailed policy paper will now be shared in full below prior to analyzing its importance in the larger context:

“58. Given the progressive strengthening of the sovereignty and multifaceted potential of Latin American and Caribbean states, the Russian Federation intends to develop relations with them on a pragmatic, de ideologized and mutually beneficial basis, giving priority attention to:

1) supporting interested Latin American states under pressure from the United States and its allies in securing sovereignty and independence, including through the promotion and expansion of security, military and military-technical cooperation;

2) strengthening friendship, mutual understanding and deepening multifaceted mutually beneficial partnership with the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, developing relations with other Latin American states, taking into account the degree of independence and constructiveness of their policy towards the Russian Federation;

3) increasing mutual trade and investment with Latin American and Caribbean States, including through cooperation with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Common Market of the South. The Central American Integration System, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of the Americas, the Pacific Alliance, and the Caribbean Community;

4) expanding cultural, scientific, educational, sports, tourism and other humanitarian ties with the states of the region.”
Immediate attention should be drawn to the open sentence about the “pragmatic, de ideologized and mutually beneficial basis” of Russia’s envisaged relations with Latin America. This approach perfectly aligns with the precepts of MCS, particularly Moscow’s respect for its partners’ right to develop according to whichever models they’d like. In practice, this means that Russia’s comparatively more right-wing socio-cultural policies at home aren’t an impediment to expanding ties with left-wing states.

That explains why it’s extremely close with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, all three of which have either abstained from or voted against anti-Russian Resolutions at the UNGA since the start of Moscow’s special operation. It also signals Russia’s intent to continue exploring the expansion of mutually beneficial economically driven relations with Brazil in spite of their increasingly diverging worldviews under Lula’s third term as explained in detail citing official sources in these analyses here and here.

Unlike the US’ ULG, Russia’s MCS policymakers don’t care how their country’s partners organize their economic, political, and/or socio-cultural systems, hence why they’re extending an offer of support to strengthen their sovereignty via military-technical and other means despite their different models. All that’s important for the Kremlin is that its partners remain reliable and continue respecting Russia’s legitimate interests without criticizing them or meddling in its related affairs.

Should they continue to do so and this pragmatic worldview expands further throughout the region, then the geopolitical-ideational basis will be more solidly established for comprehensively advancing Russia’s relations with those regional integration platforms mentioned in the third clause above. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) is the most promising of them all, however, and Venezuelan President Maduro’s expectations of its future global role complement Russian interests.

The final clause regarding people-to-people ties is important for sustaining both sides’ mutually beneficial cooperation in the New Era, the present decade of which can also be described as the Age of Complexity. Ideologically driven disinformation agents are already at work trying to brainwash Latin Americans into thinking that Russia’s comparatively more right-wing socio-cultural policies at home preclude the possibility of any left-wing governments ever pragmatically cooperating with it.

According to this information warfare narrative, it would allegedly be a “betrayal” of their movements’ beliefs to work together with any country that holds polar opposite ones in some respects, the notion of which is weaponized by the US’ ruling liberalglobalists to divide-and-rule Russia and Latin America. The so-called “New Left” that’s rising in the region differs from the “Old Left” in the sense that the former are largely insincere in their working-class rhetoric and care more about fighting “culture wars”.

Their obsession with so-called “critical race theory” and aggressive propagation of non-traditional sexual relations onto all members of society (including children) take precedence over tangibly improving the living conditions of the population whose economic interests they purport to represent. These causes are the same as those that are being imposed by the US’ Democrats onto their own people and aggressively propagated across the world, hence these movements’ informal alliance with one another.

Upon falling under the influence of the US’ liberal-globalists, the Latin American “New Left” (which the Workers’ Party’s elite during Lula’s third term can also be characterized as per the prior analyses earlier shared in this piece) gradually began to align with their ally’s foreign policy. This explains why the Brazilian leader became the first BRICS one to personally condemn Russia in his joint statement with Biden from February and decided to continue Bolsonaro’s policy of voting against it at the UNGA.

