TRUDH SOCIAL NETWORK

Nigeria's northeast faces worst hunger in a decade as aid cuts hit region, UN says

TRUDH Social Network — Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:34:47 +0000

DAKAR, Senegal – The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) warns that without urgent resources and action, the most vulnerable people in West and Central Africa are headed for yet another dire year. A staggering 55 million people in the region are expected to endure crisis levels of hunger, or worse, during the June–August 2026 lean season. Over 13 million children are also expected to suffer from malnutrition in 2026.

The latest analysis from the Cadre Harmonisé – the equivalent of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) for West and Central Africa – also projects that over three million people will face emergency levels of food insecurity (Phase 4) this year - more than double the 1.5 million in 2020. Four countries - Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger- account for 77 percent of the food insecurity figures, including 15,000 people in Nigeria’s Borno State at risk of catastrophic hunger (IPC-5) for the first time in nearly a decade.

“Vital humanitarian aid is a transformative and stabilizing force in volatile contexts,” said Sarah Longford, Deputy Regional Director for West and Central Africa. “The reduced funding we saw in 2025 has deepened hunger and malnutrition across the region. As needs outpace funding, so too does the risk of young people falling into desperation. It’s critical that we support communities in crisis, so that rampant hunger doesn’t drive further unrest, displacement and conflict across the region.”

A toxic combination of surging conflict, displacement, and economic turmoil has been driving hunger in the region, but reductions in humanitarian assistance are now pushing communities beyond their ability to cope.

In Mali, when families received reduced food rations, areas experienced a 64 percent surge in acute hunger (IPC 3+) since 2023, while communities that received full rations experienced a 34 percent decrease. But continued insecurity in Mali has disrupted critical supply lines to major cities – including for food – with 1.5 million of the most vulnerable Malians expected to face crisis levels of hunger. In Nigeria, last year’s funding shortfalls forced WFP to scale down its nutrition programmes, affecting more than 300,000 children; malnutrition levels in several northern states have since deteriorated from “serious” to “critical.”

The current dire funding outlook threatens to deepen the hunger crisis even further. In Cameroon, without urgent funding, more than half a million vulnerable people are at-risk of being cut off from life-saving assistance in the coming weeks. In Nigeria, WFP will only be able to reach 72,000 people in February, a drastic reduction from the 1.3 million assisted during the 2025 lean season.

With adequate funding, WFP has consistently delivered measurable impacts that improve food security through resilience, social protection, and anticipatory action. Land restoration in the Sahel, for example, generates up to USD30 for every dollar spent. Since 2018, WFP and communities have rehabilitated 300,000 hectares of farmland across five countries to support more than four million people in over 3,400 villages.

WFP programmes in the region have supported infrastructure development, school meals, nutrition, capacity building and seasonal aid to help families manage extreme weather and security risks, stabilize local economies and reduce dependency on aid.

“To break the cycle of hunger for future generations, we need a paradigm shift in 2026. National governments and their partners must increase investment in preparedness, anticipatory action, and resilience-building to empower communities,” said Longford.

WFP urgently requires more than $453 million over the next six months to continue providing life-saving humanitarian assistance across the region.The

EU of resilience

TRUDH Social Network — Fri, 26 Dec 2025 18:21:26 +0000

Economist: Россия вновь заняла треть европейского рынка удобрений

ID.PAGE — Mon, 22 Dec 2025 02:30:37 +0000

ЕС поэтапно увеличивает пошлины на удобрения из России, однако импорт вернулся к досанкционному уровню. План Брюсселя — вытеснить российскую продукцию с рынка — провалился. Почему так произошло — в материале РИА Новости.

С 1 июля таможенный сбор — 6,5% плюс 40 евро за тонну, с июля 2026-го — плюс 60 евро, 2027-го — 80, 2028-го — 315 евро. Россия обеспечивала 30% европейского импорта азотных удобрений. В 2022-м показатель упал до 20,5%. В 2023-м — минимум за 11 лет, 3,9 миллиона тонн. Однако уже в 2024-м, по данным Eurostat, — 4,93 миллиона, 25%.

К весне 2025-го — досанкционный уровень, констатирует Economist. В июне ввезли миллион тонн, рекорд за десять лет.

