The Russian ruble is experiencing a steep decline, nearing the critical threshold of 100 per U.S. dollar—a level that once would have triggered alarm. Surprisingly, the Kremlin appears unbothered by this rapid depreciation, taking no immediate steps to stabilize the currency. According to insiders, the government sees this depreciation as beneficial, aligning with its plans for increased state spending in 2024. With reduced urgency to rescue the ruble, officials are reportedly comfortable with it sliding past 100 per dollar.

Compounding the ruble’s troubles is the evolving foreign exchange policy. The Moscow Exchange no longer trades in U.S. dollars or euros, reshaping how the ruble’s value is calculated. Western sanctions have already led to a severe shortage of foreign currency, a situation exacerbated by the U.S. deadline for businesses to exit the Moscow market by October 12. As a result, the ruble has dropped by nearly 9% since the sanctions took effect. Oleg Vyugin, a former Bank of Russia official, dismissed concerns about inflation, though rising prices remain a side effect of the weakening currency.

China’s yuan, which has become Russia’s preferred trade currency following Western sanctions, is also gaining strength against the ruble. The Russian currency has fallen by 11% against the yuan, hitting its lowest level since May at 13.26 per yuan. To counterbalance the decline, Russia recently revised capital controls, requiring exporters to convert only 25% of their foreign currency earnings into rubles, down from previous levels. This has led major exporters to reduce their currency sales by 30% in September, as they rely more on rubles for international trade.

Despite efforts to manage inflation through interest rate hikes, borrowing costs have soared, surpassing 20% for both domestic and foreign loans. This financial strain has complicated payment systems for exporters, with transactions often delayed by sanctions. In a recent meeting with the Security Council, President Vladimir Putin acknowledged the growing difficulties in cross-border payments. To reduce dependence on the dollar, Russia is working on a new payment system, possibly blockchain-based, which will be discussed further at the upcoming BRICS summit in Kazan. As Russia shifts away from Western financial systems, it aims to reshape international trade and reduce reliance on what it now views as "toxic" currencies like the dollar and euro. $BTC
#usdoller #USsenate #RussiaUkraineWar #Write2Earn!

#Russia #RussiaCrypto #RussiaUkraineWar #usdoller
#BinanceSquareFamily

In a an interview, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov cautioned the US against overstepping Russia’s ‘red lines’ regarding the Ukraine conflict. Lavrov highlighted Washington’s diminishing sense of mutual restraint with Moscow, as reported by state-owned TASS news agency. He specifically addressed the US’s actions in supplying arms to Ukraine, stating that Americans have already breached their own ‘red lines’. “They (the US) should understand that our red lines are nothing to fool with. And they know very well where they are,” the report quoted him as saying.

Lavrov said the US is starting to lose its sense of mutual restraint with Russia, calling it “dangerous”. “(US National Security Council spokesman John) Kirby said that the issue of stepping up support for Ukraine should be approached carefully so as not to provoke World War III because it will be sad to see Europe gone,” he said, adding that the US has a “deep-seated conviction that they are untouchable”.

Lavrov said he hoped Washington would realise the potential consequences of supplying Ukraine with weapons. “I am convinced that there are reasonable people with significant influence left there. And I hope that the interests of the US will be taken into account,” he said.

Meanwhile, at a press conference on Wednesday, Kirby said the US welcomes any nation that is willing to try to help end the conflict in Ukraine.

Any nation that is willing to try to help end this war and do so in keeping with President Zelenskyy’s prerogatives, the Ukrainian people’s prerogatives, his plan for a just peace, we would certainly welcome a role like that,” he said.
On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin named India among the three countries he is constantly in touch with over the Ukraine conflict, asserting that they are sincerely making efforts to resolve it.
“We respect our friends and partners, who, I believe, sincerely seek to resolve all issues surrounding this conflict, primarily China, Brazil and India. I constantly keep in touch with our colleagues on this issue,” Putin was quoted as saying in a separate report by TASS.
Putin’s remarks came within two weeks after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s historic visit to Ukraine, where he held talks with President Zelenskyy.
On August 23, Modi visited Ukraine, where he conveyed to President Zelensky that Ukraine and Russia should sit together without wasting time to end the ongoing war and that India was ready to play an “active role” to restore peace in the region.

#Biden #TrumpCryptoSupport #TrumpSupportsCrypto #RussiaUkraineWar
#BinanceSquareFamily

Preface

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has reshaped international relations, demanding strategic decisions from world leaders. In the U.S., both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump had their distinct approaches to handling this crisis. While the two men come from different political ideologies, their policies and responses to the war reveal contrasting strategies. In this blog, we explore the differences between Biden’s and Trump’s approaches to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and how each leader’s stance has impacted U.S. foreign policy.

