GET ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

€225/250$ FOR 10 ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE or PURCHASE

MAGA or maga?

Symbols are designed to concisely put across grand, political, religious or social meaning and to rally people around the cause that the symbols represent. Yet, symbols – which is the nature of symbols – sooner or later diverge from reality, and so when what they were supposed to imply changes, so does the meaning of the symbol. Think about the hammer and sickle, the worldwide recognizable symbol of communism. Few people know that initially the symbol pointed to the revolutionary union between the German industrial working class (hammer) and the Russian agricultural peasantry (sickle). The Bolsheviks had hoped at that time that the Russian revolution would be supported by its German counterpart, and together the two nations – Germans and Russians – would spark a worldwide revolution. As we know, the German revolution was nipped in the bud, and so Russia remained alone on the political stage as a socialist country. What was to be done? The hammer-and-sickle symbol needed to be reinterpreted and so it was: the hammer began to imply the Russian working class, while the sickle – the Russian peasantry.

The promises of communism were slow to materialize. Party bosses would have regularly announced that communism was close by, but somehow this communist bright future obstinately refused to arrive. Soviet people began joking about it. One of the jokes ran like this. A factory party committee holds a rally with a group of factory workers. The first secretary of the local party organization says solemnly, We will achieve communism in five years. Hearing that, somebody from the audience asks him, Will we achieve it as well?

The hammer-and-sickle symbol was immortalized by sculptor Vera Mukhina in a 1937 statue known as the Soviet Worker and the Collective Farm Woman, which later became the readily recognizable logo of the Mosfilm film studio. From the world revolution to the revolution in one state alone, to the symbol of a film studio…

That’s, however, not the end of the story of the hammer-and-sickle symbol. Since the ideals of communism – as said above – refused to materialize, since economic and social reality loomed worse and worse, the Soviet people composed a quatrain, which ran something like this:

Grab the sickle, grab the hammer, / Слева – молот, справа – серп,

grab the Soviet emblem’s glamour: / Это наш советский герб:

whether you will mow or hit, / Хочешь жни, а хочешь куй,

the reward for work is shit. / все равно получишь хуй.

Such was the epic failure of the communist dream as felt by and expressed by the common people.

Though President Donald Trump did not come up with a visual symbol – a counterpart of the hammer-and-sickle sign or something akin to the Soviet Worker and the Collective Farm Woman statue – he came up with the MAGA political slogan, which translates into Make America Great Again. No, it is not a promise of communism, but it is, nonetheless, a promise, a promise of something great, grand, fascinating, attractive. This MAGA slogan included in itself a call to stop the forever wars. America was to rebuild itself and rebuild its international standing, while wars were to be a thing of the past.

President Donald Trump has barely finished his first year of the second term and he has already managed to abduct Venezuela’s president and attack Iran – twice. But the military operation designated Epic Fury has apparently misfired. It has misfired so badly that commentators have coined a new designation for it: Epic Failure. Iran is fighting back, Iran is biting back, while Americans willy-nilly are seeking the ways to back out of the conflict. MAGA has reinterpreted itself as maga, a Latin word for witch. The American president seems to act as a magus – a magician – who promises the moon while MAGA or maga appears to be (or, rather, to have been) the Pied Piper/Rat Catcher of Hamelin, whose task it was to seduce as many Trump’s followers as possible. While the maga and magus succeeded to a larger extent at first, they are now on the losing end. The end of the war against Iran is nowhere in sight, American top leaders – the president himself, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defence/War Pete Hegseth – are losing sleep over it, while Donald Trump’s political basis is shrinking with his voters being increasingly disappointed about him.

President Donald Trump’s narcissism is too strong to give in to criticism or sheer common sense. He thinks himself king of the kings, a ruler of the globe if not of the Solar System. He strikes poses like Benito Mussolini, and is in constant demand for narcissistic supply. Here, too, one can have associations with the Soviet Union, or with Joseph Stalin, to be precise. Donald Trump – just as Joseph Stalin – has never enough of praise and admiration. Donald Trump – just as Joseph Stalin – is ready to blatantly warp reality if that serves his purpose of elevating himself in the eyes of the people. Just as Joseph Stalin could not stop from falsifying history, so can’t Donald Trump. The closing scene in the 1950 feature movie The Fall of Berlin (Падение Берлина) shows – contrary to historical fact – Stalin’s visit to Berlin by plane and his elevation by the thousands of people of various nationalities as the saviour of the planet. President Donald Trump has precisely the same cast of mind: he desperately needs praise and he desperately needs to be looked up to not only by his followers but by the whole world. Hence his contrary-to-fact statements about winning wars and bringing peace to different corners of the world, hence his pontificating about policymaking, international justice and what not. He is a magus or wizard (or astrologer) who keeps deceiving people (along the Orwellian lines that war is peace, while peace is war) because he desperately needs narcissistic supply. Donald Trump – Benito Mussolini – Joseph Stalin… You know the man by the company he keeps, don’t you?

