Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

اتفقت وزارة الزراعة الأمريكية ووزارة الفلاحة والتنمية الريفية والصيد البحري الجزائرية على فتح السوق الجزائرية أمام صادرات الأغنام الأمريكية المخصصة للذبح. ويمثل هذا الاتفاق فصلًا جديدًا ومهمًا في مسار العلاقات الزراعية بين الولايات المتحدة والجزائر، كما يعزز مكانة الولايات المتحدة كمورد موثوق للماشية عالية الجودة. The United States Department...

USEmbAlgiers's profile picture

US Embassy Algiers

216,123 subscribers

12,077 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

يوجه القائم بالأعمال مارك شابيرو تحياته إلى الشعب الجزائري. سبق له أن عمل دبلوماسياً في الجزائر، وهو يحمل معرفة واسعة اكتسبها من خبرته ويقدر جمال الجزائر وقوة شعبها. ستواصل سفارة الولايات المتحدة في الجزائر التعاون مع الحكومة الجزائرية لتعزيز العلاقة التي تخدم مصالح البلدين. Chargé d’Affaires Mark Schapiro delivers greetings to the people of Algeria. Formerly having served as a diplomat in Algiers, Chargé d’Affaires Schapiro brings knowledge built from experience and a deep appreciation for Algeria’s beauty and strength. Embassy Algiers will continue working with the Algerian government to develop this mutually beneficial relationship
2:15

يوجه القائم بالأعمال مارك شابيرو تحياته إلى الشعب الجزائري. سبق له أن عمل دبلوماسياً في الجزائر، وهو يحمل معرفة واسعة اكتسبها من خبرته ويقدر جمال الجزائر وقوة شعبها. ستواصل سفارة الولايات المتحدة في الجزائر التعاون مع الحكومة الجزائرية لتعزيز العلاقة التي تخدم مصالح البلدين. Chargé d’Affaires Mark Schapiro delivers greetings to the people of Algeria. Formerly having served as a diplomat in Algiers, Chargé d’Affaires Schapiro brings knowledge built from experience and a deep appreciation for Algeria’s beauty and strength. Embassy Algiers will continue working with the Algerian government to develop this mutually beneficial relationship

US Embassy Algiers

25,401 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

I will sign a security pact between Lebanon and the United States, because the United States is the only real influence on Israel. I want to pursue peace. Today, the United States has an excellent relationship with Syria and President Sharaa, and it also maintains an excellent relationship with Israel. If I am positioned between these two countries, then, as far as I am concerned, it is in my interest for the United States to accept me as a member of its regional security coalition. In that case, the whole region could live more peacefully and securely. This would be my first request. Once we achieve that, the government must do its own work in terms of reforms—supporting legislation and implementing necessary changes. With a security pact in place, we can then attract investment and fully capitalize on our relationship with the United States. الولايات المتحدة الاميركية هي الجهة الوحيدة القادرة على التأثير الحقيقي على إسرائيل. أريد أن أسير نحو السلام. اليوم، تتمتع الولايات المتحدة بعلاقة ممتازة مع سوريا ومع الرئيس الشرع، كما أنها تحافظ على علاقة ممتازة مع إسرائيل. إذا كنتُ موجودًا بين هاتين الدولتين، فمن وجهة نظري، من مصلحتي أن تقبلني الولايات المتحدة كعضو في تحالفها الأمني الإقليمي. عندها يمكن للمنطقة بأكملها أن تعيش بسلام وأمن أكبر. هذا سيكون طلبي الأول. وبعد تحقيق ذلك، يجب على الحكومة أن تقوم بعملها من حيث الإصلاحات—عبر دعم التشريعات وتنفيذ التغييرات اللازمة. ومع وجود اتفاق أمني، يمكننا حينها جذب الاستثمارات والاستفادة الكاملة من علاقتنا مع الولايات المتحدة. Brian Katulis Middle East Institute
1:18

I will sign a security pact between Lebanon and the United States, because the United States is the only real influence on Israel. I want to pursue peace. Today, the United States has an excellent relationship with Syria and President Sharaa, and it also maintains an excellent relationship with Israel. If I am positioned between these two countries, then, as far as I am concerned, it is in my interest for the United States to accept me as a member of its regional security coalition. In that case, the whole region could live more peacefully and securely. This would be my first request. Once we achieve that, the government must do its own work in terms of reforms—supporting legislation and implementing necessary changes. With a security pact in place, we can then attract investment and fully capitalize on our relationship with the United States. الولايات المتحدة الاميركية هي الجهة الوحيدة القادرة على التأثير الحقيقي على إسرائيل. أريد أن أسير نحو السلام. اليوم، تتمتع الولايات المتحدة بعلاقة ممتازة مع سوريا ومع الرئيس الشرع، كما أنها تحافظ على علاقة ممتازة مع إسرائيل. إذا كنتُ موجودًا بين هاتين الدولتين، فمن وجهة نظري، من مصلحتي أن تقبلني الولايات المتحدة كعضو في تحالفها الأمني الإقليمي. عندها يمكن للمنطقة بأكملها أن تعيش بسلام وأمن أكبر. هذا سيكون طلبي الأول. وبعد تحقيق ذلك، يجب على الحكومة أن تقوم بعملها من حيث الإصلاحات—عبر دعم التشريعات وتنفيذ التغييرات اللازمة. ومع وجود اتفاق أمني، يمكننا حينها جذب الاستثمارات والاستفادة الكاملة من علاقتنا مع الولايات المتحدة. Brian Katulis Middle East Institute

Fouad Makhzoumi

121,945 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

In 2014, Senator Chris Murphy bragged about the United States successfully overthrowing Ukraine's government: "I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office." "We have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there. Members of the State Department have been on the Square." "The Obama administration passed sanctions. The Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions, and as I've said, I think that the clear position of the United States has, in part, been what has helped lead to this change in regime." "If, ultimately, this is a peaceful transition to a new government in Ukraine, it will be the U.S. on the streets of Ukraine who will be seen as a great friend in helping make that transition happen." "There is a U.S. interest here. We are in the middle of negotiating a new trade agreement with Europe. To my state, it's enormously important. We do 40% of our trade in Connecticut with Europe." "If Ukraine is part of the EU and thus is part of this new trade agreement with the United States, that could result in billions of dollars in new economic opportunities for the U.S." "So, we do have an economic interest in Ukraine being a part of the EU, and we shouldn't be shy about making that interest clear."
5:04

In 2014, Senator Chris Murphy bragged about the United States successfully overthrowing Ukraine's government: "I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office." "We have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there. Members of the State Department have been on the Square." "The Obama administration passed sanctions. The Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions, and as I've said, I think that the clear position of the United States has, in part, been what has helped lead to this change in regime." "If, ultimately, this is a peaceful transition to a new government in Ukraine, it will be the U.S. on the streets of Ukraine who will be seen as a great friend in helping make that transition happen." "There is a U.S. interest here. We are in the middle of negotiating a new trade agreement with Europe. To my state, it's enormously important. We do 40% of our trade in Connecticut with Europe." "If Ukraine is part of the EU and thus is part of this new trade agreement with the United States, that could result in billions of dollars in new economic opportunities for the U.S." "So, we do have an economic interest in Ukraine being a part of the EU, and we shouldn't be shy about making that interest clear."

KanekoaTheGreat

18,646,930 просмотров • 1 год назад

Let’s take a closer look at the statements about a possible U.S. withdrawal from NATO. While a rapid formal withdrawal is unlikely due to congressional constraints, President Trump is fully capable of turning NATO into a functionally hollow shell by withdrawing troops, undermining trust, and abandoning commitments. In practical terms, the difference between an actual "withdrawal" and "internal sabotage" could be minimal. If this were to happen and NATO were effectively dismantled, the consequences would not be limited to Europe - the United States would also be affected. If the U.S. were to leave NATO or the alliance were to collapse, Washington would have to spend an additional $100-200 billion annually just to maintain its current level of global influence, while also losing around $24 billion per year in defense purchases by allies from U.S. manufacturers. Access to the world’s largest market - the European Union - could be put at risk, and the stability of transatlantic sea lanes, critical to the U.S. economy, would no longer be guaranteed. The NATO nuclear-sharing mechanism, which helps contain nuclear proliferation in Europe, would disappear, and the U.S. would lose an established coalition infrastructure with integrated command structures - something that cannot be quickly rebuilt. The greatest strategic beneficiary of a NATO collapse would be China. Undermining transatlantic unity has long been one of its key geopolitical objectives, and a signal of U.S. pullback in Europe would erode the confidence of Asian allies - Japan, South Korea, and Australia - weakening the entire global network of U.S. alliances. A brief historical context: NATO was founded in 1949, with the United States playing a central role in shaping its architecture. A series of crises - including the communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet blockade of Berlin - convinced the Truman administration of the need for long-term U.S. engagement in Europe. What NATO has provided to the United States: ◾️ Strategic leadership. By leading NATO, the U.S. maintains significant influence over global security policy, ensuring representation of its interests and values on the international stage - something neither Russia nor China and their partners can replicate. ◾️ Financial advantages. As of 2025, NATO allies (excluding the U.S.) spend more than $560 billion annually on defense. Without the alliance, the U.S. would need to increase its own defense spending by an additional $100-200 billion each year. ◾️ Arms exports. Defense procurement by NATO allies from U.S. manufacturers reached $24 billion in 2023 - part of a broader 55.9% increase in U.S. arms exports. ◾️ Nuclear stability. NATO’s nuclear-sharing mechanism allows the U.S. to maintain strategic deterrence in Europe without requiring allies to develop their own nuclear weapons - preventing nuclear proliferation. Alternatives to NATO for the U.S. already exist in several parallel formats: AUKUS (U.S., UK, Australia), the Quad (U.S., Japan, India, Australia), bilateral defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as well as ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand). However, none of these fully replaces NATO. Neither the Quad nor AUKUS includes binding mutual defense obligations in the event of an attack, nor do they have integrated command structures or legally binding guarantees comparable to NATO’s Article 5. So, NATO is an asymmetrically beneficial arrangement for the United States. Allies spend hundreds of billions, purchase American weapons, reinforce nuclear deterrence, and legitimize U.S. global leadership. None of the existing alternatives replicates this system - neither in scale nor in legal strength. 📹: PM Starmer: We are very strong supporters of NATO. It is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever known. Do Europeans need to do more? Yes. I have been making that case for the best part of two years, and it is in America’s interest too.
0:53