Гранулированные калийные удобрения на складе готовой продукции на Сильвинитовой обогатительной фабрике в Пермском крае

Дело в том, что нет альтернатив. Зависимость сильнее всего в сегменте калия: Россия и Белоруссии тут нет равных. Так же — в области сложных NPK-удобрений и аммиачной селитры, производство которых требует не только сырьевых ресурсов, но и технологической экспертизы, накапливаемой десятилетиями.

"Европейские фермеры, особенно в странах с интенсивным земледелием — в Германии, Франции, Польше — оказались перед дилеммой. Либо существенное удорожание себестоимости сельхозпродукции при переходе на альтернативные источники, либо продолжение закупок российских удобрений через посреднические схемы. Второй вариант выгоднее в условиях конкуренции на глобальном продовольственном рынке. Невысокая маржинальность аграрного бизнеса не позволяет абсорбировать значительный рост издержек", — указывает экономист Надежда Капустина.

От минеральных удобрений зависит урожайность и динамика всей сельскохозяйственной отрасли — одной из ключевых для европейской экономики и сильно обременительной для бюджета.

"В этом году в рамках общей аграрной политики на поддержку сельского хозяйства направят 53,8%. А меньше трети вообще не бывает", — поясняет Екатерина Безсмертная, декан факультета экономики и бизнеса Финансового университета при правительстве России.

Mark Carney’s fossil fuel pivot bewilders climate experts and business leaders

ID.PAGE — Mon, 22 Dec 2025 02:00:52 +0000

https://www.ft.com/content/e5a0fe37-4d36-489b-95ce-9467ed02efe8December 18, 2025

Canadian prime minister’s legacy as one-time UN envoy and clean power advocate undermined by energy shift

Ilya Gridneff in Toronto and Kenza Bryan in London

PublishedDec 13 2025

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s embrace of fossil fuels to counter US trade hostilities is undoing his legacy in sounding an early alarm on climate change, say those once aligned with the former UN climate envoy.

Since taking office this year, Carney has scrapped Canada’s consumer carbon tax, courted the oil and gas sector and axed a scheme to boost electric vehicle sales in response to US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

In recent weeks, Carney has also signed a deal to produce an extra million barrels of crude oil a day after pledging to double Canada’s liquefied natural gas production for new markets in Asia.

Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault quit Carney’s cabinet in protest, while two founding members of the federal government’s Net Zero Advisory Body also resigned.

“I could not compromise anymore and I fear we are heading in the wrong direction,” Guilbeault told the Financial Times.

Climate experts and figures from business and finance say Carney’s decisions show how far national sovereignty and short-term energy concerns in the Trump era now outweigh action on global warming.

Paul Polman, the former Unilever chief executive who champions responsible capitalism, said it was “not surprising” that Carney would make a “balanced pivot” as part of a political-economic compromise. But the “green industrialism” strategy to stabilise domestic politics and the economy came at the expense of delaying the deeper structural change needed.

“From a climate-science standpoint, this risks undermining the urgency of emissions reduction,” he said.

“Betting heavily on unproven massive-scale CCS [carbon capture and storage] and a cleaner-oil narrative while accelerating production . . . seems like a gamble with global emissions targets, and with the credibility of net zero by 2050. Gambling with firm science does not seem smart to me.”

The fate of Mark Carney’s finance alliance was sealed after US President Donald Trump rolled back more than 70 US government climate measures © AP

The fossil fuels shift marks a stark contrast from September 2015, when Carney, as governor of the Bank of England, warned in a landmark speech that “climate change is the tragedy of the horizon”.

He then urged governments and regulatory bodies to facilitate the transition to renewable energy to prevent “catastrophic” consequences.

“Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late,” he told the City of London gathering.

Ben Caldecott, founding director of the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group, who helped author the UK Prudential Regulation Authority’s first climate change report at the time of Carney’s speech, said the address was critical in changing the agenda in the UK and beyond.

“The fact a central bank governor and chair of the FSB [Financial Stability Board] was talking about climate change brought it into the realm of being a serious credible thing . . . suddenly it had more credence with finance ministries.”

“The Bank of England could have just said: ‘we’ve checked that the vaults are safe from flooding and we’ve cut down on printing,’” he added.

