Coin Press - Russia’s dollar pivot

NYSE - LSE
RYCEF 0.99% 16.16 $
AZN -0.34% 169.51 $
RBGPF 0% 72.77 $
BTI -0.05% 59.8 $
RIO 0.22% 85.93 $
GSK -4.51% 48.74 $
CMSC 0.41% 19.53 $
NGG 0.56% 82.22 $
BCE -0.35% 20.02 $
RELX -0.67% 38.73 $
VOD -0.77% 15.63 $
BP 1.73% 49.79 $
CMSD 0.1% 19.71 $
BCC -1.96% 74.56 $
JRI 0.64% 10.95 $

Russia’s dollar pivot




For years, Moscow positioned itself as the standard‑bearer of de‑dollarization. After Western sanctions were imposed in 2022, the Kremlin accelerated efforts to settle trade in local currencies, expanded gold reserves and championed alternative payment systems within the bloc of major emerging economies known as BRICS. Senior officials boasted that the age of the greenback was ending, and state media presented the shift as a moral stand against Western financial hegemony.

That narrative now faces an extraordinary test. According to an internal government memorandum circulated among senior officials early this year and reported by multiple media outlets, Russia is exploring a broad economic rapprochement with the United States in return for sanctions relief and progress on a settlement in Ukraine. The document lists seven areas of potential cooperation, from fossil fuels and natural gas to offshore oil exploration and strategic minerals. The most striking element is Moscow’s readiness to re‑enter the dollar settlement system—a reversal of the policy that has underpinned its eastward economic pivot.

De‑dollarization and the BRICS currency dream
Russia’s push to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar has been most visible in its trade with China. By mid‑2023, President Vladimir Putin told a St Petersburg business forum that more than four‑fifths of bilateral trade was being settled in rubles and yuan, noting that reliance on the dollar exposed both sides to risks and costs. The trend accelerated: at the Boao Forum for Asia in March 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk said around 92 percent of trade settlement between Russia and China was being conducted in the two countries’ currencies. Bilateral trade volumes reached $240 billion in 2023, up sharply from the previous year, and the share of deals using local currencies climbed from a quarter in 2021 to two‑thirds in 2023.

These shifts were part of a broader agenda within BRICS. At the bloc’s summit in Kazan in October 2024, leaders discussed the idea of creating a new reserve currency backed by a basket of their national currencies. On stage, Mr Putin held up a prototype banknote meant to symbolise a BRICS currency. Yet he struck a conciliatory note, stressing that the goal was not to “refuse or fight the dollar” but to prevent its “weaponization” by developing mechanisms for local‑currency trade. Officials from other member states expressed similar caution. The bloc’s New Development Bank made clear there was “no suggestion right now” of launching a new currency.

Within BRICS, the shift away from the dollar has been uneven but significant. Roughly 60–67 percent of intra‑BRICS trade is now estimated to be settled in local currencies, according to government data. Russia’s bilateral trade with China and India is said to be 90–95 percent denominated in rubles, yuan and rupees. However, the dollar still accounts for about 88–89 percent of global foreign exchange transactions and remains the dominant currency for energy and commodity trading. Energy contracts are largely priced in dollars, and global capital markets continue to operate primarily in the U.S. currency.

A leaked memo and a potential U.S. deal
Against this backdrop, the leaked Kremlin memorandum marks a dramatic change of tone. The document proposes an “energy dominance” partnership in which the United States and Russia would transition from rivals to partners, focusing on joint investments in liquefied natural gas, offshore drilling and the development of critical minerals such as palladium and nickel. In exchange for a peace framework in Ukraine and the easing of sanctions, Moscow would re‑open its economy to American firms and return to dollar‑denominated trade. The memo describes this shift as an economic realignment rather than a symbolic gesture, arguing that reintegration into the dollar system would expand Russia’s access to global liquidity, lower transaction costs and stabilise its currency markets.