At the same time, however, the “Old Left” that’s represented by Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and also Bolivia (which for whatever reason wasn’t mentioned by name in Russia’s new foreign policy concept despite being a reliable partner) continues setting a positive geopolitical-ideational example. They’re more focused on tangibly improving their people’s living conditions than on fighting “culture wars”, hence why they remain resistant to the US Democrats’ influence, unlike the Workers’ Party’s elite.

Accordingly, they haven’t voted against Russia at the UNGA either, once again unlike Lula’s Brazil. The emerging challenge across Latin America will therefore be for the “Old Left” to positively influence the “New Left” at least in the geopolitical sense of appreciating the mutually beneficial importance of pragmatically expanding ties with Russia despite pressure from their newfound US ideological ally to distance themselves from it and vote against Moscow at the UNGA.

It’s with this imperative in mind that Russia’s official de-ideologization of its relations with Latin America deserves maximum attention. Those “New Left” movements that continue falling under the US Democrats’ pernicious geopolitical influence due to their overlapping ideational interests will ultimately end up doing some of that declining unipolar hegemon’s bidding in the New Cold War. The failure to stop and reverse this Hybrid War trend could ultimately doom all of Latin America to US vassalhood.




We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.


Support the Automatic Earth in virustime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.



Home Forums De-Ideologization Of Russia’s Relations With Latin America

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #132734

    Georgia O’Keeffe Red poppy No. VI 1928   Andrew Korybko:   “The Old Cold War Paradigm Is Irrelevant In The New Cold War”, which Indian Profe
    [See the full post at: De-Ideologization Of Russia’s Relations With Latin America]


    Just listened to a podcast by my favorite geopolitical analysis team at The Duran; an interview with Jeffrey Sachs where he discusses many of the same underlying issues of the emergent multipolar world. An excellent complement to this discussion:
    I am hopeful!

    John Day

    The “new left” globalists are Trotskyist in their fervor to spread global revolution, rather than to consolidate political benefits at home.
    Trotsky was a complex dude. I used to favor him over brutal old Joe Stalin, who had him asassinated, but now I cannot be that judge.
    History keeps needeing re-interpretive overlays as time-marches-on…


    Having its national currency as the international reserve currency is the centrepiece of the wealth pump that enables empires to bribe the elites of its vassal states and other resource providers and to maintain gigantic armies and carry on endless wars. Any talk of multi-polarity will remain just talk as long as there is not a global financial system that distributes financial clout in some more equitable manner. Glazyev understands the need but so far he has not been able to put forth an acceptable solution. See https://mronline.org/2023/03/15/sergey-glazyev-the-road-to-financial-multipolarity-will-be-long-and-rocky/ .

    As stated in my comment at the end of Andrew’s previous post, a possible solution is to create a standard unit of value physically defined as one gram of gold of specified purity. This unit would be used in the negotiation and pricing of contracts for international sales. Settlement of amounts coming due under contracts would be made in local currencies. Conversion from the valuation unit to the settlement currency would be made at rates determined by a referent exchange market where currencies of the participating nations and gold and other commodities are traded. The stability of the unit of value would be enhanced if all major gold producers pledged to carry out all international sales of gold through the referent market. To assure an adequate exchange market for the currency of smaller nations, nations could agree that all contracts for the sale of commodities be settled in the currency of the vendor nation.

    An international trading regime such as that outlined above could be introduced by the founding nations in stages to ease what would be a major disruptive effect to foreign trade. The problem is to get sufficient major trading nations actually committed to getting the ball rolling.

    The two major nations pushing the notions of multi-polarity and dedollarization are China and Russia. The US is using its reserve currency status and resulting financial power to impede the economic development of these two nations so they are strongly incentivized to achieve dedollarization. But it is likely that dedollarization can be accomplished without putting into effect a financial system for international trade that is consistent with the principles of multi-polarity. If the US dollar system falls and there is no overall new system ready to replace it, the natural market place drive for efficiency will result in the international reserve currency gravitating to the currency of the new market leader. The yuan will replace the dollar and China will replace the US as financial hegemon. Similarly, if China becomes the financial hegemon, Russia, as a peerless provider of energy and other resources to China and to the rest of the world, is strongly positioned to share the benefits of China’s newly-gained financial power. This is not to say that China or Russia is acting in bad faith; it is just the natural outcome.