Brussels is shaping the political landscape in Europe against the will of its citizens

So much has happened in the world over the past few months that many of us have probably already forgotten what took place in Romania at the end of 2024: the first round of the presidential election was annulled after the right-wing candidate, Kalin Georgescu, surprisingly won. The official reason given was alleged Russian interference via the TikTok platform. The election was repeated in May 2025 and the candidate favoured by the EU establishment won.

Meanwhile, the preliminary report by the Republicans in the US House of Representatives demonstrates the matter in a completely different light. The document is based on internal emails and posts on platforms such as TikTok, Meta and Google. According to the Republicans’ findings, the European Commission is believed to have demanded the removal of content criticising the Romanian government and promoting Georgescu, including all material featuring his image. Furthermore, TikTok informed the EU that no evidence of coordinated Russian interference had been found. It seems more likely that it was Brussels that promoted a left-wing candidate in order to reduce the chances of victory for their main rival in the repeat elections, George Simion. The European Commission naturally considers these allegations to be unfounded and absurd. It comes as no surprise that any defendant who finds himself cornered will defend himself vigorously.

The aforementioned report by the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee indicates that the European Union has interfered in elections in at least eight Member States. Political content that was incompatible with the left-wing narrative was even censored immediately before the elections. The target was any content associated with conservatism or criticising EU policy. Let us mention just the most significant violations:

[1] Slovakia: Shortly before the 2023 parliamentary elections, the EU forced social media platforms to change their moderation policies and remove certain content. Statements such as “There are only two genders” are now to be classified as hate speech.

[2] Netherlands: Ahead of the 2023 elections and during the 2025 election campaign, the EU collaborated with the Dutch regulatory authority (ACM) and European left-wing non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These NGOs were designated as “trusted flagging organisations”. As soon as such an organisation reports a post as harmful, the administrators of platforms such as Facebook must respond immediately.

[3] Ireland: The report shows how the local regulatory authority (Coimisiún on Meán) used binding ‘risk assessment’ reports ahead of the last elections. The platforms were forced to define right-wing (often anti-immigrant) narratives as a threat to electoral integrity. This, in turn, was intended to lead the tech giants to remove the content as a preventive measure.

These measures taken by the EU were so successful because, under the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), failing to address reports of illegal content or lacking appropriate moderation mechanisms can result in a fine of up to 6% of a company’s total global annual turnover. Large companies such as TikTok, Meta or Google are not going to risk that much money in the name of media freedom. That is why such widespread censorship was possible in the first place.

Freedom of expression and the EU – these are two incompatible concepts.

Sources:

Intellinews.com

Brusselssignal.eu

Roman-Parthian Wars – a Repeat

The Roman-Parthian Wars were a series of wars that took place between the years 54 BC and 217 AD. The Parthian Empire covered a large area, among others of today’s Iran and Iraq. Sometimes the Romans were victorious, sometimes the Parthians. It was a clash of civilisations, a clash between occidental Rome and oriental Parthia. Today’s war between the United States and Iran appears to be a continuation of that old conflict that extended over centuries. The United States is a descendant of ancient Rome. The names of state institutions like Senate, the names of certain buildings like the Capital, the architectural style – all testify to it. Also, the English language whose vocabulary is almost 80% ultimately of Latin origin (including such common words like money, tender, nice, car, train, pay, peace, pound, face, battle, soldier, navy, missile, message, digital, computer, autumn, dinner, office…) shows in no uncertain terms (with the two last words also being of Latin origin) that the American-Iranian hostilities are a prolongation of that ancient feud.