Let’s take a closer look at the statements about a possible U.S. withdrawal from NATO. While a rapid formal withdrawal is unlikely due to congressional constraints, President Trump is fully capable of turning NATO into a functionally hollow shell by withdrawing troops, undermining trust, and abandoning commitments. In practical terms, the difference between an actual "withdrawal" and "internal sabotage" could be minimal. If this were to happen and NATO were effectively dismantled, the consequences would not be limited to Europe - the United States would also be affected. If the U.S. were to leave NATO or the alliance were to collapse, Washington would have to spend an additional $100-200 billion annually just to maintain its current level of global influence, while also losing around $24 billion per year in defense purchases by allies from U.S. manufacturers. Access to the world’s largest market - the European Union - could be put at risk, and the stability of transatlantic sea lanes, critical to the U.S. economy, would no longer be guaranteed. The NATO nuclear-sharing mechanism, which helps contain nuclear proliferation in Europe, would disappear, and the U.S. would lose an established coalition infrastructure with integrated command structures - something that cannot be quickly rebuilt. The greatest strategic beneficiary of a NATO collapse would be China. Undermining transatlantic unity has long been one of its key geopolitical objectives, and a signal of U.S. pullback in Europe would erode the confidence of Asian allies - Japan, South Korea, and Australia - weakening the entire global network of U.S. alliances. A brief historical context: NATO was founded in 1949, with the United States playing a central role in shaping its architecture. A series of crises - including the communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet blockade of Berlin - convinced the Truman administration of the need for long-term U.S. engagement in Europe. What NATO has provided to the United States: ◾️ Strategic leadership. By leading NATO, the U.S. maintains significant influence over global security policy, ensuring representation of its interests and values on the international stage - something neither Russia nor China and their partners can replicate. ◾️ Financial advantages. As of 2025, NATO allies (excluding the U.S.) spend more than $560 billion annually on defense. Without the alliance, the U.S. would need to increase its own defense spending by an additional $100-200 billion each year. ◾️ Arms exports. Defense procurement by NATO allies from U.S. manufacturers reached $24 billion in 2023 - part of a broader 55.9% increase in U.S. arms exports. ◾️ Nuclear stability. NATO’s nuclear-sharing mechanism allows the U.S. to maintain strategic deterrence in Europe without requiring allies to develop their own nuclear weapons - preventing nuclear proliferation. Alternatives to NATO for the U.S. already exist in several parallel formats: AUKUS (U.S., UK, Australia), the Quad (U.S., Japan, India, Australia), bilateral defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as well as ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand). However, none of these fully replaces NATO. Neither the Quad nor AUKUS includes binding mutual defense obligations in the event of an attack, nor do they have integrated command structures or legally binding guarantees comparable to NATO’s Article 5. So, NATO is an asymmetrically beneficial arrangement for the United States. Allies spend hundreds of billions, purchase American weapons, reinforce nuclear deterrence, and legitimize U.S. global leadership. None of the existing alternatives replicates this system - neither in scale nor in legal strength. 📹: PM Starmer: We are very strong supporters of NATO. It is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever known. Do Europeans need to do more? Yes. I have been making that case for the best part of two years, and it is in America’s interest too.

Anton Gerashchenko

192,811 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

NEW: California Attorney General Rob Bonta announces a lawsuit against the Donald Trump Administration He says the President of the United States doesn’t have the authority to fire Department of Education employees “We’re here today to announce a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration for conducting an illegal mass firing of nearly half of all employees at the U.S. Department of Education. As part of the president's directive to eliminate the Department of Education, this en masse firing exceeds any statutory authority granted by Congress. Alongside numerous other actions the Trump administration has taken, this sweeping mass firing is simply put, illegal.” “My office, our offices following through on promises we made. We'll take action if and when Trump violates the law and infringes on our rights.” Democrats rig elections in California by making checking ID to vote illegal and then pretend to be upholding the will of the people. It’s the biggest joke in history
0:43

NEW: California Attorney General Rob Bonta announces a lawsuit against the Donald Trump Administration He says the President of the United States doesn’t have the authority to fire Department of Education employees “We’re here today to announce a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration for conducting an illegal mass firing of nearly half of all employees at the U.S. Department of Education. As part of the president's directive to eliminate the Department of Education, this en masse firing exceeds any statutory authority granted by Congress. Alongside numerous other actions the Trump administration has taken, this sweeping mass firing is simply put, illegal.” “My office, our offices following through on promises we made. We'll take action if and when Trump violates the law and infringes on our rights.” Democrats rig elections in California by making checking ID to vote illegal and then pretend to be upholding the will of the people. It’s the biggest joke in history

Wall Street Apes

613,186 просмотров • 1 год назад

BREAKING: President Trump reveals the details of his trade deal with Vietnam that includes them paying the U.S. a 20% tariff on all goods “sent into our Territory,” a 40% tariff on any “Transshipping,” and they will allow the U.S. “TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade.” Trump wrote on Truth Social: “It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after speaking with To Lam, the Highly Respected General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. It will be a Great Deal of Cooperation between our two Countries. The Terms are that Vietnam will pay the United States a 20% Tariff on any and all goods sent into our Territory, and a 40% Tariff on any Transshipping. In return, Vietnam will do something that they have never done before, give the United States of America TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade.” “In other words, they will ‘OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES,’ meaning that, we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff. It is my opinion that the SUV or, as it is sometimes referred to, Large Engine Vehicle, which does so well in the United States, will be a wonderful addition to the various product lines within Vietnam. Dealing with General Secretary To Lam, which I did personally, was an absolute pleasure. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
0:36

BREAKING: President Trump reveals the details of his trade deal with Vietnam that includes them paying the U.S. a 20% tariff on all goods “sent into our Territory,” a 40% tariff on any “Transshipping,” and they will allow the U.S. “TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade.” Trump wrote on Truth Social: “It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after speaking with To Lam, the Highly Respected General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. It will be a Great Deal of Cooperation between our two Countries. The Terms are that Vietnam will pay the United States a 20% Tariff on any and all goods sent into our Territory, and a 40% Tariff on any Transshipping. In return, Vietnam will do something that they have never done before, give the United States of America TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade.” “In other words, they will ‘OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES,’ meaning that, we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff. It is my opinion that the SUV or, as it is sometimes referred to, Large Engine Vehicle, which does so well in the United States, will be a wonderful addition to the various product lines within Vietnam. Dealing with General Secretary To Lam, which I did personally, was an absolute pleasure. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

RedWave Press

461,510 просмотров • 1 год назад

‼️‼️🇺🇲🇹🇼🇨🇳 BREAKING - The administration of Donald Trump is moving with full commitment into a preparatory phase aimed at defending Taiwan from China. In line with the new U.S. National Security Strategy, The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a large-scale arms sales package to Taiwan valued at more than $11 billion. The U.S. State Department was notified of this decision by the Defense Cooperation and Security Office of the U.S. Department of Defense. The United States is prepared to sell tactical ballistic missiles, self-propelled howitzers, multiple rocket systems, and strike drones. The eight proposed deals include 82 M142 HIMARS high-mobility artillery rocket systems and 420 M57 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles, with an estimated combined value of $4.05 billion. The package also includes 60 M109A7 155mm self-propelled howitzers and associated equipment, with an estimated cost of $4.03 billion. Taiwan may additionally acquire Altius-600 and Altius-700M drones along with related systems, valued at approximately $1.1 billion. Furthermore, approval has been granted for the sale of more than 1,500 BGM-71F-7-RF TOW 2B anti-tank guided missiles, including logistics, training, and program support, with a total value of $353 million. The United States has also agreed to sell 1,050 FGM-148F Javelin missiles and 70 lightweight command launch units (LwCLU), at a total cost of $375 million. Additional elements of the package include spare parts for AH-1W attack helicopters worth $96 million, as well as repair kits for Harpoon anti-ship missiles valued at just over $91 million. See the latest updates with us: NSTRIKE
0:31

‼️‼️🇺🇲🇹🇼🇨🇳 BREAKING - The administration of Donald Trump is moving with full commitment into a preparatory phase aimed at defending Taiwan from China. In line with the new U.S. National Security Strategy, The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a large-scale arms sales package to Taiwan valued at more than $11 billion. The U.S. State Department was notified of this decision by the Defense Cooperation and Security Office of the U.S. Department of Defense. The United States is prepared to sell tactical ballistic missiles, self-propelled howitzers, multiple rocket systems, and strike drones. The eight proposed deals include 82 M142 HIMARS high-mobility artillery rocket systems and 420 M57 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles, with an estimated combined value of $4.05 billion. The package also includes 60 M109A7 155mm self-propelled howitzers and associated equipment, with an estimated cost of $4.03 billion. Taiwan may additionally acquire Altius-600 and Altius-700M drones along with related systems, valued at approximately $1.1 billion. Furthermore, approval has been granted for the sale of more than 1,500 BGM-71F-7-RF TOW 2B anti-tank guided missiles, including logistics, training, and program support, with a total value of $353 million. The United States has also agreed to sell 1,050 FGM-148F Javelin missiles and 70 lightweight command launch units (LwCLU), at a total cost of $375 million. Additional elements of the package include spare parts for AH-1W attack helicopters worth $96 million, as well as repair kits for Harpoon anti-ship missiles valued at just over $91 million. See the latest updates with us: NSTRIKE

NSTRIKE

32,847 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

🇨🇳🇺🇲 The meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping has officially begun. The presidents of the two countries addressed each other with opening remarks: President of China, Xi Jinping: The whole world is watching our meeting. Currently, a transformation not seen in a century is accelerating across the globe, and the international situation is fluid and turbulent. The world has come to a new crossroads. Can China and the United States overcome the Thucydides Trap and create a new paradigm for major country relations? Can we meet global challenges together and provide more stability for the world? Can we, in the interest of the well-being of our two peoples and the future of humanity, build a brighter future together for our bilateral relations? These are the questions vital to history, to the world, and to the people. They are the questions of our times that you and I, as leaders of major countries, need to answer. I always believe that our two countries have more common interests than differences. Success in one is an opportunity for the other, and a stable bilateral relationship is good for the world. China and the United States both stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. We should be partners, not rivals. We should help each other succeed and prosper together and find the right way for major countries to get along well with each other in the new era. I look forward to our discussions on major issues important to our two countries and the world, and to working together with you to set the course for and steer the giant ship of China-U.S. relations. Let us make 2026 a historic landmark year that opens a new chapter in China-U.S. relations. President of the United States, Donald Trump: First of all, that was an honor like few have ever seen before. I think I was particularly impressed by those children they were happy, they were beautiful. The military is obvious it couldn't be better. But those children were amazing, and they represent so much. And I know they represent so much to you. You and I have known each other now for a long time the longest relationship of our two countries that any president and president has had. And that is, to me, an honor. We have had a fantastic relationship. We have gotten along even when there were difficulties. Whenever we had a problem, we worked it out very quickly. And we are going to have a fantastic future together. I have such respect for China and the job you have done. You are a great leader. I say it to everybody. Sometimes people do not like me saying it, but I say it anyway because it is true. I only say the truth. It is an honor to be with you. It is an honor to be your friend, and the relationship between China and the USA is going to be better than ever before.
1:29