    The nations that suffer most from a hegemonic financial system are those that are the providers of resources to the hegemon and are not economically strong enough to get special treatment. The best chance to put in place an international trade financial system that is consistent with the vision of a multi-polar world order is for the disadvantaged resource rich nations to take the initiative, hopefully led by Brazil and South Africa. But here again there is a problem. What is true for a nation is not necessarily true for all elements of society of a nation. It is the working poor who always bear the cost of financing the luxuries of the rich and powerful. Those who profited from collaborating with the old hegemon are powerfully incentivized to support the systems that keep them rich and powerful regardless of any change in hegemon.

    John Day

    @hostebbe: Input appreciated. Glazyev is the new Keynes. Brilliantly insightful and independent of the will of the powerful, hence frustrated.
    It is possible electronically to create what you discussed with a floating reference, which can remain nameless, which might be better politically. this is a very sensitive topic.
    At the moment, China has forged ahead with Yuan/Renminbi trade substituting in for the $US.
    This may be the camel’s nose under the tent…
    We shall see (if we live long enough).
    I sincerely hope that Glazyev’s proposals are accepted, since they will create a system which does not foster financial imperialism. That will have important efficiencies and flexibility.


    You absolutely need a named unit of either international currency as proposed by Glasyev or a unit of value, independent of any currency, as I am proposing. A unit of some sort is needed to anchor the system and to avoid undue complexity in pricing the cost of proposed production where inputs from different sources are priced in a multiple different units. A common unit of value is also needed as a unit of account for reporting on international trade and various other activities where analysts make financial comparisons between nations. Now such international reports are usually stated in US dollars. Reports providing comparisons over long periods are already often given in gold as there is no other unit of value that has a history extending thousands of years.

    Note that the science(?) of economy and the art of accounting also suffer greatly from the lack of a generally accepted standard unit of value and account that can be applied to all areas of economic activity involving exchange transaction.

    I prefer my suggestion to Glazyev because a physical gold unit of value would likely be far more stable than a currency unit based on a mix of other currencies or mix of commodities. How do you do rational forward planning in a unit whose forward value depends on monetary policy decisions of a number of competing governments or on the myriad occurrences that can affect the pricing of a range of commodities? As to stability of national currencies, when I was a kid a quart of homo milk could be had for a dime, now a half quart is over a dollar. Over those 80-some years productivity of farms and dairies has greatly increased. As a value unit, that lying Canadian dollar is telling me that me that the economic worth of a quart of milk has gone up by a factor of 20. It just ain’t so.


    The Conflict in Ukraine is definitely being fought to prevent the reemergence a multi-polar world. However, the USSR/USA 1st Cold War will never repeat. Instead, the signing an UN Armistice and manning a DMZ between Ukraine and Russia would legalize a new multi-polar world of global businesses empires. The year long Ukraine trench war signifies a WWI level of incompetence and shows that the current rulers could care less about the hundreds of thousand war casualties (let alone, the seven million coronavirus victims).

    Indeed, this war is not about changing the current neoliberal global capitalistic system. BRICS simply want to stop Wall Street and City of London’s extortive cut of their businesses’ profits. Even the Communist Party ended China’s coronavirus public health campaign when it became clear that it put their economy at jeopardy.

    The WWI aristocracy’s flat-earth descendants who took down Jimmy Carter’s White House solar panels continue to rule the world and are getting hugely rich at the expense of everyone else. But there are those who see the Earth as a planet in an expanding universe with finite resources. If true, there will never be portable safe thorium reactors. The West will not have the resources, the energy, to fight a second Cold War. Either reality is acknowledged and humans learn to cooperate and live within their means, or a global apocalypse will occur.

    1789 and 1917 People Revolts happened when working former middle-class had nothing left to lose — the autocracy has plundered everything of value.


    All money is Fiat money.

    It is never backed up by ‘secure’ .. ’solid’ goods, commodities, anything physical.

    E.g. one can have paper that certifies one is the owner of ‘x amount’ of gold. And then what? Besides that physical gold is not delivered for x, y reasons to some private person, company, group (that is a whole other story), what is the holder of gold to do with it, provided he has it?

    Sell it for ‘money’? What ‘money’?

    Hmmm… Exchange it for goods, services, paid with ‘money’ in the sense of dollaris? Or if paid with ‘gold’, how? (In the world today ..)

    If there is no standard accepted and **enforced** value for ‘gold’ coins / holdings of gold for exchange / store of value purposes (i.e. fiat standards) there is no point to it at all.

    It can only work because everyone believes gold is ‘precious’, or is a ‘for now’ agreed-upon benchmark thingie. That can collapse in 1 day..

    Anecdote. I have a very nice diamond and gold ring. It came down to me from my granny, who tried desperately to sell it to Germans so she could eat. Gold was worth nothing at the time. The Germans didn’t pay for it any longer, not interesting, they already confiscated most of it and a ring? ..Nein. They wanted super Art Works…

    OK, I have a non-conventional pov on finance, money, etc.



    I totally agree that all money is fiat money. All past attempts to base currencies on a defined quantity of gold or any other commodity have failed. The only place where exchange values can be realistically set is the place where exchanges occur, i.e., the market place. The broader the market place, the more efficient it will be in determining exchange values.

    My proposal is to set up the broadest possible market where currencies, gold and other commodities are exchanged. In any market other than a strictly barter market, there must be (1) a unit of value for negotiating contracts and setting prices, (2)a unit of settlement for payments to vendors and (3)a unit of account for the transactions that have taken place. Currently, for international transactions, the US dollar is the unit of value, the unit of settlement and the unit of account. There is no special economic reason for the US dollar to perform these three functions. Mostly it is the historical result of the size of the US army and navy just as in the past the currencies of Britain, Spain and so on have performed those functions. The literature of economics and geopolitics has much to say about the problems that result from using national currencies to fulfill the three exchange functions; a particular concern being the excessive enrichment of the nation that issues the international reserve currency and the underdevelopment of the countries that supply that nation with commodities. In my proposal, the unit of value and account is distinct from the settlement unit. To result in fairness, the unit of settlement must be the currency of the nation of origin of the commodity. This leaves the problem of deciding what is to be the unit of value and account. Since the market I propose only deals in currencies and commodities and currencies have been eliminated from consideration, that leaves only a commodity or a blend of commodities. In my view a blend of commodities would be an artificial construct that would be difficult to use for negotiating and setting prices because of the difficulty in predicting the economic value of the resultant unit of value over time relative to the economic value of the commodity (or any other thing) you are selling. (Note that the unit of value being created is expected to have broad use in all international trading.) Eliminating currencies and a basket of commodities, that leaves only a single commodity as the basis for a unit of value and the best commodity for this purpose that I am aware of is gold.

    Your comment implies that I am suggesting gold be accumulated by individuals to be used as a monetary unit. Not so. Gold is only a unit of value in the system I am proposing. All transactions are settled in fiat currencies. Gold is now held by individuals and nations because historically it has proved to be good store of value (when the cost of storage has not been taken into account). It is also held as a gamble that an international reserve currency tied to gold may be created which could raise the value of gold relative to the value of other currencies and commodities. My proposal actually eliminates the need for an international reserve currency. The system proposed does not require nations or individuals to accumulate gold. The normal demand for gold for jewelry and industrial and other purposes ensures a healthy market for gold provided governments do not impose restrictions on ownership or trading (as they have been prone to do in the past when currencies were tied to gold).

    Your grandmother’s experience with the gold and diamond ring did not result from a lack a value but rather from a lack of access to a market. I expect that in today’s market you could buy quite a few loaves of bread from the sale of the ring (not that you would relinquish ownership of such a precious heirloom except under the most dire circumstances). Both gold and diamonds have great intrinsic value stemming from unique qualities that make them especially valuable for both jewelry and many industrial uses.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.