Introduction

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is one of the most significant geopolitical crises of the 21st century, with implications that stretch far beyond Eastern Europe. Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. government has adopted a firm stance in favor of supporting Ukraine, emphasizing sanctions against Russia and rallying NATO allies. On the other hand, former President Donald Trump’s approach to Russia-Ukraine relations was notably different, focusing on diplomatic engagement and expressing less enthusiasm for direct confrontation with Russia.
This comparative analysis will delve into the policies and actions of both leaders, examining how their foreign policy frameworks have shaped the U.S. response to the Russia-Ukraine war.

Index
1. Biden’s Approach to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
2. Trump’s Approach to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
3. Differences in Diplomatic Relations
4. Military Support and Assistance to Ukraine
5. Economic Sanctions on Russia
6. Handling of NATO and Alliances
7. Public and Political Responses
8. Conclusion: Which Approach is More Effective?

Biden’s Approach to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

1. Strong Support for Ukraine
Since the start of his presidency, Joe Biden has consistently voiced strong support for Ukraine. As Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Biden swiftly condemned Russia’s actions, calling them a violation of international law and democracy. His administration quickly rallied European allies to respond with unprecedented economic sanctions and military assistance for Ukraine.
2. Focus on Diplomatic Pressure and Sanctions
One of Biden’s primary tools in responding to the conflict has been imposing economic sanctions on Russia. The Biden administration has worked closely with NATO and European Union nations to target Russian oligarchs, freeze assets, and cut off Russia from global financial systems. These sanctions aim to isolate Russia economically, making it difficult for President Vladimir Putin to sustain his war efforts.
3. Military and Humanitarian Aid
Biden’s administration has provided billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, including advanced weaponry, drones, and intelligence support. The goal is to strengthen Ukraine's defense while avoiding direct U.S. military involvement, keeping the U.S. engagement to a supportive role rather than leading the conflict.
4. Rallying NATO Allies
Biden has prioritized strengthening the U.S. relationship with NATO, viewing the alliance as a critical player in containing Russia’s aggression. Under his leadership, NATO has taken a more unified stance against Russia, expanding its presence in Eastern Europe and offering both logistical and military support to Ukraine.

Trump’s Approach to the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

1. Preference for Diplomacy and Engagement with Russia
Donald Trump’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict was less confrontational than Biden’s. Trump favored diplomatic engagement with Russia, often emphasizing the importance of maintaining open lines of communication with President Putin. During his presidency, Trump was criticized for not holding Russia accountable for its 2014 annexation of Crimea and other aggressive actions in Eastern Europe.
2. Reluctance to Sanction Russia
Trump’s administration was less aggressive in imposing sanctions on Russia compared to Biden’s. Although some sanctions were implemented during his term, Trump personally showed reluctance to confront Putin directly, arguing that diplomacy and negotiation were more effective tools in dealing with Russia. Critics accused Trump of being soft on Russia, especially given his public admiration for Putin’s leadership style.
3. Limited Military Assistance to Ukraine
While military aid to Ukraine did continue during Trump’s administration, it was more limited compared to Biden’s efforts. In 2019, Trump was involved in a controversial incident where he allegedly withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors, leading to his first impeachment. This episode highlighted Trump’s inconsistent approach to providing direct support for Ukraine’s defense.
4. Skepticism Toward NATO
Trump was famously skeptical of NATO and even threatened to pull the U.S. out of the alliance during his presidency. He criticized NATO allies for not contributing enough to collective defense spending and repeatedly questioned the U.S. commitment to defending smaller European nations. His stance raised concerns among NATO allies about the U.S.’s long-term role in European security.

Differences in Diplomatic Relations

1. Biden’s Multilateral Diplomacy
Biden’s approach to diplomacy has focused on rallying global allies and creating a united front against Russian aggression. His administration worked closely with European and NATO leaders to coordinate a global response, highlighting the importance of alliances in addressing international conflicts.
2. Trump’s Bilateral Focus
Trump preferred a more bilateral approach, seeking one-on-one negotiations with world leaders, including Putin. He often viewed alliances as transactional relationships, and his personal engagement with Putin raised concerns about the potential for leniency toward Russian actions.

Military Support and Assistance to Ukraine

1. Biden: Robust Military Aid
Biden’s administration has delivered advanced weaponry, missile defense systems, and financial aid to Ukraine, allowing them to mount a stronger defense against Russia’s military advances. Biden has framed this as part of a broader struggle between democracy and autocracy.
2. Trump: Conditional and Limited Aid
Trump’s military aid to Ukraine was more conditional, as seen during the 2019 impeachment proceedings. The aid provided during his term was essential but lacked the scale and urgency seen under Biden. Trump’s preference was for the U.S. to avoid becoming deeply entangled in conflicts abroad.