🇨🇳🇺🇲 The meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping has officially begun. The presidents of the two countries addressed each other with opening remarks: President of China, Xi Jinping: The whole world is watching our meeting. Currently, a transformation not seen in a century is accelerating across the globe, and the international situation is fluid and turbulent. The world has come to a new crossroads. Can China and the United States overcome the Thucydides Trap and create a new paradigm for major country relations? Can we meet global challenges together and provide more stability for the world? Can we, in the interest of the well-being of our two peoples and the future of humanity, build a brighter future together for our bilateral relations? These are the questions vital to history, to the world, and to the people. They are the questions of our times that you and I, as leaders of major countries, need to answer. I always believe that our two countries have more common interests than differences. Success in one is an opportunity for the other, and a stable bilateral relationship is good for the world. China and the United States both stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. We should be partners, not rivals. We should help each other succeed and prosper together and find the right way for major countries to get along well with each other in the new era. I look forward to our discussions on major issues important to our two countries and the world, and to working together with you to set the course for and steer the giant ship of China-U.S. relations. Let us make 2026 a historic landmark year that opens a new chapter in China-U.S. relations. President of the United States, Donald Trump: First of all, that was an honor like few have ever seen before. I think I was particularly impressed by those children they were happy, they were beautiful. The military is obvious it couldn't be better. But those children were amazing, and they represent so much. And I know they represent so much to you. You and I have known each other now for a long time the longest relationship of our two countries that any president and president has had. And that is, to me, an honor. We have had a fantastic relationship. We have gotten along even when there were difficulties. Whenever we had a problem, we worked it out very quickly. And we are going to have a fantastic future together. I have such respect for China and the job you have done. You are a great leader. I say it to everybody. Sometimes people do not like me saying it, but I say it anyway because it is true. I only say the truth. It is an honor to be with you. It is an honor to be your friend, and the relationship between China and the USA is going to be better than ever before.

Visioner

26,443 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

“Almost every single top Chinese biomedical research scientist of note was funded in some part by the NIH. Many were trained in the United States,” NIH director Jay Bhattacharya told me during our recent interview. He says the NIH is now overhauling how it handles foreign research collaborations. The old “sub-award” system—where U.S. institutions funneled money to foreign labs—led to major oversight problems, Bhattacharya says. Under that structure, the U.S. partner was responsible for auditing the foreign collaborator, not the NIH itself. “In the case of Wuhan…EcoHealth Alliance had a sub-award relationship with this Wuhan Institute of Virology, and when all of the pandemic happened…EcoHealth Alliance essentially delayed reporting…and then ultimately said: ‘Oh, well, we don't control Wuhan Institute of Virology. We can't get the lab notebooks.’ That is an unacceptable structure.” “If American taxpayer dollars are going to go to some foreign institution, then we should be confident that we, the Americans, have an auditing relationship that allows us to get access to the kinds of things that we normally have access to for a domestic institution that we fund,” he says. As one of his first decisions as NIH Director, Bhattacharya created a new system that gives the NIH direct oversight of both U.S. and foreign collaborators. This change means the agency can cut off funding if a partner refuses to cooperate. He also introduced two new requirements for any foreign collaboration: – Researchers must show the project would be much more expensive to run in the U.S. – They must show the knowledge gained will directly benefit Americans. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD NIH
5:59

“Almost every single top Chinese biomedical research scientist of note was funded in some part by the NIH. Many were trained in the United States,” NIH director Jay Bhattacharya told me during our recent interview. He says the NIH is now overhauling how it handles foreign research collaborations. The old “sub-award” system—where U.S. institutions funneled money to foreign labs—led to major oversight problems, Bhattacharya says. Under that structure, the U.S. partner was responsible for auditing the foreign collaborator, not the NIH itself. “In the case of Wuhan…EcoHealth Alliance had a sub-award relationship with this Wuhan Institute of Virology, and when all of the pandemic happened…EcoHealth Alliance essentially delayed reporting…and then ultimately said: ‘Oh, well, we don't control Wuhan Institute of Virology. We can't get the lab notebooks.’ That is an unacceptable structure.” “If American taxpayer dollars are going to go to some foreign institution, then we should be confident that we, the Americans, have an auditing relationship that allows us to get access to the kinds of things that we normally have access to for a domestic institution that we fund,” he says. As one of his first decisions as NIH Director, Bhattacharya created a new system that gives the NIH direct oversight of both U.S. and foreign collaborators. This change means the agency can cut off funding if a partner refuses to cooperate. He also introduced two new requirements for any foreign collaboration: – Researchers must show the project would be much more expensive to run in the U.S. – They must show the knowledge gained will directly benefit Americans. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD NIH

Jan Jekielek

12,738 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

EastFruit analysts have drawn attention to an unexpected fact – currently the world leader in the growth rate of blueberry exports is a country that is better known for its recent record hyperinflation, economic meltdown and poverty. EastFruit is a leading international information and analytical platform for fruit and vegetable business in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, writing in three languages (English, Ukrainian and Russian). However, this country was once rich and had a highly developed agriculture, so its potential should not be underestimated. According to EastFruit, there is currently an investment boom in blueberry farming in that country - Zimbabwe. New plantations are established mainly by investors from neighboring South Africa, who often diversify or even move production to this country due to very favorable climatic conditions, availability of high-quality water for irrigation and inexpensive labour. In addition, recently there has been an increase in investments from other countries into development of new blueberry plantations in Zimbabwe. Since blueberry production in Zimbabwe is developed mainly by investors who already have experience growing blueberries in similar climatic conditions, the productivity of the plantations and quality of the products are quite high. Also, these companies already have established blueberry sales channels, which allows them to do the same with berries grown in Zimbabwe. As a result, Zimbabwe’s blueberry exports are currently growing faster than any other country in the world. “On average over the past five years, Zimbabwe has increased blueberry exports by 63% each year or by 1 200 tones. In 2022, exports grew by 85% or 2.3 thousand tons and exceeded 5 thousand tons, which allowed the country to enter the top 15 countries in blueberry exports and overtake Serbia in volume,” says Andrij Yarmak, economist at the investment department of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. EastFruit experts expect that in 2023, blueberry exports from Zimbabwe could grow by another 30%-40% and reach 6.5-7.0 thousand tons. Considering the high price level for blueberries due to the poor harvest of this berry in Peru, the country can make good money from exporting blueberries in the new season. Significant part of blueberries from Zimbabwe are exported to South Africa, apparently for further re-exports. The country also directly exports fresh blueberries to the UK, EU and Middle East countries, as well as Russia. Georgia is also among the leaders in the growth rate of blueberries in the world, with an average annual increase in exports of 50%. In 2023, blueberry exports from Georgia increased 2.5 times and reached 3.4 thousand tons. True, obviously, some of these blueberries were grown in Ukraine and re-exported by traders from Georgia to the Russian market. Ukraine itself, despite its leading positions in the world in terms of the rate of blueberry area increase, is somewhat behind Georgia in terms of the growth rate of exports. However, in 2023 blueberry exports from Ukraine increased sharply, which is partly due to a decrease in the local blueberry market size due to the outflow of population as a result of Russian military aggression. -
1:56

EastFruit analysts have drawn attention to an unexpected fact – currently the world leader in the growth rate of blueberry exports is a country that is better known for its recent record hyperinflation, economic meltdown and poverty. EastFruit is a leading international information and analytical platform for fruit and vegetable business in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, writing in three languages (English, Ukrainian and Russian). However, this country was once rich and had a highly developed agriculture, so its potential should not be underestimated. According to EastFruit, there is currently an investment boom in blueberry farming in that country - Zimbabwe. New plantations are established mainly by investors from neighboring South Africa, who often diversify or even move production to this country due to very favorable climatic conditions, availability of high-quality water for irrigation and inexpensive labour. In addition, recently there has been an increase in investments from other countries into development of new blueberry plantations in Zimbabwe. Since blueberry production in Zimbabwe is developed mainly by investors who already have experience growing blueberries in similar climatic conditions, the productivity of the plantations and quality of the products are quite high. Also, these companies already have established blueberry sales channels, which allows them to do the same with berries grown in Zimbabwe. As a result, Zimbabwe’s blueberry exports are currently growing faster than any other country in the world. “On average over the past five years, Zimbabwe has increased blueberry exports by 63% each year or by 1 200 tones. In 2022, exports grew by 85% or 2.3 thousand tons and exceeded 5 thousand tons, which allowed the country to enter the top 15 countries in blueberry exports and overtake Serbia in volume,” says Andrij Yarmak, economist at the investment department of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. EastFruit experts expect that in 2023, blueberry exports from Zimbabwe could grow by another 30%-40% and reach 6.5-7.0 thousand tons. Considering the high price level for blueberries due to the poor harvest of this berry in Peru, the country can make good money from exporting blueberries in the new season. Significant part of blueberries from Zimbabwe are exported to South Africa, apparently for further re-exports. The country also directly exports fresh blueberries to the UK, EU and Middle East countries, as well as Russia. Georgia is also among the leaders in the growth rate of blueberries in the world, with an average annual increase in exports of 50%. In 2023, blueberry exports from Georgia increased 2.5 times and reached 3.4 thousand tons. True, obviously, some of these blueberries were grown in Ukraine and re-exported by traders from Georgia to the Russian market. Ukraine itself, despite its leading positions in the world in terms of the rate of blueberry area increase, is somewhat behind Georgia in terms of the growth rate of exports. However, in 2023 blueberry exports from Ukraine increased sharply, which is partly due to a decrease in the local blueberry market size due to the outflow of population as a result of Russian military aggression. -

TheNewsHawks

22,130 просмотров • 2 лет назад

‼️🇺🇲🇮🇷 The US-Iran memorandum looks more like a US capitulation than a victory. There is also a second scenario, where the US is simply trying to avoid escalation with Iran until the World Cup concludes, and that is precisely why they signed this Memorandum of Understanding—to buy time. Bloomberg discloses the full text of the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding reached between the US and Iran, which is set to be signed on June 19 in Geneva: 1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles. 2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. 3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent. 4. Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States Lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement. 5. Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran. 6. The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days. 7. The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary. 8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article. 9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region. 10. The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.
0:33

‼️🇺🇲🇮🇷 The US-Iran memorandum looks more like a US capitulation than a victory. There is also a second scenario, where the US is simply trying to avoid escalation with Iran until the World Cup concludes, and that is precisely why they signed this Memorandum of Understanding—to buy time. Bloomberg discloses the full text of the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding reached between the US and Iran, which is set to be signed on June 19 in Geneva: 1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles. 2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. 3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent. 4. Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States Lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement. 5. Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran. 6. The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days. 7. The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary. 8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article. 9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region. 10. The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.