The American-Israeli Operation Epic Fury, which began on 28 of February 2026 with a launch of 900 strikes within the first 24 hours marked the beginning of something that we do not yet know how it will develop. The United States had hoped for a quick and spectacular victory, a victory guaranteed by the decapitation operation in which Iran’s highest religious leader Ali Khamenei (and his daughter, and his son-in-law, and his granddaughter) was killed. But Iran rather than surrender has struck back and has struck back successfully. Sure, the Persian state cannot stand up to the American might in an old-fashioned duel. It can, however, bite back where it hurts most, and compel Washington to reconsider its policy. Iran is smaller than the United States, both in terms of population and territory, but – as unforgettable Aesop wrote in many of his fables – even a mouse can have its revenge on a lion.

So, Iran struck where it is most painful: Iran struck at the oil refineries, and effectively blocked the Straight of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important choke point through which more than 20% of the global oil trade passes. The incapacitation of oil supply translates into higher prices of anything that is connected with oil, which in turn triggers a chain reaction of price rises, which is actually happening around the globe.

Washington appears to be surprised by Iranian resilience and Iranian defiance. The Americans had hoped for Iran to capitulate within days. Washington had hoped for a repeat of the 12-day war that took place in June last year. Nothing like that is anywhere in sight. Iran is launching missiles against American and non-American targets in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordania, and Israel. The targets are American military bases and the important infrastructure of those countries which host American bases. The oil refinery in Haifa, Israel, that is said to be hit processed 40% of Israel’s oil.

Two facts testify to America’s miscalculation and America’s second thoughts. First, Americans – Americans! – have proposed to Iran a ceasefire through a third party; second, President Donald Trump has called President Vladimir Putin to talk about… the war against Iran. What they discussed is not known: we can only guess that Washington is looking for off-ramps from the conflict.

Now, Iran seems to be to the United States what Ukraine has been to Russia for the last four years. For years the West has been sending munitions of war to Kiev; now it is Russia which is sending munitions of war to Tehran. The deal about selling Iran the advanced Russian S-400 antiaircraft and anti-missile complex has just sent shockwaves around the globe. The United States is about to taste its own medicine.

It is popular in the West to assume or even believe that Iranian people are against the religious ‘regime’ as the Western journalists are used to saying. Let us assume that it is true. If so, then the savage attack on Iran and the murder of 170 girls by the American Tomahawk missile compelled Iranians of all political persuasions to rally around the same ‘regime’. A historical repeat, again, just like it was in the thirties of the previous century in the Soviet Union. At that time there were many Soviet citizens who hated the Stalinist regime till… till the same regime was brutally attacked by the armies of the Third Reich. Precisely the same phenomenon was triggered in the Soviet Union which has been just triggered in Iran: those people who disliked communism and communist regime rallied around the communists and their leader.

The current Roman-Parthian war is going on. It is not merely a war between present-day Rome and the present-day Parthian Empire; rather, it is a war whose economic and political repercussions afflict the whole globe. India, China, South Korea, and Japan – they all depended very much on the oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. The said countries may wish to remain neutral in the ongoing hostilities, but if push comes to shove, if their economies become strangled by inadequate supplies, they may reconsider their policies and exert pressure on the participants. When Romans and Parthians fought against each other, either side would have looked for allies. Much the same is true of the present conflict. The American-Israeli alliance is facing the solidification of the political, economic, and military cooperation between Russia, Iran, and China. How long will the other countries watch from the sidelines?

Mirror reflection

The similarity cannot go unnoticed. First Russia struck Ukraine because it felt threatened by it, now the United States has struck Iran because – well – because it felt threatened by it. Russia struck its neighbour, whereas the United States has struck a country thousands of miles away. Never mind, according to the Western political experts Moscow should not have felt threatened by neighbouring Ukraine, while the United States should feel threatened by a nation half a globe away.

The reverse phenomenon is also noticeable. While Ukraine is supported by the Western world and enjoys the inflow of mercenaries from many countries, including those located in South America, it is not Iran that is supported by the other countries but the United States: militarily by Israel, politically – by the Western world.

The similarity does not stop here. Russia attacked Ukraine out of fear that Kiev might join NATO and out of fear that Kiev might have its won nuclear weapon. Similarly, the official reason for attacking Iran is the possibility that Tehran is about to manufacture its own nuclear weapon.

And again a reverse phenomenon. Just as in the case of Ukraine the Western world claims to be defending itself from Russian aggression, so do Israel and the United States claim to be defending the peace in the region against Iran’s aggression.

In both cases oil and gas play a major role. Russia and Iran are some of the world’s largest suppliers of both fossil fuels. The hostilities in these two parts of the globe translate into raised prices of gas and oil, which in turn translates into difficulties in obtaining the fuels.