Economic Sanctions on Russia

1. Biden’s Comprehensive Sanctions
Under Biden, the U.S. implemented the toughest sanctions on Russia in modern history, including banning imports of Russian oil, freezing the assets of Russian elites, and cutting Russia off from international banking systems.
2. Trump’s Hesitation on Sanctions
While Trump did implement some sanctions, they were far more limited. His administration often delayed imposing tougher measures, and Trump publicly downplayed the effectiveness of sanctions, believing diplomatic engagement with Russia was a better approach.

Handling of NATO and Alliances

1. Biden’s Reinforcement of NATO
Biden’s administration strengthened NATO, reaffirming the U.S.’s commitment to collective defense and using NATO as a platform to build coordinated responses to Russia’s actions. Under Biden, NATO became more cohesive in its response to the conflict.
2. Trump’s Skepticism of NATO
Trump frequently criticized NATO, calling it "obsolete" and questioning the value of defending European allies. His administration was seen as undermining NATO’s unity, though Trump’s pressure did lead to some allies increasing their defense spending.

Public and Political Responses

1. Biden’s Political Backing
Biden has received broad support from both Democrats and Republicans for his approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, although some factions within the U.S. have criticized the scale of U.S. involvement and aid.
2. Trump’s Polarizing Stance
Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine was highly polarizing. His critics accused him of being too lenient on Russia, while his supporters praised his focus on prioritizing American interests over international entanglements.

Conclusion : Which Approach is More Effective?

Biden’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been defined by a firm stance against Russia, a focus on alliances, and providing Ukraine with significant military and economic aid. Trump, by contrast, favored diplomacy with Russia and expressed skepticism about the U.S.’s involvement in NATO and the conflict.
Which approach is more effective depends on the perspective of whether the U.S. should play a leading global role or focus more on national interests. Biden’s strategy is designed to strengthen global alliances and counter authoritarian aggression, while Trump’s approach centered on reducing U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts and prioritizing diplomatic engagement over confrontation.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the debate between global leadership and diplomatic engagement will continue to shape U.S. foreign policy for years to come.

#Russia #RussiaCrypto #RussiaUkraineWar #Russiancryptoexchange
#BinanceEarnProgram

Russian President Vladimir Putin next week will visit Mongolia, which is a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that has issued an arrest warrant for the Russian leader.
"On the invitation of the President of Mongolia Ukhnaa Khurelsukh, on September 3, 2024 Russian President Vladimir Putin will make an official visit to Mongolia to participate in ceremonial events dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the joint victory of Soviet and Mongolian forces over Japanese militarists on the Khalkhin Gol River," the Kremlin was quoted as saying by AFP.
Last year, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin, accusing him of being responsible for war crimes and illegal deportation of children from Ukraine.
ICC prosecutor Karim Khan said that Putin was now liable for arrest if he set foot in any of the court's more than 120 member states.
Russia is not a party to the ICC so it was unclear if or how Putin could ever end up in the dock. India is also not an ICC member and Putin is expected to travel to New Delhi at the end of the year for the G20 world leaders' summit.

What crimes is Putin accused of ?

Both Putin and Lvova-Belova are accused of being responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of people, in particular children, and their unlawful transfer from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.
Citing a report of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry, the BBC said in a report that some of these children were forced to take Russian citizenship and placed in foster families due to which they ended up "remaining permanently" in Russia.
If further said that the transfers were meant to be temporary but both parents and children faced "an array of obstacles in establishing contact". There are 16,221 children who were forcibly taken to Russia, according to the UN investigators.
The ICC said it sees reasonable grounds to believe that Putin bears "individual responsibility for the crimes either by committing them directly, jointly with others and/or through others". It also said that Putin failed to exercise proper control over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts or allowed for their commission and who were under his effective authority and control.
The arrest warrant obliges member states to arrest Putin or Lvova-Belova if they were to travel to their country. The ICC, however, has no police force of its own or other ways to enforce arrests

#TrumpCryptoSupport #RussiaUkraineWar #Russia #trumpcoin
#Geopolitics

Preface

The relationship between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has long been a topic of global fascination and intense scrutiny. With the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the dynamics between these two world leaders have resurfaced as a point of critical importance. For investors and those closely monitoring geopolitical trends, understanding how Trump’s rapport with Putin might impact the Russia-Ukraine conflict is essential, especially as Trump hints at a potential return to power.

A Historical Look : Trump, Putin, and U.S.-Russia Relations

Throughout his presidency, Trump’s foreign policy towards Russia and Ukraine was marked by controversy and confusion. From his rhetoric to his actions, Trump often presented a stark contrast to traditional U.S. policy on Russia. His critics have accused him of being too lenient on Putin, while his supporters view him as a pragmatic negotiator who sought to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Key Moments in Trump-Putin Relations

During Trump's presidency, several moments underscored the close, albeit complicated, relationship between Trump and Putin:

The Helsinki Summit (2018) : One of the most significant moments in Trump-Putin relations was the Helsinki summit. After meeting with Putin, Trump publicly questioned U.S. intelligence findings on Russian interference in the 2016 elections, siding with Putin’s denials instead. This sparked outrage in the U.S. and raised concerns about Trump’s stance toward Russia.

