Andrey Shitov — about why the policy of the global majority can be useful for the American economy and what it means for the Russian Federation
Can Russia help America become "great again" due to its human capital, natural resources, advantageous geographical location and other trade and economic competitive advantages? This question has been in the air at least since the idea of the Putin—Trump underwater tunnel between Siberia and Alaska was born in the fall of 2025.
At a recent reception on the occasion of Diplomat's Day at the Russian Embassy in Washington, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Anna Paulina Luna (Republican from Florida), told reporters that the potential of a possible Russian-American trade deal is estimated at $2 trillion. And in Kiev, there was panic speculation about the so-called Dmitriev package worth as much as $12 trillion. Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and special representative of the President of the Russian Federation for investment and economic cooperation with foreign countries, is considered the main author of the tunnel concept.
Bright prospects are not visible
Moscow's official reaction to such estimates and forecasts is well known. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has recently publicly explained several times that in relations with the United States, "we do not see any bright future in the economic sphere either," since Washington has set itself the task of global economic dominance and is solving it through a variety of "coercive measures that do not fit into fair competition."
And Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation, responding the other day to a direct question on the same topic, on the one hand, confirmed that "issues of trade and economic cooperation - possible and proposed — are on the agenda, they are being discussed" in a specialized working group, which, from our side, is headed by Dmitriev. On the other hand, he warned: "At the moment, the de facto situation is such that in practice, before reaching, let's say, a Ukrainian settlement, it is hardly possible to talk about anything concrete, and so far this is limited to discussions."
As an interested outsider, my impressions are exactly the same. But I've never been an economist. Therefore, I asked experts I know to reflect aloud on whether the hype around this "big deal" between Russia and the United States is mainly political or economic in nature. Is such an agreement possible in principle, and if so, does it lead to a one-sided or mutually dependent relationship?
Defeat politics with the help of economics
Ian Bremmer, the founder and head of the New York-based Eurasia Group advisory company, wrote in response that "the figures seem wildly exaggerated or made up." However, in his opinion, they "really reflect [Donald's] continuing interest." Trump and his negotiators — [the president's son-in-law] Jared Kushner and [a close friend of the head of state] Steve Witkoff — towards reaching a truce with the Russians to conclude commercial deals."
"This raises some concerns among Europeans that the United States may even prefer to start business negotiations without a cease—fire," the American analyst added. But he immediately made a reservation that "since in such a case the [US] Congress would not have lifted the sanctions, it is difficult to imagine how meaningful progress could have been achieved on them."
The same key condition was immediately pointed out by a high-ranking Russian expert, who agreed to the conversation on condition of anonymity. "I don't know what Dmitriev promises them; we have a lot of things that could interest them," he said, citing examples "from uranium and rare earths to the Arctic." — But first, the lifting of sanctions. Everyone! Including the seizure of our assets (i.e., the lifting of the arrest — author's note) and the return of stolen diplomatic property! And other matters, including the restoration of flights."
The interlocutor is convinced that the US interest in the proposed deal is "certainly" dictated primarily by economics, not politics. "We know that America is in a very difficult economic situation," he said. — We are seeing more and more clearly that [in the world] there is a very rapid decline in confidence in the dollar. There are even signs of a spontaneous return to the gold standard system: everyone is hoarding gold and selling dollars." There is another key systemic problem: the US national debt, which is "growing and will continue to grow."
"Anyway, the current American government is more interested in money," the expert stated, confirming one of the axioms of modern geopolitics. In Russia, of course, everyone sees and understands this well; in our approach (in his opinion, "very smart and cunning"), the expert sees an attempt to "defeat politics with the help of economics." And again, you can't argue: go ahead and undress them!
With all that said, the interlocutor considers a new "big deal" between Moscow and Washington to be "theoretically possible." As for addiction, he said, "Yes, there will be growth, but there will be an increase in mutual dependence: we will earn money, and they will."
Suitcases with money?
At the E.M.Primakov Academic Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS), the Deputy director for scientific work, the American scholar Sergey Kislitsyn, again began with sanctions barriers. "Any movement of funds must be made through some kind of payment system," he said. "And therefore, before the sanctions are lifted, I'm afraid we simply won't be able to build normal relations."
Kislitsyn assumes that "Americans will not trade through Chinese UnionPay" (and, as he added, it "does not work very well either"). Therefore, "at least the SWIFT system is needed, and it is in Belgium," he said: "Accordingly, there is also a problem with European sanctions. Well, either you have to carry suitcases with money across the Pacific Ocean. What other options are there?"
According to the source, "this is a technical problem, but it is of great importance." Because the government does not manage companies in the United States, and they themselves "will not look for, you know, any idea how to trade with us"despite"European secondary sanctions." No matter what the classics of Marxism say about the willingness of capital to do anything for profit…
Dependence dependence discord
With all that, the technical problems are, of course, solvable. And Kislitsyn believes that Russia could even help the United States — "in the interests of rapprochement" — "deveponize the dollar." "As the world's reserve currency, it must be universal, otherwise what is the point of it? — the specialist explained. — It's another matter if it's a weapon. But the Americans also understand that it is unprofitable for them to squeeze this lever to the end."