Visioner

11,880 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 BREAKING: President Donald J. Trump signs an Executive Order renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America. Here is the text of the Order: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and Policy. As I announced in Executive Order 14172 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness), it is the policy of my Administration to recognize the extraordinary contributions of the American people and the rich heritage of our history by naming great natural landmarks for our shared achievements. The United States is the greatest protector of the Great Lakes, including the body of water currently known as Lake Ontario. Without the security and investment provided by the United States, this freshwater system would not be open for shipping, recreation, and responsible use to the same extent as it is today. The United States Coast Guard supplies 9 of the 11 ice breaking vessels on the Great Lakes, securing commercial shipping lanes free of charge. The United States has invested nearly $4 billion in protecting the Great Lakes freshwater ecosystem in the last decade, while Canada has invested far less in similar initiatives over the same period. Sec. 2. Lake America. (a) The body of water currently known as Lake Ontario is a tremendous asset to the United States and part of our Nation's heritage. With the deepest parts of the Lake's waters lying within United States territory, the United States claims most of the Lake's volume. The Lake has long been an integral asset to American exploration, settlement, commerce, and defense. From the colonial period through the early republic, the Lake served as a critical artery for American trade, commerce, and military logistics, including the establishment in Oswego of a historic fort and the first United States port of call from the St. Lawrence Seaway, shipbuilding and naval operations during the War of 1812 at Sackets Harbor and other New York posts, and the movement of goods, settlers, and later industrial cargoes that linked the interior of the United States to eastern markets and the Atlantic. Maritime commerce on the broader Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system -- of which the Lake is the easternmost and gateway segment -- continues to generate substantial economic activity for the United States, supporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in annual economic output, cargo value, and related business revenue, with our ports, carriers, and States deriving a significant share of the system's benefits in iron ore, limestone, coal, agricultural products, and other bulk commodities. Water from the Lake is used to supply nuclear, natural gas, and oil-fired power plants and to supply municipal drinking water to nearby communities. United States domestic and cross-border shipping activity on the Great Lakes system has historically underpinned regional manufacturing, steel production, agriculture, and energy supply chains in several States, reflecting the strategic and economic importance of these waters to the United States that continues to this day. The Lake will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping America's future and the global economy. In recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our Nation's economy and its people, I am directing that the Lake officially be renamed as Lake America. (b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall, in coordination with the Board on Geographic Names and consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions to rename as "Lake America" the body of water currently named as Lake Ontario, bounded on the south and east by the State of New York, and on the north, west, and southwest by the Canadian province of Ontario. The Secretary, conjointly with the Board on Geographic Names, shall subsequently update the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) to reflect the renaming of the Lake and remove all references to Lake Ontario from the GNIS, consistent with applicable law. The Board on Geographic Names shall provide guidance to ensure all Federal Government references to Lake Ontario, including on executive department and agency maps, contracts, and other documents and communications, shall reflect its renaming. Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of the Interior. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, August 27, 2026.
1:24

🚨 BREAKING: President Donald J. Trump signs an Executive Order renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America. Here is the text of the Order: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and Policy. As I announced in Executive Order 14172 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness), it is the policy of my Administration to recognize the extraordinary contributions of the American people and the rich heritage of our history by naming great natural landmarks for our shared achievements. The United States is the greatest protector of the Great Lakes, including the body of water currently known as Lake Ontario. Without the security and investment provided by the United States, this freshwater system would not be open for shipping, recreation, and responsible use to the same extent as it is today. The United States Coast Guard supplies 9 of the 11 ice breaking vessels on the Great Lakes, securing commercial shipping lanes free of charge. The United States has invested nearly $4 billion in protecting the Great Lakes freshwater ecosystem in the last decade, while Canada has invested far less in similar initiatives over the same period. Sec. 2. Lake America. (a) The body of water currently known as Lake Ontario is a tremendous asset to the United States and part of our Nation's heritage. With the deepest parts of the Lake's waters lying within United States territory, the United States claims most of the Lake's volume. The Lake has long been an integral asset to American exploration, settlement, commerce, and defense. From the colonial period through the early republic, the Lake served as a critical artery for American trade, commerce, and military logistics, including the establishment in Oswego of a historic fort and the first United States port of call from the St. Lawrence Seaway, shipbuilding and naval operations during the War of 1812 at Sackets Harbor and other New York posts, and the movement of goods, settlers, and later industrial cargoes that linked the interior of the United States to eastern markets and the Atlantic. Maritime commerce on the broader Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system -- of which the Lake is the easternmost and gateway segment -- continues to generate substantial economic activity for the United States, supporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars in annual economic output, cargo value, and related business revenue, with our ports, carriers, and States deriving a significant share of the system's benefits in iron ore, limestone, coal, agricultural products, and other bulk commodities. Water from the Lake is used to supply nuclear, natural gas, and oil-fired power plants and to supply municipal drinking water to nearby communities. United States domestic and cross-border shipping activity on the Great Lakes system has historically underpinned regional manufacturing, steel production, agriculture, and energy supply chains in several States, reflecting the strategic and economic importance of these waters to the United States that continues to this day. The Lake will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping America's future and the global economy. In recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our Nation's economy and its people, I am directing that the Lake officially be renamed as Lake America. (b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall, in coordination with the Board on Geographic Names and consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions to rename as "Lake America" the body of water currently named as Lake Ontario, bounded on the south and east by the State of New York, and on the north, west, and southwest by the Canadian province of Ontario. The Secretary, conjointly with the Board on Geographic Names, shall subsequently update the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) to reflect the renaming of the Lake and remove all references to Lake Ontario from the GNIS, consistent with applicable law. The Board on Geographic Names shall provide guidance to ensure all Federal Government references to Lake Ontario, including on executive department and agency maps, contracts, and other documents and communications, shall reflect its renaming. Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. (d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of the Interior. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, August 27, 2026.