Trump’s Withdrawal of Military Aid to Ukraine (2019) : In a move that led to his first impeachment, Trump temporarily froze $400 million in military aid to Ukraine. His critics argued that this was another indication of his deference to Russia, as the military aid was intended to help Ukraine fend off Russian aggression in Crimea and the Donbas region.

Sanctions and Diplomacy : While Trump publicly praised Putin, his administration did impose several rounds of sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine, including its annexation of Crimea and cyberattacks. However, the mixed signals—harsh sanctions but warm rhetoric—left many wondering about Trump’s true position on Russia.

Trump's Approach to Ukraine: Pragmatism or Ambiguity?

Trump’s stance on Ukraine was often ambiguous. Despite supporting arms sales to Ukraine—a key departure from the Obama administration’s policy—Trump appeared reluctant to confront Russia directly over its actions. His rhetoric often seemed to downplay the severity of Russia's behavior, which left U.S. allies in Eastern Europe uneasy.

The View from Ukraine

Ukraine, for its part, often found itself caught between Trump's unpredictable approach to foreign policy and Russia's increasingly aggressive stance. Ukrainian leaders expressed concern that Trump's personal relationship with Putin could undermine their security. In contrast, others argued that Trump's transactional style of diplomacy—where deals were made based on practical benefits rather than ideological commitments—could offer a path to peace in the region.
However, the extent to which this approach would truly benefit Ukraine remains debatable. For investors watching from the sidelines, these uncertainties created a volatile geopolitical landscape that influenced everything from energy prices to global markets.

How Trump’s Relationship with Putin Could Shape Future Negotiations

With Trump positioning himself for a potential 2024 presidential run, the question arises: How would his relationship with Putin affect negotiations in the Russia-Ukraine war if he were to return to office? There are several potential scenarios to consider.

1. A Renewed Attempt at Diplomacy
Given Trump's emphasis on personal relationships in diplomacy, it’s possible that he would attempt to broker a deal between Russia and Ukraine. Trump’s supporters often point to his "deal-making" approach as evidence that he could negotiate a settlement where others have failed.
A potential scenario could see Trump leveraging his rapport with Putin to broker a ceasefire or peace agreement. However, this could come at a cost. Trump may push for concessions from Ukraine, such as territorial compromises, which could be deeply unpopular with Ukrainian leaders and their Western allies.

2. Easing of Sanctions
Another possible outcome could be a relaxation of sanctions on Russia. Trump has previously criticized sanctions, arguing that they hinder diplomatic progress. If Trump believes that lifting certain sanctions could pave the way for a negotiated settlement, he might pursue this route. However, such a move would likely draw criticism from both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., especially given the widespread bipartisan support for maintaining pressure on Russia.

3. A Cooling of U.S. Support for Ukraine
One of the more controversial possibilities is that Trump could reduce U.S. support for Ukraine in order to improve relations with Russia. Trump’s past actions, such as the temporary freezing of military aid, suggest that he may be willing to reconsider the level of U.S. involvement in the conflict. This could have significant implications for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and for the broader balance of power in Eastern Europe.
For U.S. investors, such a scenario would likely lead to increased volatility in global markets, particularly in sectors like energy, defense, and commodities. Reduced U.S. engagement in the region could also embolden Russia, leading to further destabilization.

The Geopolitical Implications for U.S. Investors

For investors, the future of Indo-Bangladesh relations would directly affect trade opportunities, defense, as well as South Asian markets.
Energy and Commodities : The Russia-Ukraine war has already had profound effects on global energy markets, especially in Europe. Any shift in U.S. policy—whether towards more aggressive sanctions or attempts at rapprochement—would ripple through these markets, affecting everything from oil prices to the supply chains of critical minerals.

Defense Sector: A change in U.S. involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war would also impact defense contractors, many of which have benefited from increased military aid to Ukraine. A shift towards diplomacy could mean reduced defense spending in the region, while continued conflict might sustain high levels of military procurement.

Global Instability: Geopolitical risks are always a concern for investors, and Trump’s potential return to power introduces uncertainty. His unpredictable style of leadership could lead to swings in market confidence, particularly in sectors sensitive to international relations.

Conclusion : Uncertainty Ahead

Trump's relationship with Putin remains a significant variable in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Should Trump return to the White House, his approach to negotiations, sanctions, and U.S. military support will have a profound impact on the war’s trajectory and, by extension, global markets. For investors, staying informed about these evolving dynamics is crucial. As Trump positions himself for a potential political comeback, the future of U.S.-Russia relations—and their impact on the world—hangs in the balance.