Such a pivot would reverse years of painstaking efforts to insulate Russia from U.S. financial pressure. Since 2022, nearly 90 percent of Russia’s trade with China and India has been settled in national currencies, and the share of local‑currency settlement across BRICS has climbed steadily. Russia’s removal from the SWIFT financial messaging system forced banks to adopt alternative channels. Returning to the dollar would restore access to deep capital markets but would also reintroduce exposure to potential U.S. sanctions and financial surveillance.

Why Moscow might turn back
Analysts point to several reasons why the Kremlin might consider embracing the dollar once more. First, the de‑dollarization drive has increased Russia’s dependence on China. Using the yuan binds Moscow to a partner whose economic clout far exceeds its own, giving Beijing significant leverage. The leaked memo implicitly acknowledges this imbalance by proposing diversification through renewed engagement with the United States. Second, the dollar’s dominance in global trade and finance remains overwhelming. According to central bank data, the greenback makes up the majority of foreign exchange reserves and still facilitates most energy transactions. Re‑entering dollar‑based systems would improve liquidity for Russian businesses and help stabilise the ruble, which has seen volatile swings against the U.S. currency.

A return to dollar settlements could also serve as a bargaining chip. Moscow may hope to leverage its willingness to rejoin the U.S. financial architecture to secure sanctions relief and concessions on Ukraine. In this interpretation, the memo is less a repudiation of BRICS than a pragmatic negotiation tactic. It signals openness to compromise without committing to immediate policy changes. The Kremlin has not publicly confirmed the document’s authenticity, and officials have said that any agreement would depend on complex diplomatic alignments and legislative approval in Washington.

Strains on BRICS and relations with Beijing
Even the suggestion of a dollar comeback has unsettled other BRICS members. China has invested heavily in internationalising the yuan, and India has expanded rupee settlements. A Russian about‑face would slow the momentum behind alternative payment systems and cast doubt on proposals like BRICS Pay. It could also introduce friction within the bloc: Brazil, South Africa and Saudi Arabia have backed gradual de‑dollarization as a means of strengthening economic sovereignty. For them, Russia’s shift might look like a betrayal of a shared agenda.

The move could have significant geopolitical consequences for Russia’s relationship with China. Beijing has been Moscow’s lifeline since the invasion of Ukraine, purchasing discounted oil and gas and providing access to technology. In return, Moscow has become more reliant on Chinese investment and currency channels. A pivot toward the dollar risks antagonising China and weakening a partnership that both sides describe as a “no‑limits” friendship. Some observers suggest that the Kremlin is betting it can balance ties with Washington and Beijing or at least extract concessions from both.

An uncertain path ahead
For now, Russia remains deeply integrated into the Chinese economic sphere. Trade in local currencies continues to expand, and the BRICS countries have not abandoned the idea of enhancing payment mechanisms independent of the U.S. dollar. The leaked memo is a reminder that geopolitical strategies are shaped as much by pragmatism as by ideology. Moscow’s de‑dollarization campaign has always been about hedging against Western pressure rather than declaring a clean break. If sanctions were lifted and economic incentives aligned, a return to the dollar would be less ideological surrender than tactical adjustment.

Still, the implications are profound. Should Russia re‑enter dollar‑based trade, it would signal that even a leading advocate of alternative currencies sees advantages in the existing system. It would test the cohesion of BRICS and force Beijing to reassess the balance of power within the partnership. Above all, it underscores the resilience of the greenback: despite repeated predictions of its decline, the U.S. dollar remains the anchor of global finance, and even those who challenge it may find themselves drawn back into its orbit.