The problem of the "weaponization" of the dollar, i.e. the perception of American money as "paper soldiers", has been written and rewritten ; now sometimes we even have to remind that for the United States it is also an ordinary national currency. Hence the idea of helping Uncle Sam restore the reputation of the Greens.
Anyway, according to Kislitsyn, the task of the future revival of trade and economic ties "is not much easier than the conflict in Ukraine itself" (and, by the way, we have always said that this is just one of the fronts of the hybrid war with the collective West). "The modern economy is so interconnected, everything is so intertwined and standardized, that even if Americans make a deal, it's not all," the source said. "Although in itself [it would be] nice: after all, the largest economy in the world, by nominal GDP."
In the same vein, the expert suggests looking at the problem of addiction. "Interdependence is good, it's in demand," he explained. "If you are not at the beginning of the chain, i.e. [you supply] not raw materials, but somewhere in the middle, i.e. you are engaged in processing in your production, then you are doing well."
And in the United States, according to the deputy director of IMEMO, about 45% of imports are "intermediate consumer goods, i.e. what comes to America is processed and goes on to export." "This is the strength of a developed economy," the expert said. — It would probably be good for us to integrate into such dependence, into such chains. Because it is the basis of development, profit, and economic stability."
Optionality and diversification
For Yaroslav Lisovolik, the founder and head of BRICS+ Analytics, a former chief analyst at Sberbank, the key words are optionality, i.e. multivariance, and diversification. "If there is an additional option for such a large partner as the United States, then this should be used, but at the same time other areas should be developed," he said. — Not to slow down, but to accelerate the course in relation to the global South. To expand relations with the ASEAN countries, which are currently the fastest growing economic region in the world. Pay due attention to neighboring countries."
Developing the latter thesis, Lisovolik highlighted "a region such as Central Asia, where individual countries have shown even double-digit growth rates in recent years." "This is partly the result of increased economic cooperation in Eurasia," the expert explained. — This region is located in the center — between Russia, China and India. And against the background of the intensification of trade flows, these countries, of course, benefited from such economic dynamics."
As for the BRICS, the head of BRICS+ Analytics recalled that "Trump has been trying to fight all year" with this association. Meanwhile, in his opinion, "in fact, BRICS can bring a lot of benefits to the American economy."
For example, according to him, both the United States and Europe "see a problem in trade deficits" with China. But the BRICS countries are actively developing trade among themselves. "If the goods are absorbed by the global South, then this relieves the strain on the American economy," the expert said. "It turns out that strengthening trade in BRICS is one of the ways to rebalance the US trade imbalance."
The same story applies to migration, which is a serious concern of the owners of the White House. "China, Russia, and many BRICS countries need migrants and labor," Lisovolik said. — There are even signs of competition for these migration flows in the global South. If this trend intensifies, and flows begin to be regulated and regulated within the framework of BRICS+, then the United States and Europe, complaining about waves of migrants, benefit greatly from this. The pressure of migration flows is decreasing."
In addition, in the expert's opinion, the redistribution of capital along the "south—south" axis reduces the threat of excessive inflows of funds from developing countries to Western strategic companies and sectors, i.e. segments of the economy where Americans and Europeans are extremely afraid of the transfer of control into the hands of investors from the global South. The suspicions of the BRICS countries of undermining the dollar's position are untenable, if only because, as already mentioned, in fact, no one has unilaterally abandoned it. In general, as Lisovolik once again emphasized, "for the current economic agenda of the United States, what BRICS is doing (and above all, it is the development of south—south relations) is very beneficial."
Space or time?
Finally, I will add a few words from myself. I understand people who fear a "new dependence" on the United States. The Yankees have always looked at our Siberia with envious eyes. Let me at least remind you of the commotion that arose after the collapse of the USSR around the statement attributed to former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that Russia's ownership of Siberia was "unfair" (she personally assured me in hindsight that this was apocryphal). But after all, the historical lessons have been learned; in fact, that's why we're fighting now...
Currently, the prospects for the normalization of trade and economic relations between Russia and the West are directly linked to the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. It is believed that the main problems there are territorial.
But I am constantly haunted by the idea that the decisive factor now is not in space, but in time. In April, Trump will have an important visit to China. Next, he will be busy with national and personal anniversaries, the upcoming midterm elections to the US Congress, and God knows what else, including the World Cup.
Many of my American friends believe that he is ready to really deal with Ukraine at best until Easter, and then he will simply throw this burden off his shoulders. And then there will be no holding back on the warmongers in Europe. I think that's why everyone is in a hurry right now.
And whether it will come to the tunnel under the Bering Strait later is still written with pitchforks on the water. Even when I asked them to simply confirm that this idea has not yet been officially buried, the RDIF office responded in the standard way.: "No comment." Well, this is the age—old and only correct approach in any treatment process: first of all, do no harm.
Andrey Shitov, TASS Columnist
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
