The next few months can be critical for implementing projects to supply Russian gas to Europe. The US administration is stepping up efforts aimed at disrupting the construction of the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline.
At the same time, at the other end of the European energy map – in the Balkans – discussions on a future regional gas structure with a possible parallel renewal of the construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria under the Black Sea have livened up against the background of the successful implementation of the Turkish Stream project.
On May 23 at the hearings of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US Congress House of Representatives, the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said that the USA intends to halt the implementation of the Nord Stream-2 project. “We must continue to exert pressure to curtail Nord Stream-2.” We should not increase Europe’s dependence on Russian energy supplies. If we succeed, we will help Europe to stand firm “, he stressed.
According to his explicit statements – “while Europeans depend on Russian energy supplies, it limits their freedom of action against Russia. In reality, it is a bit more complicated, but, in fact, this statement is true. We have a real opportunity to detach them from Russia in many aspects. ”
Washington needs to rule out the situation in which “during the crisis period,” Russia might use energy supplies to exert pressure on Europe, Mike Pompeo believes:”We must make sure that they have no such leverage.” (rbc.ru)
Responding to this the Russian Embassy in the USA said that opposing to the construction of the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline Washington “is imposing its non-competitive liquefied natural gas on Europe”. Russian diplomats noted that geopolitics again “unduly interferes in the economy” and “discredits the slogans about supplies diversification.”
Russian diplomats recalled that former US President Ronald Reagan, who is “the idol of the current Republicans”, also opposed the construction of a gas pipeline from the USSR to Germany in early 1980s. His administration imposed sanctions against those companies that took part in the construction of the gas pipeline. Then Washington also justified its actions by the need “not to allow Russia to strengthen its influence on the European allies of the United States,” the embassy noted.
This is in reference to the directive of President Reagan, signed in 1983. It envisaged the use of economic pressure in order to limit the foreign and military potential of the USSR and, in particular, to counter the construction of the main export gas pipeline Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod with the participation of companies and banks from European countries.
“Today, in this sense, we seem to have returned 35 years ago. The same rhetoric, the same methods. Only now the administration protects that gas pipeline, because it was built through Ukraine, “the Russian diplomats stressed. They also recalled that Ronald Reagan “had the wisdom” to remove all restrictions two years later because of their “total meaninglessness,” and expressed the hope that the administration of President Donald Trump “will draw conclusions from history much sooner.” (rbc.ru)
Berlin also criticized the position of the Donald Trump administration regarding the project for constructing the second stage of the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. German Economic Affairs and Energy Minister Peter Altmaier said that Washington’s goal is to ensure the supply of large volumes of its own liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe. “They have an extensive infrastructure of terminals for liquefied natural gas, which they must use for their own benefit,” the minister said.
He stressed that the USA remains to be Germany’s friends and partners, but the German government prefers to defend “common values”: if Washington follows the “America first” principle and protects primarily its own interests, then the USA should understand that Europe will defend the European ones.
In addition, Peter Altmaier expressed doubts that the US administration will succeed in achieving its geo-economic goals in the energy sector even if the project for the construction of the second stage gas pipeline from Russia to Germany is eventually blocked since liquefied natural gas will still cost the Europeans more than the pipeline gas. “So blocking Nord Stream-2 on its own will not guarantee the export of American LNG to Europe,” the German minister said. (rbc.ru)
Former German Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was even more outspoken on this matter. According to him, the US resistance to the construction of the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline has no rational justification; it can be explained only by the commercial interests of competitors.
“There are no rational arguments against the” Nord Stream – 2 “, such arguments are just being made up. Behind them are private and economic interests of competitors, in particular, the United States” – he said during a business breakfast at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
According to Gerhard Schroeder, who is the chairman of the board of directors of Nord Stream AG, the USA wants to sell its liquefied natural gas to European consumers, without taking into account whether it meets the quality and particular characteristics of European capacities. Such behavior threatens the energy security of the region’s gas infrastructure” – Gerhard Schroeder said. (rbc.ru)
Germany’s position on the Nord Stream-2 project is determined by purely economic, as well as, in broader terms, pan-European considerations – taking into account the growing tension in relations between the USA and its European allies.