Rapid Response 47

2,054,687 просмотров • 4 дней назад

TOPIC #107: PI NETWORK IS A STABLE COIN? -WHO DECIDES PI FULLY OM FIXED VALUE? Dear GCV army, I hope you are all doing great! First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for all your hard work. Many of you have achieved significant milestones, and it’s evident that you are making a great difference. Our influence has grown significantly, with an increasing number of social media posts and YouTubers publicly supporting us. I can see that more and more people are beginning to understand why we advocate for GCV. Today's meeting aims to alleviate any doubts you may have, allowing you to relax and feel confident as we embark on our historic journey together. I will answer the questions I’ve received and address some important issues we need to focus on to maintain our community's efficiency, particularly regarding our Generals, which will be the topic next weekend. I put the questions I received here. "A question addressed to Ms. Doris Yin in the emergency meeting 1– In light of the rapidly changing global circumstances and the increasing discussion about stablecoins backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, how do you see the future role of the Pi Network in this context? And what practical steps should the GCV army take now to accelerate this path? 2_ There are those who promote the idea that the price of Pi is what appears in the market (currently around $0.49) and compare it to the price of GCV within the ecosystem (314,159 Pi = 1 good or service). They say if Pi’s price rises to $2, it means that the value within The ecosystem is approximately 2 million dollars. With sincere appreciation and discipline." This is from the Arab head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Mohammed. Another question: "Hello, my Global Ambassador, I am Ateba Joseph, Ecological Ambassador in Cameroon And a member of the GCV army, I am delighted to exchange with you. Regarding the meeting with the GCV army on Sunday, July 27, 2025.. Here is my concern: A few days ago, a correspondence indicated that Pi is not or is not yet a stable coin. Upon reading this information, we have provided many explanations to help the pioneers understand this. I hope you will focus more on this statement to further strengthen our understanding of the subject. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration" Thank you for the above questions; my answers are below. The first question concerns stablecoins. Many pioneers are hoping that Pi can be recognized by the U.S. government as a stablecoin. I wrote an article on this in May. On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act) into law. This legislation establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins and marks the first federal legislation on digital assets enacted since President Trump issued an executive order aimed at making the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.” U.S.-issued stablecoins are expected to become the primary means of dollar transactions globally, especially in emerging markets with unstable local currencies. The sponsors of the GENIUS Act estimate that by 2030, stablecoin issuers may collectively become the largest holders of U.S. Treasuries, surpassing foreign central banks. From this, we can see that U.S. stablecoins must maintain reserves backing outstanding payment stablecoins on a one-to-one basis, consisting only of specified assets, including U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury securities. It is clear that the Pi Network will not take this path, as it is not part of our plan. A stablecoin is essentially a digital representation of the U.S. dollar. All stablecoin issuers do not create a new currency; rather, it’s akin to purchasing chips at a casino – you must use U.S. dollars to buy those chips. However, Pi is a completely new currency. It does not need to be backed up by U.S. dollars or U.S. Treasuries to be used. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to establish an ecosystem or have a three-year enclosed mainnet. I previously mentioned the possibility of Pi being an algorithmic stablecoin since only algorithmic stablecoins do not need to be backed by U.S. dollars. However, algorithmic stablecoins have faced significant failures in the past. The collapse of the Terra (LUNA) cryptocurrency resulted in a loss of at least $40 billion in market capitalization, with estimates reaching as high as $60 billion. TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin, lost its peg to the U.S. dollar, contributing to its overall collapse. The new stablecoin legislation recently passed through the Senate effectively ties the U.S. Treasury to crypto, as it essentially bets the government’s cash flow on digital tokens and market speculation. This legislation requires stablecoins to be backed by short-term Treasury bills, generating an estimated $2–$3 trillion in new demand for government debt, which is nearly half the current size of the T-bill market. On paper, this looks beneficial, but in reality, it creates a circular feedback loop: crypto demand fuels stablecoins, stablecoins buy T-bills, and T-bills fund government deficits. The government becomes reliant on speculative capital flows. Thus, we should understand why the U.S. government will not support the Pi Network as a stablecoin, as they require stablecoin issuers to buy T-bills and can no longer trust algorithmic stablecoins. So, what is the future of the Pi Network as a currency? From my perspective, Pi is already listed on exchange markets. It cannot be classified as a security because it is mined freely and is not an ICO. Instead, it should be categorized as a commodity, similar to Bitcoin and ETH. When a currency is listed for trading on an exchange, its price is determined by the balance of supply and demand. However, Pi is a currency in its own right; it has inherent value from Pi holders -Pioneers. Historically, currency has served as a medium of exchange. A medium of exchange is a widely accepted item for buying goods and services in an economy. It facilitates transactions by eliminating the need for a barter system, where goods are directly exchanged for other goods. In modern economies, money (such as currency) serves as the primary medium of exchange. **Functions of Money:** One of the core functions of money is to serve as a medium of exchange, enabling the smooth transfer of value between buyers and sellers, thereby simplifying trade and economic activity. **Examples:** In modern economies, this typically includes currency (paper money, coins) or digital money. In specific historical contexts, other items, such as cigarettes in prisoner-of-war camps, have also served as mediums of exchange. **Importance of Acceptance:** For a medium of exchange to function effectively, it must be widely accepted and trusted within the relevant community. **Not the Same as a Payment Method:** While credit cards and checks are used for payments, they do not serve as mediums of exchange themselves. Therefore, stablecoin is not a new currency. It is more likely to have a credit card or check character. It is a USD digital status. From the analysis presented, we can draw the following conclusions: The current price of Pi on the exchange market primarily serves as a temporary measure to facilitate broad expansion. While this is not our primary objective, it constitutes a strategic approach towards achieving our mission. To gain a clearer perspective, we must adopt a higher-level view of the overall vision for the Pi Network. The mission and vision of Pi Network clearly articulate that it is not intended to function as a commodity for sale, nor is it meant to be an investment vehicle or a speculative security. Instead, it is crucial to recognize that Pi is designed to be a medium of exchange—a new form of currency. As pioneers in this venture, we have the unique opportunity to acquire Pi through free mining. However, it is important to note that the current mining rate is relatively slow. To overcome this limitation and to further our goal of mass adoption, it is essential for more individuals to join the Pi Network and participate in holding Pi. One efficient way to accelerate this process is by allowing Pi to be traded on the exchange market, which can result in rapid and widespread adoption. Since Pi can be mined for free, a lower price could make it more accessible to a larger number of people. It's important to focus on our primary goal during this pre-full Open Mainnet (OM) phase: mass adoption, rather than aiming for high prices, which many pioneers expected. Some pioneers want to sell when the price increases, but if too many sell, it could undermine our goal of achieving mass adoption. This scenario is reminiscent of historical instances when shells served as currency—readily accessible from the sea or buy from the village market. For shells to function effectively as currency, a collective effort was needed to hold and circulate them within the village. If only a select few individuals possess the shells, the currency lacks the necessary circulation to sustain an economy. Hence, our goal should not be centered on achieving a high price; instead, we should strive to make Pi more affordable so that a greater number of individuals can acquire and hold it, thereby fostering a thriving economic ecosystem. Of course, the rising price will build up merchants' confidence to accept it as payment. This is why we refer to it as a buyback campaign, which aims to achieve mass adoption and foster ecosystem confidence. As Pi evolves into a currency, the question of its value becomes pertinent. Given that it is a new currency, its value is not immediately clear. This presents an opportunity for us, the pioneers, to play a crucial role in defining it. The determination of Pi's value is not the responsibility of a central authority such as CT, the government, or the exchange. Instead, it will emerge from a decentralized consensus within the community, which collectively owns Pi. This concept is akin to ancient times when the value of shells was not determined by the sellers. Rather, the value was derived from the collective agreement of the village that utilized them as currency. I hope this elaboration clarifies the distinction between value and price, enabling a deeper understanding of the foundational principles that drive our mission with Pi Network. Pi represents a groundbreaking innovation—a revolution that is poised for long-term economic development on a global scale, rather than perpetuating cycles of plunder and exploitation. By harnessing the power of blockchain technology, Pi empowers ordinary individuals, which creates an inherent conflict of interest with the U.S. government in the short term. Should the U.S. government endorse the Pi Network, it raises questions about the viability of U.S. treasuries and who would ultimately purchase them. Consequently, the government may prioritize support for stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasury securities, as this can help alleviate the U.S. government's issues with limited demand. However, I previously mentioned the potential for Pi to emerge as an algorithmic stablecoin. At that time, the Genius Bill had not yet been enacted. If the Pi Network gains acceptance from the U.S. government, its growth could become rapid and expansive, leading to widespread adoption in other nations. This path would position Pi as a legitimate currency in nearly every country, contingent upon certain conditions. For instance, if the price of Pi in the exchange market can align with the GCV, this could be achieved through a buyback mechanism involving 10 million pioneers. Such a scenario would indicate that Pi differs significantly from past algorithmic stablecoin failures, presenting a compelling case for the U.S. government to view Pi as a low-risk asset. However, it presents a significant challenge to be collectively reached by pioneers, and there are other conditions that we cannot achieve in a short time. While it might appear that Pi Network conflicts with the U.S. dollar or stablecoins in the short term, it has the potential to address the broader issue of overprinting currency, which has plagued the U.S. and many other nations. This would benefit international trade by alleviating concerns about currency appreciation or depreciation in international transactions. The global economy indeed requires a super sovereign currency—one that ensures stability for future generations and fosters lasting peace and prosperity. To comprehend Pi as a currency, it is crucial to recognize that we must cultivate long-term value by generating GCV data. In the short term, our focus needs to be on establishing a robust exchange market and decentralized applications (DApps) to drive mass adoption. If this is understood, there should be no need to feel discouraged by the current low price of Pi. The true value of Pi as a currency derives not from the exchange market, trading platforms, or governmental endorsement, but rather from our community's collective efforts and engagement. You might wonder how a government could adopt Pi, given that it does not take the form of a stablecoin. I would counter with the example of Bitcoin, which has thrived even in environments where many countries have imposed bans. Currently, Pi is transitioning from its traditional commodity status to being recognized as a currency, meaning governmental awareness of Pi Network is still in development. As such, existing regulations generally pertain to older forms of cryptocurrency rather than our innovative approach. Our branding as a digital currency, rather than a cryptocurrency, is intentional. Dr. Nicolas has expressed concerns that many aspects of conventional cryptocurrencies pose challenges to government frameworks and public trust, often leading to economic harm rather than benefit. Our commitment to Know Your Customer (KYC) and Know Your Business (KYB) protocols distinguishes us by mitigating money laundering risks and protecting Pi holders from speculative practices. Many businesses face bankruptcy or closure because consumers lack the disposable income to engage in spending. Imagine how Pi could enable those businesses to survive and thrive—people could utilize Pi to make purchases and easily convert it into fiat currency to sustain operations, thereby preserving many jobs. The function in our wallet that allows users to "buy" Pi is not merely a feature; it represents a vision for the future where conversion to fiat currency can happen immediately, without dependency on third-party exchanges. Moving forward, we can establish a fixed rate (the GCV) for conversions. Once larger institutions and prominent companies recognize the low-risk profile of joining Pi Network due to its GCV stability, we can expect a considerable influx of participants seeking to gain a competitive advantage. You may ask how companies would finance the purchase of Pi at GCV rates. This is an insightful question. My perspective is that the demand for Pi’s stable value will inherently incentivize investments. Much like why individuals purchase stablecoins for their convenience in facilitating cross-border transactions, Pi will appeal to consumers and businesses alike, particularly because we are leveraging Web 3.0 blockchain technology, AI-driven platforms, and a rich ecosystem of decentralized applications (DApps). We are cultivating a loyal customer base that recognizes the value of this innovation. We understand that high-net-worth individuals seek safe investment opportunities. While U.S. treasury bonds currently represent a secure asset class, they are not without risk. Therefore, if Pi Network can maintain a limited supply coupled with blockchain technology and a consistent GCV, it is plausible that affluent investors would allocate a portion of their capital to acquire Pi. This would lead to fiat inflows whenever there is increased demand for Pi, establishing an equilibrium between Pi and fiat currencies. This interplay is why I believe DApps are critically significant. We need broader usage of Pi in real-world applications. I hope my analysis has helped clarify why the price of Pi should not overly concern us. Buying Pi to hold onto it allows pioneers to accumulate more, while building merchant confidence is essential to kickstart the ecosystem. Merchants will be motivated to see Pi’s price appreciation since this removes the risks for DApps and service providers who depend on exchange market prices. A rise in demand for Pi will subsequently reduce its supply, which is beneficial for price increases. I look forward to discussing Pi GCV army management in another session. Thank you for your time. Let’s continue striving for greatness together. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Disclaimer: This speech is intended solely for educational purposes within the GCV community. The views and content shared here represent my personal perspective and are part of the GCV movement, but do not reflect the official position of the Pi Core Team (PCT). Pi Network represents a new revolution, meaning there is no existing example for us to follow and no guiding manual. As Dr. Fan mentioned, we cannot predict what will happen around the next corner. Therefore, we must practice and forge our own path. As more people traverse this journey, the road will become clearer.
0:55