The Special Military Operation in Ukraine accelerated the outflow of people from Ukraine. Yes, it did not trigger but merely accelerated the outflow of people because Ukrainians had been fleeing their country for more than two decades prior to the outbreak of the hostilities. Now since Iran is effectively targeting industrial and military facilities in Israel and those Arab countries which support the United States, and since Iran itself is being hit by American and Israeli missiles, one can only expect another wave of refugees into Europe. Will the year 2015 be repeated? Will Chancellor Friedrich Merz follow in Angela Merkel’s footsteps and repeat after her ‘Wir schaffen das’?

During the four years of hostilities in Ukraine the West has desperately looked for acts of atrocities committed by the Russian soldiers so as to be able to present Russia as the heinous aggressor. They found none, or at least nothing particularly spectacular. The Western media attempted to turn the Bucha incident as a repulsive act of atrocity committed by Russians, but the case was flimsy, unfounded, and so it quickly died out. It is different in the case of the war in Iran. Almost at the start of it, American missiles hit a school and killed some 170 girls aged between 7 and 12. Nothing like that could have been pinned on Russians for the entirety of the four years.

Moscow had hoped to carry out the Military Special Operation within weeks and coerce Ukraine to sign a deal: no NATO membership. Now it seems that the United States and Israel had hoped for more or less the same: a few days of aerial combat, decapitation of the Iranian leadership, the resultant riots in Tehran, and the collapse of the regime – as they call the Iranian government – with the new authorities being all too willing to sign a deal with the United States, a deal turning Iran into an American colony. It looks like we are in for a protracted war.

Talking about the decapitation operation. Since Washington – in cahoots with Tel Aviv – tried to decapitate the Iranian leadership and was largely successful, Tehran has all the moral right to reciprocate the move. Who knows, it might be that an Iranian killer is already stalking the American president, lying in wait, and just about to pull the trigger. Or, an Iranian killer might be stalking Benjamin Netanyahu. If the Iranian leadership is a legitimate target, why should the American or Israeli leadership not be a legitimate target as well?

If Iranians pulled off something like that, there would be an outcry across the Western world: there is none if the Americans decapitate another country’s head of state. In the same vein, there is no outcry over the killing of 170 Iranian girls, but just imagine the uproar if it were the Iranians killing 170 Israeli girls!

The two wars reflect themselves in each other with similarities and dissimilarities. The judgement that is passed over the actors depends on political persuasion. Justice will not be rendered. We do not mean legal, international justice – we merely mean moral justice.

Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz – possible consequences

The 2022 energy crisis was an unprecedented shock for Europe. The sharp decline in Russian gas and oil supplies following the invasion of Ukraine, which resulted from irresponsible decisions by politicians in Brussels, led to record prices for energy sources and a rise in inflation. At its peak, gas on European exchanges cost ten times more than the average in previous years, and EU countries competed for every LNG delivery to avoid disruptions to energy supplies.

Before the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022, Russia supplied about 45% of all imported gas to the European Union. In the case of oil, Russia’s share was slightly lower, but still very high. In the years before the war, Russia supplied about 25 to 30% of the oil needed in the EU.

After abandoning Russian oil in 2022, Europe increased its imports of this raw material from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait). Currently, around 15 to 25% of the oil imported by Europe comes from the Gulf region. The vast majority of this oil has to be transported through Hormuz. This is a major dependency, but there are other suppliers for Europe: Norway, the US, West Africa and Brazil. Norway and the US together account for around 30% of EU oil imports, which is roughly the same amount that Russia was responsible for before 2022.

And what about gas? Following the reduction in supplies from Russia, the EU has increased its LNG imports, mainly from Qatar. However, the main supplier of LNG to Europe was the US, with a share of approximately 55%. Qatar has a significant but not dominant share (approximately 10-14%). The rest of LNG imports come from many smaller sources (e.g. Algeria, Norway or other countries). Therefore, dependence on the Middle East for oil and gas imports into the EU is currently much lower than dependence on Russia was before 2022.