Featured


Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Ukraine sends ground robots

Ukraine is putting ground robots to work on a scale that is beginning to change how its army supplies positions, evacuates casualties and conducts some of its most dangerous combat missions. The significance lies in the gradual transfer of battlefield exposure from people to machines. For a force under sustained pressure to preserve experienced soldiers, that change could matter well beyond the individual missions captured on video.The expansion is measurable. By early September 2026, Ukraine’s DELTA battlefield management system had recorded approximately 112,000 logistics and evacuation missions by ground robotic systems since the start of the year. The monthly total rose from 7,511 in January to 25,143 in August, an increase of roughly 3.3 times. These figures describe missions, not the number of robots deployed, and they should not be read as a tally of successful attacks or lives saved. They nevertheless show how far the technology has moved into routine military activity.Supply work explains much of its value. Ammunition, food and water still have to reach troops in positions exposed to surveillance and attack. Wounded soldiers still have to be brought out. A remotely operated vehicle can undertake part of that movement while its operator remains elsewhere. The load may be ordinary; the route is what makes the task dangerous. Repeated across many positions, reducing the number of journeys made by people can alter the daily burden on an infantry force.The strongest case for a robot is often the journey it allows a soldier to avoid. That changes the economics of military equipment. The purchase price matters, but so do the consequences of losing it. A destroyed machine consumes production capacity and money. A lost soldier also removes training, experience and relationships that cannot be replaced on a factory schedule. This is why an apparently modest cargo platform can have greater practical importance than a more spectacular experimental weapon.Combat applications are developing alongside that logistical role. Ukraine’s Third Army Corps includes NC13, a unit specialising in ground robotic operations. In September, corps commander Andrii Biletskyi described an ambition to replace around a third of the corps’ frontline personnel with robots by the end of the year. That remains an objective for a particular formation, rather than a demonstrated reduction across the Ukrainian army. It signals how seriously some commanders now regard the technology.There is a longer history behind the sudden attention. In December 2024, the Khartiia Brigade used a coordinated force of aerial drones and ground robots in an assault near Hlyboke in the Kharkiv region. More than 50 unmanned systems took part. The operation demonstrated that different remotely operated platforms could be combined for surveillance, fire support and attack. It also exposed the limits: ground conditions disabled some machines, and soldiers were still needed to secure and hold the territory afterwards.Those distinctions remain essential. An unmanned vehicle has no crew aboard; that does not make it an autonomous decision-maker. Remote operation, assistance with navigation and independent target selection are different capabilities. Much of the operational change visible in Ukraine concerns the first of these. Human operators, commanders and technicians remain central to making the equipment useful. Describing every remotely controlled vehicle as an artificial intelligence weapon obscures both its present strengths and its weaknesses.The physical environment imposes constraints that software cannot simply remove. A ground vehicle must negotiate soil, vegetation, rubble and obstacles that an aircraft may pass over. Its camera sees from a low position. Communications can be intermittent, and movement through complex terrain requires information that may be incomplete or already outdated. Research on small military robot teams has long identified the combination of restricted visibility, difficult navigation and unreliable communication as a central challenge. Ukraine is testing those problems under combat conditions.Scaling the fleet therefore requires a larger support system. More vehicles mean more operators to train, more repairs, more replacement components and a greater need to coordinate machines with the soldiers around them. The useful measure is how many tasks can be completed reliably over time. A large delivery of equipment can look impressive while leaving unanswered questions about serviceability, workload and availability after repeated deployments.Nor does removing a crew eliminate risk. Operators still work within a military system exposed to attack, and a machine that fails during an evacuation may leave a casualty in danger. Remote control changes where human vulnerability sits. It does not make the mission consequence-free. Reliability is particularly important when the payload is a wounded person rather than ammunition, and success in one role cannot automatically establish suitability for another.The likely effect on the fighting is therefore uneven. Robotic systems can ease dangerous supply tasks and support selected assaults while remaining poorly suited to others. Their value depends on the terrain, the communications environment and the organisation using them. A successful demonstration offers evidence of a capability; repeated use establishes whether a formation can depend on it.Ukraine’s developing robot force is best understood through that practical test. Can it keep a position supplied with fewer exposed soldiers? Can it bring someone back who would otherwise remain stranded? Can it reduce the personnel required for a dangerous task without creating a greater burden elsewhere? The answers will determine how much battlefield activity can move to machines. For the soldiers still holding the line, those gains are substantial enough without the promise of a war fought without people.