TOPIC #107: PI NETWORK IS A STABLE COIN? -WHO DECIDES PI FULLY OM FIXED VALUE? Dear GCV army, I hope you are all doing great! First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for all your hard work. Many of you have achieved significant milestones, and it’s evident that you are making a great difference. Our influence has grown significantly, with an increasing number of social media posts and YouTubers publicly supporting us. I can see that more and more people are beginning to understand why we advocate for GCV. Today's meeting aims to alleviate any doubts you may have, allowing you to relax and feel confident as we embark on our historic journey together. I will answer the questions I’ve received and address some important issues we need to focus on to maintain our community's efficiency, particularly regarding our Generals, which will be the topic next weekend. I put the questions I received here. "A question addressed to Ms. Doris Yin in the emergency meeting 1– In light of the rapidly changing global circumstances and the increasing discussion about stablecoins backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, how do you see the future role of the Pi Network in this context? And what practical steps should the GCV army take now to accelerate this path? 2_ There are those who promote the idea that the price of Pi is what appears in the market (currently around $0.49) and compare it to the price of GCV within the ecosystem (314,159 Pi = 1 good or service). They say if Pi’s price rises to $2, it means that the value within The ecosystem is approximately 2 million dollars. With sincere appreciation and discipline." This is from the Arab head of GCV Ambassador Mr. Mohammed. Another question: "Hello, my Global Ambassador, I am Ateba Joseph, Ecological Ambassador in Cameroon And a member of the GCV army, I am delighted to exchange with you. Regarding the meeting with the GCV army on Sunday, July 27, 2025.. Here is my concern: A few days ago, a correspondence indicated that Pi is not or is not yet a stable coin. Upon reading this information, we have provided many explanations to help the pioneers understand this. I hope you will focus more on this statement to further strengthen our understanding of the subject. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration" Thank you for the above questions; my answers are below. The first question concerns stablecoins. Many pioneers are hoping that Pi can be recognized by the U.S. government as a stablecoin. I wrote an article on this in May. On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act) into law. This legislation establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins and marks the first federal legislation on digital assets enacted since President Trump issued an executive order aimed at making the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.” U.S.-issued stablecoins are expected to become the primary means of dollar transactions globally, especially in emerging markets with unstable local currencies. The sponsors of the GENIUS Act estimate that by 2030, stablecoin issuers may collectively become the largest holders of U.S. Treasuries, surpassing foreign central banks. From this, we can see that U.S. stablecoins must maintain reserves backing outstanding payment stablecoins on a one-to-one basis, consisting only of specified assets, including U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury securities. It is clear that the Pi Network will not take this path, as it is not part of our plan. A stablecoin is essentially a digital representation of the U.S. dollar. All stablecoin issuers do not create a new currency; rather, it’s akin to purchasing chips at a casino – you must use U.S. dollars to buy those chips. However, Pi is a completely new currency. It does not need to be backed up by U.S. dollars or U.S. Treasuries to be used. If that were the case, we wouldn’t need to establish an ecosystem or have a three-year enclosed mainnet. I previously mentioned the possibility of Pi being an algorithmic stablecoin since only algorithmic stablecoins do not need to be backed by U.S. dollars. However, algorithmic stablecoins have faced significant failures in the past. The collapse of the Terra (LUNA) cryptocurrency resulted in a loss of at least $40 billion in market capitalization, with estimates reaching as high as $60 billion. TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin, lost its peg to the U.S. dollar, contributing to its overall collapse. The new stablecoin legislation recently passed through the Senate effectively ties the U.S. Treasury to crypto, as it essentially bets the government’s cash flow on digital tokens and market speculation. This legislation requires stablecoins to be backed by short-term Treasury bills, generating an estimated $2–$3 trillion in new demand for government debt, which is nearly half the current size of the T-bill market. On paper, this looks beneficial, but in reality, it creates a circular feedback loop: crypto demand fuels stablecoins, stablecoins buy T-bills, and T-bills fund government deficits. The government becomes reliant on speculative capital flows. Thus, we should understand why the U.S. government will not support the Pi Network as a stablecoin, as they require stablecoin issuers to buy T-bills and can no longer trust algorithmic stablecoins. So, what is the future of the Pi Network as a currency? From my perspective, Pi is already listed on exchange markets. It cannot be classified as a security because it is mined freely and is not an ICO. Instead, it should be categorized as a commodity, similar to Bitcoin and ETH. When a currency is listed for trading on an exchange, its price is determined by the balance of supply and demand. However, Pi is a currency in its own right; it has inherent value from Pi holders -Pioneers. Historically, currency has served as a medium of exchange. A medium of exchange is a widely accepted item for buying goods and services in an economy. It facilitates transactions by eliminating the need for a barter system, where goods are directly exchanged for other goods. In modern economies, money (such as currency) serves as the primary medium of exchange. **Functions of Money:** One of the core functions of money is to serve as a medium of exchange, enabling the smooth transfer of value between buyers and sellers, thereby simplifying trade and economic activity. **Examples:** In modern economies, this typically includes currency (paper money, coins) or digital money. In specific historical contexts, other items, such as cigarettes in prisoner-of-war camps, have also served as mediums of exchange. **Importance of Acceptance:** For a medium of exchange to function effectively, it must be widely accepted and trusted within the relevant community. **Not the Same as a Payment Method:** While credit cards and checks are used for payments, they do not serve as mediums of exchange themselves. Therefore, stablecoin is not a new currency. It is more likely to have a credit card or check character. It is a USD digital status. From the analysis presented, we can draw the following conclusions: The current price of Pi on the exchange market primarily serves as a temporary measure to facilitate broad expansion. While this is not our primary objective, it constitutes a strategic approach towards achieving our mission. To gain a clearer perspective, we must adopt a higher-level view of the overall vision for the Pi Network. The mission and vision of Pi Network clearly articulate that it is not intended to function as a commodity for sale, nor is it meant to be an investment vehicle or a speculative security. Instead, it is crucial to recognize that Pi is designed to be a medium of exchange—a new form of currency. As pioneers in this venture, we have the unique opportunity to acquire Pi through free mining. However, it is important to note that the current mining rate is relatively slow. To overcome this limitation and to further our goal of mass adoption, it is essential for more individuals to join the Pi Network and participate in holding Pi. One efficient way to accelerate this process is by allowing Pi to be traded on the exchange market, which can result in rapid and widespread adoption. Since Pi can be mined for free, a lower price could make it more accessible to a larger number of people. It's important to focus on our primary goal during this pre-full Open Mainnet (OM) phase: mass adoption, rather than aiming for high prices, which many pioneers expected. Some pioneers want to sell when the price increases, but if too many sell, it could undermine our goal of achieving mass adoption. This scenario is reminiscent of historical instances when shells served as currency—readily accessible from the sea or buy from the village market. For shells to function effectively as currency, a collective effort was needed to hold and circulate them within the village. If only a select few individuals possess the shells, the currency lacks the necessary circulation to sustain an economy. Hence, our goal should not be centered on achieving a high price; instead, we should strive to make Pi more affordable so that a greater number of individuals can acquire and hold it, thereby fostering a thriving economic ecosystem. Of course, the rising price will build up merchants' confidence to accept it as payment. This is why we refer to it as a buyback campaign, which aims to achieve mass adoption and foster ecosystem confidence. As Pi evolves into a currency, the question of its value becomes pertinent. Given that it is a new currency, its value is not immediately clear. This presents an opportunity for us, the pioneers, to play a crucial role in defining it. The determination of Pi's value is not the responsibility of a central authority such as CT, the government, or the exchange. Instead, it will emerge from a decentralized consensus within the community, which collectively owns Pi. This concept is akin to ancient times when the value of shells was not determined by the sellers. Rather, the value was derived from the collective agreement of the village that utilized them as currency. I hope this elaboration clarifies the distinction between value and price, enabling a deeper understanding of the foundational principles that drive our mission with Pi Network. Pi represents a groundbreaking innovation—a revolution that is poised for long-term economic development on a global scale, rather than perpetuating cycles of plunder and exploitation. By harnessing the power of blockchain technology, Pi empowers ordinary individuals, which creates an inherent conflict of interest with the U.S. government in the short term. Should the U.S. government endorse the Pi Network, it raises questions about the viability of U.S. treasuries and who would ultimately purchase them. Consequently, the government may prioritize support for stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasury securities, as this can help alleviate the U.S. government's issues with limited demand. However, I previously mentioned the potential for Pi to emerge as an algorithmic stablecoin. At that time, the Genius Bill had not yet been enacted. If the Pi Network gains acceptance from the U.S. government, its growth could become rapid and expansive, leading to widespread adoption in other nations. This path would position Pi as a legitimate currency in nearly every country, contingent upon certain conditions. For instance, if the price of Pi in the exchange market can align with the GCV, this could be achieved through a buyback mechanism involving 10 million pioneers. Such a scenario would indicate that Pi differs significantly from past algorithmic stablecoin failures, presenting a compelling case for the U.S. government to view Pi as a low-risk asset. However, it presents a significant challenge to be collectively reached by pioneers, and there are other conditions that we cannot achieve in a short time. While it might appear that Pi Network conflicts with the U.S. dollar or stablecoins in the short term, it has the potential to address the broader issue of overprinting currency, which has plagued the U.S. and many other nations. This would benefit international trade by alleviating concerns about currency appreciation or depreciation in international transactions. The global economy indeed requires a super sovereign currency—one that ensures stability for future generations and fosters lasting peace and prosperity. To comprehend Pi as a currency, it is crucial to recognize that we must cultivate long-term value by generating GCV data. In the short term, our focus needs to be on establishing a robust exchange market and decentralized applications (DApps) to drive mass adoption. If this is understood, there should be no need to feel discouraged by the current low price of Pi. The true value of Pi as a currency derives not from the exchange market, trading platforms, or governmental endorsement, but rather from our community's collective efforts and engagement. You might wonder how a government could adopt Pi, given that it does not take the form of a stablecoin. I would counter with the example of Bitcoin, which has thrived even in environments where many countries have imposed bans. Currently, Pi is transitioning from its traditional commodity status to being recognized as a currency, meaning governmental awareness of Pi Network is still in development. As such, existing regulations generally pertain to older forms of cryptocurrency rather than our innovative approach. Our branding as a digital currency, rather than a cryptocurrency, is intentional. Dr. Nicolas has expressed concerns that many aspects of conventional cryptocurrencies pose challenges to government frameworks and public trust, often leading to economic harm rather than benefit. Our commitment to Know Your Customer (KYC) and Know Your Business (KYB) protocols distinguishes us by mitigating money laundering risks and protecting Pi holders from speculative practices. Many businesses face bankruptcy or closure because consumers lack the disposable income to engage in spending. Imagine how Pi could enable those businesses to survive and thrive—people could utilize Pi to make purchases and easily convert it into fiat currency to sustain operations, thereby preserving many jobs. The function in our wallet that allows users to "buy" Pi is not merely a feature; it represents a vision for the future where conversion to fiat currency can happen immediately, without dependency on third-party exchanges. Moving forward, we can establish a fixed rate (the GCV) for conversions. Once larger institutions and prominent companies recognize the low-risk profile of joining Pi Network due to its GCV stability, we can expect a considerable influx of participants seeking to gain a competitive advantage. You may ask how companies would finance the purchase of Pi at GCV rates. This is an insightful question. My perspective is that the demand for Pi’s stable value will inherently incentivize investments. Much like why individuals purchase stablecoins for their convenience in facilitating cross-border transactions, Pi will appeal to consumers and businesses alike, particularly because we are leveraging Web 3.0 blockchain technology, AI-driven platforms, and a rich ecosystem of decentralized applications (DApps). We are cultivating a loyal customer base that recognizes the value of this innovation. We understand that high-net-worth individuals seek safe investment opportunities. While U.S. treasury bonds currently represent a secure asset class, they are not without risk. Therefore, if Pi Network can maintain a limited supply coupled with blockchain technology and a consistent GCV, it is plausible that affluent investors would allocate a portion of their capital to acquire Pi. This would lead to fiat inflows whenever there is increased demand for Pi, establishing an equilibrium between Pi and fiat currencies. This interplay is why I believe DApps are critically significant. We need broader usage of Pi in real-world applications. I hope my analysis has helped clarify why the price of Pi should not overly concern us. Buying Pi to hold onto it allows pioneers to accumulate more, while building merchant confidence is essential to kickstart the ecosystem. Merchants will be motivated to see Pi’s price appreciation since this removes the risks for DApps and service providers who depend on exchange market prices. A rise in demand for Pi will subsequently reduce its supply, which is beneficial for price increases. I look forward to discussing Pi GCV army management in another session. Thank you for your time. Let’s continue striving for greatness together. Doris Yin 🪷🪷🪷 Founder, Global GCV Movement Disclaimer: This speech is intended solely for educational purposes within the GCV community. The views and content shared here represent my personal perspective and are part of the GCV movement, but do not reflect the official position of the Pi Core Team (PCT). Pi Network represents a new revolution, meaning there is no existing example for us to follow and no guiding manual. As Dr. Fan mentioned, we cannot predict what will happen around the next corner. Therefore, we must practice and forge our own path. As more people traverse this journey, the road will become clearer.