Although Hormuz is mainly associated with oil and LNG, it is also an important trade route for many other types of raw materials. Plastics, ethylene, propylene and even fertilisers (urea, ammonia) travel through the strait. Therefore, disruptions in transport there can also lead to rising prices for plastics, packaging, car parts, fertilisers, etc. The UAE and Bahrain are among the major aluminium exporters (energy-intensive production based on cheap gas). In return, electronics and machinery pass through the ports of Dubai (Jebel Ali), Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

In summary, rising energy prices are inevitable and will affect both Europe and the rest of the world. However, Europe should not be as severely affected as it was in 2022, as the Old Continent’s energy independence has increased significantly. If the conflict escalates, Asian countries such as India and China will be most vulnerable to problems with energy availability.

Hormuz is also very important for countries in the Middle East because ships carrying agricultural raw materials arrive there. The Gulf states are heavily dependent on food imports because the climate (hot, dry, desert) limits local agricultural production. A protracted blockade is therefore unlikely.

Iran war

So, the United States has attacked Iran. Some held it for impossible, others are not surprised at all. To be precise, it was not merely that United States, but the United States in cahoots with Israel that carried out the assult. Talk of the impending war with Iran has been present in the media for years, so the recent events are merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Two most spectacular events stand out: the intentional killing of Al Khamenei, the top spiritual leader of Shiite Muslims, and the (unintentional?) destruction of a school, where approximately 150 schoolgirls were killed. These two events are potent enough to enrage Iranians, and to upset the Muslim world.

Iran is striking back. How much the retaliation is effective is hard to say since the Western media will not report such data.

Picture to yourself a similar event launched by Russia… Yes, there would be a deafening howl across the Western world, while Putin would be called another Hitler. As it is, the American president justifies the assault on Iran, saying, that the United States had to defend itself because it felt threatened by Tehran… Weird. When Russia says it feels threatened by Western military presence in Ukraine, then such a claim is dismissed as unfounded; when, however, it is the United States that claims to be threatened by Iran, a country located thousands of miles away from America, then such a claim is legitimate.

One might tend to think that even the blind can see the hypocrisy, but rest assured: there are many who do not see it. As the saying goes: no one is as blind as the one who won’t see.

Why did the United States attack Iran? The answers are many. One is that Iran posed a threat to Israel, America’s most important and influential ally. Another is that that West wants to lay hold on Iranian oil and gas reserves. Still some others hold forth that it is the almost sixty-million strong Christian-Zionist community in America that did all in its power to necessitate the war. Christian Zionists identify more with Judaism than with Christianity, and since some of their members are the influential politicians and billionaires, they have much political leverage. President Donald Trump is believed to share the religious convictions of the Christian Zionists. After all, his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism after she had married a Jewish man.

Sure enough, it is not only money that makes politicians act. Ideologies and religions are equally potent. The medieval Crusaders were motivated by religious principles; Montezuma, the ruler of the Aztec state in Mexico, rather than resisting the Spanish incursion, gave in to them, being convinced that the Spaniards were God’s messengers. American Christian Zionists are doing the same. Their loyalties lie with the state of Israel in the first place. Split loyalties is a phenomenon testified by history many a time. Religious minorities very often did not feel the ethnic ties with their compatriots. Rather, they felt and acted in unison with other ethnicities against their own so long as the other ethnicity shared the same creed. The same was true of ideologies.

Now what was the purpose of killing Ayatollah Al Khamenei? This act can only stiffen Iran’s resistance. The murder of a spiritual – religious – leader sets the war in a different dimension. Add to this the murder of the 150 schoolgirls: Iranians of whatever ethnicity will rather rally around the government than betray it. While the school event might be understood as a miscalculation, the killing of the Ayatollah was beyond a shadow of a doubt purposeful.

Despite what the Americans and the Israelis had expected, Iran has not disintegrated nor has it collapsed. Iranian did not take to the streets, so regime change is nowhere in sight. What can be envisaged is a protracted war. Washington had not reckoned with it, or did it?

Warsh, Trump and Dollar

Trump has no luck or talent when it comes to choosing people for his government or entourage. Yes, Melanie may be an exception, but when the president nominated Jerome Powell as chairman of the Fed in 2018, he immediately came into conflict with him. Trump wants complete control over the dollar and financial policy, which is not possible under the Fed’s mandate. Powell acted independently, saw the danger of a return to inflation and did not lower interest rates, which angered Trump, as he wanted to increase the competitiveness of the US economy through a cheaper dollar.

Now Powell’s term is slowly coming to an end, and Trump was looking for a suitable successor. At first, he wanted to nominate Kevin Hasset, the head of the National Economic Council (NEC), but then he realised that he wanted to keep his key adviser close by. So, he opted for the young but experienced Warsh. Will he disappoint him?