However, the central bank’s emphasis on climate-related financial disclosure and climate stress tests under Carney had a limited impact. “It took us down some tracks that were never going to be enough and were clearly disappointing,” Caldecott said.

By 2021, ahead of the UN climate summit in Glasgow hosted by the UK, Carney was overseeing billions in renewable investments at Brookfield Asset Management as its head of environmental, social and governance and impact fund investing.

He spearheaded the so-called Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (Gfanz), aimed at removing barriers to clean energy investments and promoting science-based climate commitments, launching a lofty goal for $130tn in investment from the financial sector by 2050.

The fate of Carney’s finance alliance was sealed under Trump, with the rollback of more than 70 US government climate measures. A group of Republican attorneys-general heralded the pushback with legal action claiming such alliances distort competition.

One by one, most of the financial sector subgroups involved suspended operations, as Trump denounced green energy. One of the most prominent backers of the finance initiative, BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink, fell into step with the political shift and now promotes “energy pragmatism”.

Carney was not alone in making the pivot in the Trump era, as many of the world’s largest banks continued to extend fossil fuel-related financing.

Jeanne Martin, co-director of corporate engagement and head of banking programmes at ShareAction, said the campaign group’s past criticism of Gfanz members for falling short in delivering on their climate promises had “caused quite a bit of stir, which led to a call with Carney”.

“Maybe we should have another version of that call [with Carney] where we’re the ones doing the telling off,” she said.

Mark Carney’s wife, Diana Fox Carney, hosted the podcast ‘Carbon Hunters’ © Getty Images

Carney’s shift is seen as especially striking given how seriously he and his family had taken climate change. His wife, Diana Fox Carney, is an economist and respected climate policy expert who hosted the podcast Carbon Hunters, and wrote about how voters could be persuaded to back carbon pricing.

Catherine Abreu, who recently quit Canada’s net zero advisory body over Carney’s policies, said there was a “hope as PM he would be able to pull Canada’s economy into the future”.

“The disappointment has been that he just wants to use the same playbook that we’ve seen previous Canadian governments use, which is to double down on natural resources that [are] already on their way out.”

Carney’s memorandum of understanding with oil-rich Alberta, as part of a “grand bargain”, lays the groundwork for a new crude pipeline to the west coast, at a time when Canada produces a record 4mn barrels a day.

Canada holds the world’s third-largest oil reserves but produces “the most carbon intensive crudes in North America”, according to the Pembina Institute, because Alberta’s oil sands extraction process emits more carbon than conventional drilling.

Lisa Baiton, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, applauded the regulatory rollbacks as “significant steps towards unlocking Canada’s vast natural energy resources and putting us on a path to become the world’s next energy superpower”.

While Carney’s pact with Alberta includes a plan to secure industrial carbon pricing before April 1, it delays the province’s methane reduction target to 2035. Control of methane, the main component of gas, is regarded as the most effective measure in the short term in tackling global warming.

The plan also suspends clean electricity regulations, cuts a proposed oil and gas emissions cap, and was signed without consulting coastal First Nations, which oppose any new pipeline project.

All this comes as Carney’s government is off track to meet its 2030 emissions targets, Canada’s environment commissioner found. Carney said in his November budget that the country’s “net zero” plans were focused on 2050.

“The prime minister has always been and remains a leader in driving stronger climate action,” said a spokesperson. “Next year, the government will build on its ambitious work to reduce emissions and build a stronger, more sustainable economy.”

Keean Nembhard, a spokesperson for Canada’s environment minister Julie Dabrusin, said “fighting climate change, protecting communities and building Canada” were “top priorities” for Carney’s government. Nembhard cited Canada’s industrial carbon pricing system, clean electricity and methane-reduction regulations, and tax credits for clean energy as examples of Ottawa’s strategy to cut emissions.

As part of trade negotiations with Washington, Carney is open to reviving the Keystone XL pipeline linking Alberta to Nebraska — cancelled by former US president Joe Biden on environmental grounds — to aid US energy security.

Carney, who says he wants to produce “decarbonised oil”, is also turning to the Pathways Alliance, a C$16.5bn (US$12bn) industry-proposed carbon capture and storage mega-project, to counter emissions from higher crude production.