Doris Yin 东方紫莲🪷

17,742 просмотров • 1 год назад

#WATCH | Washington, DC | Former US Ambassador to India, Kenneth Juster, says, "On Pakistan's successful courting of the Trump administration, which now extends to being an intermediary in the US-Iran talks. Obviously, on multiple levels and for many reasons, this is an irritant to India and a surprise to many of us... Pakistan's warm relations with the United States may cause India to limit its response to the next significant cross-border terrorist incident. At the very least, unlike other previous incidents, and I was an ambassador when we had the Pulwama and Balakot incident, India may have doubts as to whether the United States will support a muscular response to Pakistani-based terrorist groups. Of course, as someone involved in U.S.-India relations in both the public and private sectors over the last 26 years, I hope that we get our bilateral relationship fully back on track, with each side taking the necessary steps to truly make a mutually beneficial partnership. Given India's large population, its market size, its technological talent, and its growing military, its rise will be one of the most significant geopolitical stories of this century. In my view, it's in the interests of both the United States and India for America to be a positive part of that story." (Hudson Institute/YouTube)
1:40

#WATCH | Washington, DC | Former US Ambassador to India, Kenneth Juster, says, "On Pakistan's successful courting of the Trump administration, which now extends to being an intermediary in the US-Iran talks. Obviously, on multiple levels and for many reasons, this is an irritant to India and a surprise to many of us... Pakistan's warm relations with the United States may cause India to limit its response to the next significant cross-border terrorist incident. At the very least, unlike other previous incidents, and I was an ambassador when we had the Pulwama and Balakot incident, India may have doubts as to whether the United States will support a muscular response to Pakistani-based terrorist groups. Of course, as someone involved in U.S.-India relations in both the public and private sectors over the last 26 years, I hope that we get our bilateral relationship fully back on track, with each side taking the necessary steps to truly make a mutually beneficial partnership. Given India's large population, its market size, its technological talent, and its growing military, its rise will be one of the most significant geopolitical stories of this century. In my view, it's in the interests of both the United States and India for America to be a positive part of that story." (Hudson Institute/YouTube)

ANI

399,973 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Breaking News—USCIS has announced that, from now on, an alien (or foreigner) who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a green card for permanent residency must return to their home country to apply for it, except in "extraordinary circumstances." USCIS went on to say that nonimmigrants—like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas—come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. And our system is designed for them to LEAVE when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the green card process. USCIS further noted that requiring aliens to apply for adjustment of status from their home country "reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency." My take on this? The Trump administration is trying to mitigate the disastrous effects of Democrat open-border policies that deliberately facilitated massive abuse of our immigration system and flooded the United States with millions of illegal aliens. But what about "dual intent" visas like the L-1 or H-1B, where it's OK if you intend to apply for a green card later? Are those affected by this new policy? Well, in its new memo, USCIS clearly states that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent category " is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion." That's a big change, in my view. Of course, it remains to be seen how this new "extraordinary circumstances" rule will be interpreted and administered in different types of adjustment of status cases, and there will be litigation about this, but in light of how many millions of illegal aliens we have living in the shadows already, I think it's a wise move. I'm Joseph Bovino, America-first immigration and business attorney based in Florida and serving clients worldwide. Let me know what you think in the comments below. And follow for more.
1:53

Breaking News—USCIS has announced that, from now on, an alien (or foreigner) who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a green card for permanent residency must return to their home country to apply for it, except in "extraordinary circumstances." USCIS went on to say that nonimmigrants—like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas—come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. And our system is designed for them to LEAVE when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the green card process. USCIS further noted that requiring aliens to apply for adjustment of status from their home country "reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency." My take on this? The Trump administration is trying to mitigate the disastrous effects of Democrat open-border policies that deliberately facilitated massive abuse of our immigration system and flooded the United States with millions of illegal aliens. But what about "dual intent" visas like the L-1 or H-1B, where it's OK if you intend to apply for a green card later? Are those affected by this new policy? Well, in its new memo, USCIS clearly states that maintaining lawful status in a dual-intent category " is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion." That's a big change, in my view. Of course, it remains to be seen how this new "extraordinary circumstances" rule will be interpreted and administered in different types of adjustment of status cases, and there will be litigation about this, but in light of how many millions of illegal aliens we have living in the shadows already, I think it's a wise move. I'm Joseph Bovino, America-first immigration and business attorney based in Florida and serving clients worldwide. Let me know what you think in the comments below. And follow for more.

Joseph Bovino, Esq.

43,203 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This is perhaps the most important and powerful case against AUKUS that I've heard, especially because it comes from one of Australia's preeminent strategic thinkers: Hugh White, inaugural Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and former Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence in the Australian Department of Defence. Here's what he says: - White argues that the era of Anglo-Saxon (British and American) dominance in the Western Pacific is ending. He states: "We are facing one of the, perhaps the biggest transformation in our shared international setting since European settlement." This transformation is driven by China's rise as an economic and military power comparable to the United States. - As a result he argues that there's no alternative to treating China as an equal partner: "Nobody really knows what America's aim in Asia is. But one thing's for sure, nobody in Washington thinks they should treat China as an equal partner. And my basic argument to my many friends in Washington is that if they don't treat China as an equal partner, then they're going to be taking on a rivalry with China that I don't think they can win." - He emphasizes this point repeatedly, arguing that given China's economic and military power, especially in the Western Pacific, the U.S. cannot maintain its previous position of uncontested primacy: "I don't see how, in an era where China's economy is as big as America's, in an era where its military power in the West Pacific is really quite comparable to America's, in an era where China is increasingly potent as a nuclear armed power, the US and China can find a way to get on in which the United States doesn't, at the very least, treat China as an equal partner." - White sees AUKUS as problematic because it aligns Australia (and potentially New Zealand) with a U.S. strategy that refuses to acknowledge this new reality. He argues that by supporting AUKUS, these countries are effectively endorsing a primacy approach that is "not a smart way to go" and risks destroying both their prosperity and their security, because they'll "only be prosperous and secure if the United States and China can find a way to get on." - On the economic benefits arguably brought by AUKUS: "The idea that you buy those economic benefits at the price of committing yourself to support an approach to this really fundamental question about the shape of our future order in Asia, which I don't think is going to work, that would be a very high price to pay for a very doubtful benefit."
7:53

This is perhaps the most important and powerful case against AUKUS that I've heard, especially because it comes from one of Australia's preeminent strategic thinkers: Hugh White, inaugural Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and former Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence in the Australian Department of Defence. Here's what he says: - White argues that the era of Anglo-Saxon (British and American) dominance in the Western Pacific is ending. He states: "We are facing one of the, perhaps the biggest transformation in our shared international setting since European settlement." This transformation is driven by China's rise as an economic and military power comparable to the United States. - As a result he argues that there's no alternative to treating China as an equal partner: "Nobody really knows what America's aim in Asia is. But one thing's for sure, nobody in Washington thinks they should treat China as an equal partner. And my basic argument to my many friends in Washington is that if they don't treat China as an equal partner, then they're going to be taking on a rivalry with China that I don't think they can win." - He emphasizes this point repeatedly, arguing that given China's economic and military power, especially in the Western Pacific, the U.S. cannot maintain its previous position of uncontested primacy: "I don't see how, in an era where China's economy is as big as America's, in an era where its military power in the West Pacific is really quite comparable to America's, in an era where China is increasingly potent as a nuclear armed power, the US and China can find a way to get on in which the United States doesn't, at the very least, treat China as an equal partner." - White sees AUKUS as problematic because it aligns Australia (and potentially New Zealand) with a U.S. strategy that refuses to acknowledge this new reality. He argues that by supporting AUKUS, these countries are effectively endorsing a primacy approach that is "not a smart way to go" and risks destroying both their prosperity and their security, because they'll "only be prosperous and secure if the United States and China can find a way to get on." - On the economic benefits arguably brought by AUKUS: "The idea that you buy those economic benefits at the price of committing yourself to support an approach to this really fundamental question about the shape of our future order in Asia, which I don't think is going to work, that would be a very high price to pay for a very doubtful benefit."