«Even as the European leaders remain at odds with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine, Syria and other issues, the Iran crisis is pushing them closer together. At the same time, Angela Merkel’s ties with Trump are deteriorating, with the USA now threatening to punish German companies involved in building a new pipeline for Russian gas under the Baltic Sea», – the American business news agency Bloomberg says.(bloomberg.com)
Increasing pressure on European governments and companies to force them to abandon the implementation of the Nord Stream-2 project, in addition to deepening the contradictions on both sides of the Atlantic, has another important consequence.
The pressure on the above project irrespective of its results objectively increases the chances of implementing energy sector projects on the south-eastern flank of Europe. The countries located there are clearly in a hurry to raise their own bets in the energy party in order to get the role of not only the regional but also the pan-European gas distribution hub.
Within the given context, it is by no means accidental that the President of Bulgaria, Rumen Radev, during a two-day visit to Russia, re-created a new project for the construction of a Russian-Bulgarian gas pipeline. Recalling the Russian-German gas project, as well as the importance of energy security for Sofia and Brussels, he said: “I hope that our governments will reconsider the possibility of direct gas supplies from Russia through the Black Sea.” At the same time, Radev stressed that Russia has always been Bulgaria’s strategic partner in the energy sector, supplying natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel. (rbc.ru)
Rumen Radev elaborated on the subject in an interview with the Russian media, timed for his visit to Sochi. “Undoubtedly, the safest, most reliable and cheapest way is direct. Especially when it comes to the supply of additional Russian natural gas to Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and northern Italy. For Russia as well as for Bulgaria, a logical choice for expanding the supply of Russian natural gas to Europe is through Bulgaria, “he said. (kommersant.ru)
It is obvious that in the near future we can expect intensification of bilateral and multilateral discussions regarding the future gas transportation infrastructure in South-Eastern Europe with its “linkage” to Austria or Italy. And Bulgaria and Turkey will be the key players here. Ankara is unlikely to take a positive view of Sophia’s intention to lock on itself regional gas flows, instead of receiving gas from the second “Turkish stream” export line.
The publication in one of the leading Turkish newspapers – Habertürk is quite telling – without mentioning the initiative of the Bulgarian side, it has actually joined the discussion about who will become the main beneficiary of the Russian gas transit: “Where from and where to will the second line of the”Turkish stream” go? It is unknown yet. What will this line be: Greece – Italy, Bulgaria – Serbia – Hungary? Time will tell”. (haberturk.com)
The interest of the countries of South-Eastern Europe in becoming not only consumers but also transit hubs of Russian gas is also determined by their geographical location, which complicates the receipt of LNG tankers from the USA (unlike the capabilities of Germany, Poland or the Baltic countries). Appropriate receiving and re-gasification terminals can only be used in Croatia and Greece, but undeveloped pipeline infrastructure for further transportation deprives such supplies of economic meaning for countries such as Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic or Slovakia.
The current multi-directional trends in the world oil market is an additional factor of uncertainty – as the situation in the market directly determines the gas price. Most experts refrain from long-term forecasts, but several estimates foreshadow a further increase in world oil prices. Thus, the experts of Bank of America predict that the price of oil will return to $ 100 per barrel by 2019, and specialist in the field of oil hedge funds Pierre Andurand believes that even $ 300 per barrel “is not impossible.” (vestifinance.ru)
It should also be taken into consideration that the continuing trend towards an increase in world oil prices objectively undermines the belief in the ability of the US shale industry (both oil and gas) to effectively influence global processes. “Shale oil will not solve the current oil supply problems” the British Guardian quotes Goldman Sachs experts as saying. (theguardian.com)
The key shale oil field in the USA – the Permian – is operating at its limit. It suffers from a lack of space not only for oil production, but also for natural gas production, – analysts of S & P Global Platts warn. (vestifinance.ru)
All this, in turn, betokens new attempts by the Donald Trump administration to achieve its global economic goals by what is called in political economy as “measures of non-economic coercion”.
First published in our partner International Affairs
Massive Lying About the War in Ukraine
The chief purpose of the Western sanctions against Russia, after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, has been to stop Russia’s sales of energy — mainly pipelined Russian gas — to Europe. Russia had been the top supplier of energy to Europe, because its energy was by far the cheapest in Europe. It was the least expensive to produce and sell to Europe, largely because it was pipelined into Europe whereas other suppliers needed to containerize and ship their gas and oil to Europe — which is far costlier to do. In all of Europe, virtually the only energy that is pipelined comes from Russia. Therefore, the sanctions that prohibited Russian energy to be supplied to Europe caused energy-prices in Europe to soar.
However, Western ‘news’-media don’t blame the sanctions for Europe’s soaring energy-prices, because those sanctions come from the U.S. and have the cooperation and participation by European governments. Here are the main ‘causes’ of Europe’s soaring energy-prices according to U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media (and you will see examples from Western Governments and ‘news’-media there simply by clicking onto each one of these phrases, each one of which is linked):
So: each of those ‘news’-media is routinely lying to their audience in order to place the blame for Europe’s soaring fuel-prices upon the Government of Russia, instead of upon the Government of America and upon its various vassal-Governments in Europe that constitute together the EU.
In addition to using those lying phrases, U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media use distractionary and misleading ‘explanations’ of the soaring prices. For example, the American and German-owned Politico ‘news’-site headlined “Why cheap US gas costs a fortune in Europe”, and ‘explained’ that “The liquefied natural gas (LNG) loaded on to tankers at U.S. ports costs nearly four times more on the other side of the Atlantic, largely due to the market disruption caused by a near-total loss of Russian deliveries following the invasion of Ukraine.” What caused that “near-total loss of Russian deliveries” isn’t so much as even discussed in their ‘news-report’, and the word or even concept of “sanction” doesn’t even appear once in the article. That’s how propaganda — NOT news — is done. Their ‘news’-report instead discusses whether the U.S. suppliers, or instead the European middlemen to whom they sell American liquefied natural gas, is to blame, but, of course, all such discussion is distractionary, instead of at all explanatory, of the question “Why cheap US gas costs a fortune in Europe”. This is the way to deceive Europeans into re-electing their politicians who serve U.S. billionaires instead of European consumers.
A comedic, but also extremely informative, documentation of the absurd extent to which U.S.-and-allied Governments and media go in order to pretend that these cut-offs of Europe’s least-costly energy are due to Russia instead of to the U.S. can be seen in the 8-minute video by Matt Orfalea, “Who Blew Up Nord Stream Pipelines? | A Mystery!”
To see some of the many OTHER tricks that U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media use in order to deceive Europeans to vote for the politicians in these U.S.-vassal-nations (propagandistically called U.S. ‘allies’, instead), I have provided many more examples in my prior “Debunking Lies About the War in Ukraine”. That article, combined with this one, presents a fully documented (in the links) and comprehensive picture of European Governments as serving U.S. billionaires instead of European consumers. If what it says is true — and you can easily decide that for yourself by clicking onto any link anywhere that you doubt what is being alleged there — then you will know that your Government doesn’t care about you, at all, and is instead serving America’s billionaires, at your considerable expense.
In order to keep those U.S.-and-‘allied’ weapons flowing to Ukraine so that America can defeat Russia in the battlefield of Ukraine by using Ukraine’s army instead of America’s soldiers, the lies that have been documented here need to be believed by Europeans — and they are (or at least have been) believed by Europeans. The tricks have been working, thus far.
Oil Price Threshold: Action and Reaction
The introduction of a price threshold for Russian oil has been discussed for several months. The idea was announced back in early September in a statement by the finance ministers of the G7 countries. Its essence was to prohibit the transportation of Russian oil and oil products by sea in the event that the contract price exceeds a predetermined price level. Along with transportation, there are related services—insurance, financing, brokerage services, etc. A “price threshold coalition” was formed, which, along with the members of the G7, included Australia and the EU member states.
Washington, London and Brussels have already developed legal mechanisms for the new restrictions. On December 5, oil price restrictions should come into force, and in February, they are expected to be applied to oil products. The initiators of the sanctions expect attempts to circumvent new sanctions and are trying to cement possible loopholes in advance. What kind of workarounds are expected among the Western countries, and what are the chances they’ll be able to impose a price cap on other countries?
The price threshold for oil is a relatively new and non-standard variety of economic sanctions. The most common and universal instrument of modern sanctions are restrictions on exports and imports, as well as blocking sanctions. The latter entails a ban on any financial transactions with individuals or organisations included in the lists of blocked persons. The Russian oil industry has already faced a wide range of export and import restrictions. The US, EU, UK and a number of other countries have introduced or are gradually introducing bans on the supply of oil and petroleum products from Russia. They have largely blocked the supply of equipment for the domestic energy sector. Even before the start of the special military operation, a number of large Russian oil companies were subject to sectoral restrictions in the form of a ban on long-term lending and a ban on deliveries in the interests of individual projects. It turned out to be more difficult to impose blocking sanctions. A number of top managers and major shareholders of Russian oil assets were included in the lists of blocked persons. However, the West did not dare to block the companies themselves; Russia is too large a supplier of oil to the world market. Blocking the financial transactions of Russian suppliers would lead to a panic in the market and an astronomical rise in prices. Collateral damage is the only thing stopping the West from blocking Russian oil companies.
A price cap was proposed as a softer measure. The US and its partners are betting on the fact that Western companies control significant volumes of transportation and insurance. They are also betting on the dominance of the US dollar in global financial markets. Russian producers are being driven towards a situation in which they will either have to sell oil within the price threshold, or it will simply not be delivered. In addition, such cargo will not be insured, and financial transactions involving banks from the “threshold coalition” will become impossible. Moscow has already threatened to stop supplies to those countries that go ahead and implement the decisions of the “coalition”. But the “coalition” itself has largely given up on Russian oil anyway. India, China and other friendly countries may not join, but Western carriers will not deliver Russian oil there.
The initiators of the sanctions expect a number of schemes to be attempted to circumvent the new measures. The first is the formal observance of the price threshold, but manipulations with the price of transportation or other related services. The US Treasury is warning carriers, insurers, bankers and other market participants in advance that commercially unreasonable rates will be considered a sign that the price cap regime is being violated. The concept of commercial justification is not disclosed, but the signal itself is fixed. Another possible circumvention option is the distortion of documentation, which can take place both on the supplier’s side and be the result of collusion between the supplier and the carrier. In this case, carriers are recommended to keep all the documentation of the transaction for five years, and insurance and other service providers must have a clause in contracts that the oil being transported is below the price threshold. The presence of such archives does not insure against violation in itself. But it allows the regulator, in case of suspicion, to quickly check the history of transactions. Companies can get off relatively lightly for unintentional violations, but deliberate circumvention is fraught with criminal prosecution. Another way around is to mix Russian oil with an oil of a different origin. So far, clear criteria for such proportions have not been defined, although the US Treasury calls for caution in such transactions. In determining these proportions, the EU may take into account the clarifications of the European Commission on mixtures subject to import restrictions.
The experience of US law enforcement practice shows that there will be violations of the sanctions regime, and US regulators have developed mechanisms for detecting them. The EU and the UK have less experience, which does not exclude the active prosecution of violators. However, the indicated methods of circumvention still seem to be “mouse fuss”, which will not systematically solve the problem for Russia. In Moscow, much more ambitious steps can be developed.
The most obvious measure is to build up Russia’s own tanker fleet. Reports of such steps have appeared in the foreign media, although reliable estimates are difficult. In the hands of the US, the EU and other initiators, there is a means to counteract. They can simply add Russian oil tankers to the lists of blocked ships. Then their service in foreign ports will be significantly hampered. Secondary American sanctions and fines are feared even in friendly countries. The experience of secondary US sanctions being used against the Chinese COSCO Shipping Tanker and some other companies for the alleged transportation of Iranian oil in 2019 can serve as a warning. The European Union has also provided for a mechanism to punish ships carrying Russian oil above the price ceiling. Violating ships will be denied financial, insurance and other services in EU jurisdiction. The wording of paragraph 7 of Art. 3n of EU Council Regulation No 833/2014 suggests that we are talking about any ship, regardless of the country of origin.
Similar problems may also arise when a Russian insurance company is set up to serve bulk oil shipments, or if one or another company from friendly countries is involved. Here, the United States and its allies also have the instrument of secondary sanctions in their hands. The same goes for financial transactions. Operations in the currencies of the initiating countries will be blocked. Here again the question of settlements in national currencies comes to the fore. The big question is, whether the banks in friendly countries run the risk of the same secondary sanctions in case of transactions above the price threshold. The legal mechanisms for such sanctions specifically for the price threshold have not yet been spelled out. However, they may appear at any moment, or the initiating countries, primarily the United States, may provide an explanation of the application of already existing norms to the price threshold. This happened recently with explanations of possible sanctions for using the Mir payment system in the interests of blocked persons.
In the bottom line, the participants of the “threshold coalition” do not have to seek the entry of more countries into their ranks. It is enough to threaten with secondary sanctions or coercive measures in case of revealed violations, or simply block insurance services or financial transactions passing through Western insurance companies and banks in violation of the prescribed norms.
By building up pressure on the Russian oil sector, the US and other initiators of sanctions will use their rich experience of restrictions against Iran. At one time, Washington managed to “globalise” its ban on the import of Iranian oil and services related to such imports. Iran continues to survive under the sanctions, although it has suffered losses. There is no doubt that Russia will also retain efficient ways to supply its oil to foreign markets. However, as in the case of Iran, the sanctions will increase the cost of Russian oil exports.
From our partner RIAC
Analyzing China Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation (SEPAP) Program
In 2014, China deployed a large-scale initiative named as Solar Energy Poverty Alleviation Program (SEPAP) to systematically alleviate poverty in poor areas including underdeveloped regions of western China. In recent years, moving the country toward technological leadership and making China the largest solar investor has been on Government’s central Agenda. While having environmental benefits associated, SEPAP is a multi-purpose project which aims to reduce poverty, promote jobs and income in rural areas, boost China’s solar market, and improve rural lives. It is noteworthy that SEPAP is a program that has harmonized the social, developmental, and industrial goals. SEPAP acquired the highest level of political endorsement after Xi Jinping pledged to eradicate poverty from China by 2020, which resulted in its ascension from the pilot program to a nationwide campaign. According to World Bank, China has lifted 800 Million people out of poverty by 2022 and contributed to the Global reduction of people living in poverty as close to three-quarters. China has become able to achieve this milestone by adopting targeted poverty alleviation strategies and by providing economic opportunities to the unprivileged people to raise their income level.
Through this initiative, China aimed to add 10GW of solar capacity by 2020, which will benefit over 2 Million people. The program targeted 35,000 poverty-stricken villages which were located in 471 counties in 16 Provinces. According to an evaluation study conducted in 2020, this program has resulted in an increase of 7%-8% in the per-capita disposable income of the county. Chinese Government investment in solar energy and using it as a strategy for poverty eradication has brought out positive results and the effects are twice as high in the subsequent two to three years, especially in Eastern China.
Three different contexts contributed to making SEPAP a priority on Government’s agenda, making a historical conjuncture. First was the political push to eradicate prolonged rural poverty in China. To combat the higher rural-urban income gap, China adopted an “industrial” approach that emphasized developing innovative industrial facilities in the unprivileged region to make them self-sufficient in the long run. The second was the significant demand for rural electrification, where former technological preferences, especially small hydropower, were no longer feasible. The third driver was the overcapacity and shrinkage of the country’s solar energy sector and the subsequent necessity to stimulate distributed solar PV installation. Before 2013, China’s solar energy sector was mostly export-oriented with a dominant share of exports in overseas markets in Europe. During 2008 Trade disputes in the EU and US combined with the financial crisis lead Chinese solar manufacturers to the brink of Collapse. So, opening the domestic market for solar consumption was launched as a rescue strategy. The officials favored the installation of the distributed, small-scale solar system that can generate energy that may be utilized locally. By 2013, China becomes the world-leading market for solar energy and by 2015, It reached a total installed capacity of more than 43.18GW. Considering the scenario, SEPAP was formulated with a strategic vision that will benefit the local people while also expanding distributed Solar PV generation and absorbing overcapacity.
In 2014, SEPAP was launched by National Energy Administration (NEA) and State Council leading group
Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development (CPAD) as two joint policies. A first policy designed two alternatives for policy implementation. Installing rooftop Solar PV systems for low-income families formerly registered with CPAD was the initial option. The other policy alternative was to build Solar Power Station on the non-arable lands near the counties and villages. Using a robust financial model described in policy guidelines, the SEPAP was funded by both Government subsidies and corporate donations as a part of their corporate social responsibility initiatives. The second joint policy includes detailed guidelines for developing pilot SEPAP Projects in six provinces which included 30 counties. The provinces targeted were relatively underdeveloped while having abundant solar resources. Provincial Governments were involved to carry out the implementation process which include collecting comprehensive data on the poor household, energy supply and consumption, and quality of grid connection for each county. After the approval of plans from central governments, they were executed by the county’s government via an open bidding process. Provincial Governments’ poverty alleviation funds and policy banks’ preferential loans were utilized for the financial support of the pilot project of the Program. To ensure accountability and transparency in projects, monitoring and evaluation teams were designed by NEA and CPAD to maintain a check and balance on program activities and construction maintenance. To raise poor household income through this project, the profits gained from the sale of solar power were distributed fully among residents after Tax deductions. The policy goal also guaranteed 3000RMB of annual income per household for more than 20 years. The program created a win-win situation by alleviating the poor from poverty while absorbing China’s overcapacity of solar energy at the same time.
China’s ambitious plan to align poverty alleviation goals with the expansion of renewable energy has some serious practical concerns associated with it. Analyzing the program leads to significant gaps in policy design and implementation. The program faced severe budgeting and financial problems because of a lack of appropriate arrangements and no detailed financial mechanism was developed for post-construction maintenance of the projects. Only the central government endorsement was not enough to tackle these challenges but consistent support from the banking and bureaucratic sector was the pre-requisite for program implementation. Moreover, proper financial incentives were also required to encourage the solar companies to take lead in the construction of projects. Another challenge associated with the project was the complication in the governance structure where energy regulators took the lead rather than development officials. Misallocation of expertise affected the priorities in agenda setting of the program i.e. energy regulators based on their expertise, advocated the expansion of industrial capacity rather than looking out for poverty and development issues in the local context. Moreover, the time frame designed for the assessment of pilot projects was not enough for the critical evaluation of the success and failure of the project before its transition toward a national program.
Even though it’s a commendable approach, the combination of renewable energy technology with poverty reduction needs to be further examined through rigorous empirical studies both in China and in other developing nations. Future studies on how to integrate industrial strategies with development priorities and what governance institutions or structures might best serve these many policy goals can provide great insight into various policy alternatives that would be beneficial in the long run as well.
Qatar punctures FIFA’s political fantasy
If the Qatar World Cup proved anything, it’s that sports and politics are inseparable Siamese twins joined at the hip....
Uzbekistan’s Artel joins UN’s ‘Orange The World’ campaign against gender-based violence
Artel Electronics LLC (Artel), Central Asia’s largest home appliance and electronics manufacturer, has teamed up with the UN Population Fund...
US Anti-Inflation Law threatens Europe
Europe and the US are heading towards a serious trade and economic conflict, writes “Berliner Morgenpost”. In the European Union...
OPEC+ agrees to stick to its existing policy of reducing oil production
Led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, OPEC+ agreed in early October to reduce production by 2 million barrels per day...
U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit: Matters Arising and Way Forward
On the eve of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit planned for December 13-15 in Washington, the Corporate Council in partnership with...
Weapons from Ukraine’s war now coming to Africa
Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari said that weapons from the raging war between Russia and Ukraine are now slipping into the...
Rethinking the Soviet Experience : Politics and History since 1917- Book Review
The book was written in 1984 and is a collection of essays on Soviet politics and Sovietology, from the time...
Eastern Europe3 days ago
What “Victory” and “Defeat” Would Mean in Ukraine’s War
Science & Technology4 days ago
Interesting archaeological discovery in Israel
Americas4 days ago
Joe Vogler and the Alaskan Independence Party: The Last Secession Attempt in the United States
Americas4 days ago
Canada’s Indo Pacific strategy
East Asia4 days ago
Russia-Ukraine Conflict and the Chinese Viewpoint
Defense3 days ago
Ukraine Crisis: International Security and Foreign Policy Option for Pakistan
Science & Technology4 days ago
Towards Efficient Matrix Multiplication
Reports3 days ago
Small Business, Big Problem: New Report Says 67% of SMEs Worldwide Are Fighting for Survival