Mark Campanale, CEO of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, which framed many of the risks expounded by Carney in 2015, said scaling up renewable projects to deliver free daytime electricity — using the Australian example — would be a better government strategy than encouraging the expansion of oil and gas.

“We’re seeing governments like Canada, which are investing money in projects that might never be profitable, that go counter to their own climate objectives, and that’s really concerning,” he said.

As a minority-government leader, he added, “maybe Carney has a cunning plan . . . but right now there is a sense of bewilderment in climate circles”.

Carney’s effort on climate action, which was a foundation of his career of the past 10 years, now risks being erased within a year of his election to lead a G7 government confronting economic challenges.

“Whether Carney has been a net positive for climate work in the last decade is a mixed bag, especially more recently,” Caldecott said. “There’s a sense that, because of things he’s done in Canada, maybe there’s a lack of authenticity — he said one thing at one time, and has completely pivoted.”

Рынок климатической дезинформации

Andrey Matuzov — Mon, 22 Dec 2025 01:54:29 +0000

Климатическая политика под влиянием искаженной действительности

Дезинформация о климате превратилась в структурированную экономическую систему с производителями, инвесторами, каналами дистрибуции и измеряемой доходностью. Она влияет на формирование политических решений, усиливает задержку климатических мер и создает устойчивый спрос на нарративы, подрывающие переход к низкоуглеродной экономике. COP30 лишь подтвердил масштаб этой инфраструктуры.

Президент COP30 Андре Корреа До Лаго обращается к средствам массовой информации во время Конференции ООН по изменению климата

Фото: Anderson Coelho / Reuters

После конференции COP30 стало очевиднее, что ключевая линия противостояния в климатической политике проходит не только в энергетике, но и в информационном поле. Подготовленный FALA — Impact Studio и Climate Action Against Disinformation отчет Climate Information Integrity (2025) под руководством журналистки и исследовательницы Таис Лаццери сыграл тут роль системного маркера. Документ важен не только фактами, но и тем, что впервые описывает дезинформацию как полноценную экономическую экосистему — «цепочку поставок лжи», в которой производители нарративов, дистрибуторы, алгоритмы социальных платформ и корпоративные спонсоры действуют как взаимосвязанные элементы единого рынка, ориентированного на прибыль и влияние. Он подрывает способность государств принимать климатические решения и снижает темпы энергетического перехода.

Эта рамка идеально совпала с произошедшим на COP30. Форум стал рекордным по числу аккредитованных представителей нефтегазового сектора и связанных лоббистских сетей. Их стратегия сместилась от классического отрицания климатических изменений к более тонкому и эффективному «экономическому отрицанию». Все эти нарративы подробно описаны в отчете как типовые инструменты задержки климатических решений — discourses of delay, и именно они доминировали на отраслевых мероприятиях и панелях в Белеме.

Первый — смещение фокуса с фактов на стоимость перехода: «Слишком дорого». Продвигается тезис, что ВИЭ, адаптация и декарбонизация якобы подрывают экономику, рост, экспорт и занятость. Это позволяет откладывать реформы на неопределенный срок, представляя бездействие «разумной экономией».

Второй — переадресация ответственности («пусть начинают другие»). Стандартная конструкция: «Пока крупные эмитенты ничего не делают, нам не нужно торопиться». Это тормозит национальные планы, разрушает принцип общей, но дифференцированной ответственности.

Третий — апелляция к будущим технологиям. Утверждение, что переход можно отложить, потому что через 10–20 лет появятся «идеальные решения» (массовый CCS, новые виды топлива, гиперэффективные электросети). Это снимает давление на действующие секторы.

Четвертый — подрыв доверия к решениям, а не к фактам. Новая форма отрицания: не спорить с реальностью потепления, а спорить с инструментами — утверждать, что ВИЭ ненадежны, электромобили грязнее, зеленые нормы избыточны. Это переводит дискуссию в серую зону сомнений, где политические решения можно бесконечно откладывать.

Пятый — создание политической рамки «суверенитета против климата». Климат преподносится как политический или культурный проект («глобализм», «левый заговор», «угроза традиционным ценностям»). Любые климатические меры интерпретируются как навязываемая извне повестка. Это позволяет позиционировать отказ от регулирования как защиту независимости, а не как поддержку индустрий с высоким уровнем выбросов.

Шестой — фрейминг регулирования как авторитарного контроля. Нарратив: экологические нормы «ограничивают свободы», «удушают бизнес», «навешивают обязательства». Это снижает общественную поддержку климатической политики и дает правительствам основания постепенно смягчать меры.

Седьмой — зеленый PR и компенсация реальности маркетингом. Создание иллюзии перехода вместо реального перехода. Компании заявляют о «нейтральности» и «стратегиях декарбонизации», одновременно увеличивая добычу или инвестиции в ископаемые топлива. Это заполняет пространство отчетности и медиа, создавая видимость прогресса.

Типичный пример такой повестки — создание кампаний, которые выглядят голосом общества: водители против электромобилей, фермеры против экологических норм, потребители против дорогого перехода. В отчете описано, как такие структуры финансируются индустриальными группами и используются для давления на правительства. Лоббисты активно использовали социальные платформы как усилитель, пользуясь тем, что ложные сообщения распространяются в шесть раз быстрее научно подтвержденных данных, а алгоритмы по-прежнему поощряют эмоциональный и поляризующий контент. Данные не опровергаются, но утверждается, что «у науки нет единого мнения». Отчет фиксирует это как наследие нефтегазовой индустрии с 1990-х — через think tanks, газетно-журнальные колонки, «альтернативные исследования». Часто используется апелляция к страху: потеря рабочих мест, рост цен, «угроза стилю жизни». Во время наводнений, пожаров, засух отчет фиксирует массовые всплески дезинформации, которые подменяют разговор о причинах разговором о заговоре, обвинениях или поиске «виноватых». Это тормозит обсуждение системных мер.

COP30 стал не только дипломатической площадкой, но и ареной информационного давления, направленного прежде всего на делегации стран Глобального Юга, продвигающих жесткие обязательства и климатическую справедливость. Отчет фиксирует, что именно такие группы чаще становятся целями кампаний, финансируемых корпоративными и политическими интересами, чья задача — разделить переговорщиков, подорвать доверие к научным данным и замедлить согласование мер. Без защиты информационной среды любые многосторонние соглашения остаются уязвимыми.

SARAFAN ALLIANCE Security Strategy 2025

ND Matthews — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 14:44:02 +0000

Address to the Participants of the Primary Civilizational Belt

The world has entered a phase of deep fragmentation. The former institutions of global stability – from international organizations to trade regimes – have ceased to maintain order. The existing system of globalization has in many ways exhausted its historical resource for development and no longer reflects the interests of the majority of humankind.

The countries of the Primary Civilizational Belt – Eurasia, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the regions connected to them – still bear the main burden of providing the world with resources, people and culture, but do not possess a comparable level of influence on the architecture of the future. This creates a long‑term risk for civilizational security and stability.

SARAFAN ALLIANCE Alliance was developed as a peaceful civilizational meta‑project intended to restore balance between the Primary and Secondary Belts and to propose a new architecture of security – based not on domination, but on memory, conscience, measure and fair cooperation. The present SARAFAN ALLIANCE Security Strategy describes what we want, what means we have at our disposal and how we intend to act during the period 2025–2030.

I. Introduction – What is the SARAFAN ALLIANCE Strategy?

1. How global strategy reached a dead end

In recent decades, world politics and the global economy have developed according to a logic in which security was understood primarily as:

military balance and deterrence;
control over resources, markets and technologies;
maintenance of a favorable architecture of globalization for a limited circle of states.

This approach made it possible to achieve short‑term stability, but led to systemic distortions:

the countries of the Primary Belt remained sources of resources, markets and labor, but not full‑fledged co‑authors of the rules;
the debt‑, sanctions‑ and interest‑based financial architecture entrenched the dependence of a significant part of the world;
the cultural and linguistic codes of the Primary Belt came under pressure from standardized models of mass culture and governance;
key categories – “development,” “democracy,” “market,” “sustainability” – came to be used as instruments of pressure rather than as shared measures of reality.