Arnaud Bertrand

395,098 просмотров • 2 лет назад

My friends and I confronted anti-China hawk and Richie Torres advisor Matt Pottinger at an Asia Society event. While Pottinger proposes dismantling China-U.S. relations and separating Taiwan from China (which will end up in WW3), I proposed instead that the U.S. and China are not enemies and should join hands in the Belt and Road Initiative to promote peace and economic development. For this, I was thrown to the ground and choked by security. It's no wonder Ritchie Torres is such an idiot when he's surrounded by Neo-con spooks who get paid to lie. For some background on who Pottinger is: Matt Pottinger has been a significant voice in the concerted effort to derail relations between the United States and China for the past 20 years. He began his career as a journalist in the late 1990s reporting for the Wall Street Journal on Chinese affairs. He then joined the U.S. Marine Corps, fighting three separate deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2007 and 2010. Eventually, he would serve the White House for four years on the National Security Council Staff, including as deputy national security adviser to President Trump from 2019 to 2021, leading the administration’s work as the Senior Director for Asia. In 2017, Pottinger had led a special delegation from the U.S. to the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing, where President Xi Jinping had proposed building a world of prosperity through the construction of massive infrastructure projects, defeating poverty, and mutual technological advancement. The Belt and Road Initiative has been integrated with the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN, and represents a new platform for economic development among the nations of the Global South in an emerging multipolar world which prioritizes mutual benefit and cooperation. Instead of proposing that the U.S. take the opportunity to join the Belt and Road, which President Xi has made clear is open to the West to join, Pottinger has been a consistent provocateur in rapturing U.S.-China relations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published on March 26, 2021, “Beijing Targets American Business,” Pottinger says that American businessmen must realize that the “ideological dimension of the competition” between China and the United States “is inescapable, even central.” Protecting U.S. hegemony and preventing China’s economic growth, “will require America and its allies to consider in every policy we adopt, every bill we introduce, and every partnership that government and industry undertake, whether it increases our collective leverage in this competition or surrenders leverage to a hostile dictatorship in Beijing.” It’s no wonder that Rep. Ritchie Torres is advised on China policy by Pottinger himself. Torres is a member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, which Pottinger has briefed and advised on policy. Both Torres and Pottinger believe in “the end of history” as author Francis Fukuyama famously declared at the end of the Cold War. This meant, that the U.S. and its Transatlantic partners would dominate the world and create a unipolar world, in which any potential power that would rise and present an alternative to the “rules-based order” would need to be stopped at all costs. Out of this theory that has guided U.S. policy since the first Bush administration, we have produced endless interventionist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Ukraine. Of course, Pottinger has expressed his willingness to extend that our adventurist military policy to Taiwan, to provoke a global war with China. Such a policy is not in the American people’s interest. The U.S. economy is now decimated from 50+ years of deindustrialization and idiotic “Green” policy that has eaten up our once productive industries. China has taken the opposite path and is proposing to extend their prosperity to other nations in Africa, South America, and Asia. Instead of creating more wars to defend our hopeless imperial endeavors, we should return to our forgotten anti-colonial roots, and create a new security and development architecture with China and other willing partners.
2:36

My friends and I confronted anti-China hawk and Richie Torres advisor Matt Pottinger at an Asia Society event. While Pottinger proposes dismantling China-U.S. relations and separating Taiwan from China (which will end up in WW3), I proposed instead that the U.S. and China are not enemies and should join hands in the Belt and Road Initiative to promote peace and economic development. For this, I was thrown to the ground and choked by security. It's no wonder Ritchie Torres is such an idiot when he's surrounded by Neo-con spooks who get paid to lie. For some background on who Pottinger is: Matt Pottinger has been a significant voice in the concerted effort to derail relations between the United States and China for the past 20 years. He began his career as a journalist in the late 1990s reporting for the Wall Street Journal on Chinese affairs. He then joined the U.S. Marine Corps, fighting three separate deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2007 and 2010. Eventually, he would serve the White House for four years on the National Security Council Staff, including as deputy national security adviser to President Trump from 2019 to 2021, leading the administration’s work as the Senior Director for Asia. In 2017, Pottinger had led a special delegation from the U.S. to the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing, where President Xi Jinping had proposed building a world of prosperity through the construction of massive infrastructure projects, defeating poverty, and mutual technological advancement. The Belt and Road Initiative has been integrated with the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN, and represents a new platform for economic development among the nations of the Global South in an emerging multipolar world which prioritizes mutual benefit and cooperation. Instead of proposing that the U.S. take the opportunity to join the Belt and Road, which President Xi has made clear is open to the West to join, Pottinger has been a consistent provocateur in rapturing U.S.-China relations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published on March 26, 2021, “Beijing Targets American Business,” Pottinger says that American businessmen must realize that the “ideological dimension of the competition” between China and the United States “is inescapable, even central.” Protecting U.S. hegemony and preventing China’s economic growth, “will require America and its allies to consider in every policy we adopt, every bill we introduce, and every partnership that government and industry undertake, whether it increases our collective leverage in this competition or surrenders leverage to a hostile dictatorship in Beijing.” It’s no wonder that Rep. Ritchie Torres is advised on China policy by Pottinger himself. Torres is a member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, which Pottinger has briefed and advised on policy. Both Torres and Pottinger believe in “the end of history” as author Francis Fukuyama famously declared at the end of the Cold War. This meant, that the U.S. and its Transatlantic partners would dominate the world and create a unipolar world, in which any potential power that would rise and present an alternative to the “rules-based order” would need to be stopped at all costs. Out of this theory that has guided U.S. policy since the first Bush administration, we have produced endless interventionist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Ukraine. Of course, Pottinger has expressed his willingness to extend that our adventurist military policy to Taiwan, to provoke a global war with China. Such a policy is not in the American people’s interest. The U.S. economy is now decimated from 50+ years of deindustrialization and idiotic “Green” policy that has eaten up our once productive industries. China has taken the opposite path and is proposing to extend their prosperity to other nations in Africa, South America, and Asia. Instead of creating more wars to defend our hopeless imperial endeavors, we should return to our forgotten anti-colonial roots, and create a new security and development architecture with China and other willing partners.

Jose Vega — Vote Vega!

184,797 просмотров • 2 лет назад

“Trump’s team wants to scrap it [Putin’s war against Ukraine ] from the agenda.” Lavrov. Lavrov is confirming what many have long feared: that the Trump presidency would serve Russian interests. “This is an artificial war, launched by Joe Biden and his team, that does not reflect the philosophy of the incumbent US administration. I believe this is exactly why Donald Trump’s team wants to scrap it from the agenda so as to eliminate obstacles for normal economic, technological and other relations. This will not be easy because the United States has a peculiar approach towards addressing and resolving economic issues.” Lavrov said. "This is an artificial war, launched by Joe Biden and his team..." This statement is a complete inversion of reality. A blatant and self-serving lie, repeated daily by Trump. Russia feels it can openly lie about the origins of the war because the U.S. President is not a reliable bulwark against Russian disinformation. Putin’s war is not "artificial" or a creation of the Biden administration. It is a full-scale, unprovoked invasion, killing thousands of Ukranians. Russia's actions are driven by its own imperial ambitions and its long-standing desire to subjugate Ukraine and undermine its sovereignty. Lavrov is essentially saying "the war is artificial because we want it to be over on our terms, and now we have a fool who agrees.” The war is a reflection of putin’s “philosophy”, not Biden's. This is the most revealing and chilling part of the statement. Lavrov is essentially giving a back-handed compliment to Trump, confirming that the "philosophy" of the current U.S. administration is to abandon Ukraine. Lavrov is celebrating the fact that the U.S. is no longer committed to the principles of a sovereign, independent Ukraine and is instead more aligned with Russia's view on Ukraine and Europe. Trump's "philosophy" is not about peace, but about appeasement and capitulation, driven by a personal disdain for previous U.S. policy and a fascination with authoritarian strongmen like putin, Xi and Kim Jong Un. "I believe this is exactly why Donald Trump’s team wants to scrap it from the agenda..." This is a direct admission of collusion. Lavrov openly stating that Russia and the U.S. are working together to end the war, but on Russia’s terms. "Scrapping it from the agenda" is a euphemism for forcing Ukraine to surrender territory, a position that would be an outrageous betrayal by Trump. Trump is not seeking a just peace, but rather a quick resolution that allows Russia to claim victory. It confirms that the primary obstacle to Russia's goals has been removed, and the path to a Russian-dictated peace is now open. It is not just propaganda; it is an open admission of a new strategic reality. It confirms that Russia has successfully exploited U.S. political divisions to find a partner in the White House, and that it now feels confident enough to publicly celebrate the unraveling of the West's collective front against Russian aggression.
0:31

“Trump’s team wants to scrap it [Putin’s war against Ukraine ] from the agenda.” Lavrov. Lavrov is confirming what many have long feared: that the Trump presidency would serve Russian interests. “This is an artificial war, launched by Joe Biden and his team, that does not reflect the philosophy of the incumbent US administration. I believe this is exactly why Donald Trump’s team wants to scrap it from the agenda so as to eliminate obstacles for normal economic, technological and other relations. This will not be easy because the United States has a peculiar approach towards addressing and resolving economic issues.” Lavrov said. "This is an artificial war, launched by Joe Biden and his team..." This statement is a complete inversion of reality. A blatant and self-serving lie, repeated daily by Trump. Russia feels it can openly lie about the origins of the war because the U.S. President is not a reliable bulwark against Russian disinformation. Putin’s war is not "artificial" or a creation of the Biden administration. It is a full-scale, unprovoked invasion, killing thousands of Ukranians. Russia's actions are driven by its own imperial ambitions and its long-standing desire to subjugate Ukraine and undermine its sovereignty. Lavrov is essentially saying "the war is artificial because we want it to be over on our terms, and now we have a fool who agrees.” The war is a reflection of putin’s “philosophy”, not Biden's. This is the most revealing and chilling part of the statement. Lavrov is essentially giving a back-handed compliment to Trump, confirming that the "philosophy" of the current U.S. administration is to abandon Ukraine. Lavrov is celebrating the fact that the U.S. is no longer committed to the principles of a sovereign, independent Ukraine and is instead more aligned with Russia's view on Ukraine and Europe. Trump's "philosophy" is not about peace, but about appeasement and capitulation, driven by a personal disdain for previous U.S. policy and a fascination with authoritarian strongmen like putin, Xi and Kim Jong Un. "I believe this is exactly why Donald Trump’s team wants to scrap it from the agenda..." This is a direct admission of collusion. Lavrov openly stating that Russia and the U.S. are working together to end the war, but on Russia’s terms. "Scrapping it from the agenda" is a euphemism for forcing Ukraine to surrender territory, a position that would be an outrageous betrayal by Trump. Trump is not seeking a just peace, but rather a quick resolution that allows Russia to claim victory. It confirms that the primary obstacle to Russia's goals has been removed, and the path to a Russian-dictated peace is now open. It is not just propaganda; it is an open admission of a new strategic reality. It confirms that Russia has successfully exploited U.S. political divisions to find a partner in the White House, and that it now feels confident enough to publicly celebrate the unraveling of the West's collective front against Russian aggression.

Yasmina

228,695 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад