this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
1 points (55.6% liked)
The Global South
39 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this news false? I figured it is obvious given the sanctions on Russia and the large size of BRICS+.
Is the single figure in the headline false? No. Is the spin on the rest of the article Kremlin propaganda? Yes.
They even tweet-quote themselves saying "JUST IN: 🇷🇺 Vladimir Putin says the US Government is killing the dollar with their own hands, many countries including major oil producers, are accepting payments for oil in Chinese yuan."
But the latter part is also true. Many countries are scared by the US’s abuse of economic sanctions and are looking to dedollarize. The US is effectively isolating itself by weaponizing the dollar.
Take for example the UAE the US’s closest Arab ally. They trade oil in Yuan now with China. https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/03/china-settles-first-lng-trade-yuan-uae-deal
Saudi Arabia is also doing the same https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/china-saudi-rmb-settlement-will-insulate-oil-trade-us-sanctions
The US is weakening itself because the only language that it knows is coercion not diplomacy.
And yet the exchange rate for the dollar remains all but static over 5 years against the yuan and euro, while the ruble is volatile as hell.
There's absolutely no reason the US should allow an enemy state like Russia to trade in dollars or participate in our banking system. This makes the US stronger, not weaker. Other countries trading with China or other BRICS countries in yuan also really has not and will not impact the US or the dollar in the way you and Putin seem to be fantasizing about. Trade is not a zero-sum game
China has long passed the US as the world’s top trading partner and still growing. Now picture this trade more and more not being done in US dollars.
You are free to believe whatever you want. I provided data you provided rhetoric.
This is not based in reality. You provided an article that's almost entirely rhetoric, creating implications for the data that do not exist