There are two camps among central bankers and members of the FOMC: doves, who advocate easing, and hawks, who favour higher interest rates. Warsh is currently pursuing a hybrid approach that combines elements of both camps:

Easing Contrary to his former reputation as an inflation hardliner, Warsh currently advocates interest rate cuts. He argues that current monetary policy is too restrictive. His thesis: productivity gains (AI and deregulation) could enable the economy to grow faster without fuelling inflation, which would justify lower key interest rates.

Tightening He remains a hardliner when it comes to the Fed’s balance sheet. He calls for a significant reduction in the central bank’s balance sheet (active quantitative tightening – QT) and less market intervention. He believes that a smaller balance sheet reduces market distortions and creates the scope for permanently lower short-term interest rates.

Yes, AI is a key argument in his logic. According to Warsh, it is responsible for the “performance miracle” that is essentially disinflationary. If companies can use AI to produce more goods and services at lower costs, this increases supply. The effect? It is assumed that a larger number of raw materials on the market at lower manufacturing costs naturally prevents price increases (inflation), even when the economy is growing rapidly. However, in this case, growth is not the result of printing empty currency, but the result of increased productivity. Warsh compares this situation to the internet revolution of the 1990s, when inflation remained low despite an economic boom.

However, this may be a misconception, as AI consumes enormous amounts of energy, chips and resources for data centres, which could increase the prices of these specific services and raw materials in the short term. The performance effect should only occur in a few years, which could trigger inflation before AI can suppress it. Many analysts are also critical of the reduction in the central bank’s balance sheet. Let’s see if the Senate will accept Warsh’s nomination. In any case, it could cause turmoil in the markets.

Why must raw materials become more expensive?

Gold

For a gold mine to be profitable, the deposit must contain at least 2 million ounces of the precious metal, as this is the only way to ensure production for many years to come. In previous years/decades, new deposits were discovered and supply was guaranteed. However, in the last two years of the gold rush, when gold was being sought everywhere, no major deposits were discovered anywhere in the world! This is the first time in history and, of course, an argument for a further rise in price.

Petroleum

Shale oil is running out in the United States. According to the latest data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), shale oil production will gradually decline, mainly due to the depletion of deposits. The Permian Basin, one of the largest and most important shale basins in the world, is expected to produce less and less shale oil in the coming years. The impending supply deficit and the ever-increasing demand for this raw material are prompting leading oil producers to seek alternative sources for extracting black gold, especially in offshore deposits. Perhaps this is also the reason for the possible war against Iran, in order to secure reserves there, as in Venezuela.

Metals and rare earths

When it comes to both, the West is completely dependent on China and Africa. The following graph shows how heavily the US depends on other countries when it comes to minerals:

Source: Elements

Particular attention should be paid to rare earths, a group of 17 nearly indistinguishable heavy metals with similar properties that are indispensable in a wide variety of technologies, high-performance magnets, electronics and industry as a whole, as well as natural graphite, which is found in lithium-ion batteries. When Trump imposed tariffs on China, Beijing responded with restrictions on rare earth exports, which only exacerbated the geopolitical situation surrounding these materials.

The data shows that Africa’s share of resources and production of important raw materials is as follows:

Platinum: 90% of global resources (mainly South Africa and Zimbabwe). Platinum is needed in catalytic converters and hydrogen technologies.
Cobalt: 70-75% of global production comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is one of the key components of lithium-ion batteries.
Chromium: 85% of global reserves are of high quality. Required for the production of stainless steel.
Manganese: 80% of global resources (mainly South Africa). Key to the production of steel and batteries.
Tantalum: 60-70% of global resources (DRC, Rwanda). Indispensable in every smartphone and laptop (capacitors).
Gold: approx. 40% of global resources.

At the same time, Africa remains the least geologically explored continent on Earth. Canada spends more than US$2 billion annually on field exploration, while all African countries combined spend just over US$1 billion. This shows that if the African continent were not so politically unstable, many more deposits would likely be discovered there. In addition, more and more mines are being controlled by the Chinese (e.g. the cobalt mines in Congo), which poses a real threat to the West.

GEFIRA BULLETIN

GET ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

€225/250$ FOR 10 ISSUES

GEFIRA provides in-depth and comprehensive analysis of and valuable insight into current events that investors, financial planners and politicians need to know to anticipate the world of tomorrow; it is intended for professional and non-professional readers.