At the level of concepts, the world continues to be divided into “West/East,” “North/South,” “developed/developing countries.” However, these schemes no longer explain the real balance of power or the deep fault lines. The basic divide runs along another line – between:

civilizations that preserve the memory of primary meanings (conscience, measure, community, duty, gift, justice); and
systems in which the logic of force, profit and control has become self‑sufficient and has been institutionalized in the form of global financial, technological and political mechanisms.

Within this logic, the strategies of great powers focus on protecting narrowly understood national interests, expanding influence and controlling the architecture of the world order. They do not work with the civilizational and semantic layers – with the question of what meanings and models of the human being underlie institutions and the rules of the game.

As a result:

fragmentation and mistrust between regions are growing;
the semantic incompatibility of the Primary and Secondary Belts makes dialogue formal;
the risks of conflicts managed by financial and information technologies rather than by open politics are increasing;
climate, food, demographic and cultural agendas are considered separately, without a unified framework.

The SARAFAN ALLIANCE Strategy proceeds from the fact that such a course no longer provides either security or development – neither for the countries of the Primary Belt nor for the world as a whole.

2. Correcting the course: why the SARAFAN ALLIANCE Strategy is needed

SARAFAN ALLIANCE Alliance is proposed as a correction of the global trajectory from the side of the countries of the Primary Belt. Its task is not to replace existing states, blocs and associations, but to:

add a civilizational layer to already existing national strategies and integration projects;
formulate a new language of security and development in which memory, conscience, measure and talent become key variables, and not only GDP, military budgets and ratings;
create a cooperation infrastructure that allows the countries of the Primary Belt to act in a coordinated way without locking themselves into bloc confrontation with the Secondary Belt.

The SARAFAN ALLIANCE Strategy rests on three key foundations:

The civilizational model of the Primary and Secondary Belts

The world is viewed as the sum of two types of spaces:

Primary Belt – regions where the first civilizations, cities, law, religious systems and norms of measure and justice arose;
Secondary Belt – later industrial and modernization formations that gave a powerful impetus to technology, science and management techniques, but are often detached from the original foundations of conscience and measure.

The Disruption methodology combined with interdisciplinary analysis

Within the M BALANCE Center for Strategy and Communication, work was carried out to identify and rearrange the stable stereotypes and basic assumptions of the existing model of globalization – political, economic, scientific and cultural. The goal is to formulate a new status quo in which the Primary Belt appears not as a periphery, but as a source of rules and meanings.

A root‑based approach to meanings and socio‑economic interaction

The methodological base includes a body of research on the Afrasian (Afroasiatic) language family and the root structure of Semitic and related languages, where triconsonantal roots are described as carriers of basic meanings: agreement, justice, measure, duty, community, gift, exchange and others. On this basis, a working set of roots and semantic fields has been formed, enabling the formalization of types of interaction between SARAFAN ALLIANCE participants and the translation of civilizational principles into the language of contracts, regulations and project architectures.

The SARAFAN ALLIANCE Strategy answers three basic questions:

What should the countries and societies of the Primary Belt want when acting together?
What means do they actually have to achieve these goals?
How are these goals and means combined into a workable strategy of security and development for the period 2025–2030?

II. What do the participants of SARAFAN ALLIANCE want?

1. What we want in general

In the terms of SARAFAN ALLIANCE, security is not only the absence of war or threats to sovereignty. It is a state in which:

the civilizational memory of the countries of the Primary Belt is not eroded and does not become a decorative resource;
conscience and measure become working categories in politics, economics, science and technology;
the talent of people and communities is used not as raw material for external centers, but as the basis of their own development;
the basic conditions of life – food, water, climate resilience, access to knowledge and infrastructure – are protected from manipulation and blackmail.

Proceeding from this, SARAFAN ALLIANCE formulates the following target states:

Civilizational security of the Primary Belt

The preservation and development of its cultures, languages, institutions, models of communal life and justice as a fully‑fledged foundation of the world order, and not as “local specificity.”

Sovereign development of the countries of the Primary Belt

The ability to pursue independent economic, scientific, cultural and climate policy without being hostages of debt‑, sanctions‑ and one‑sided technological regimes.

Fair cooperation with the Secondary Belt

Not isolation, but equal exchange of resources, knowledge and technologies based on transparent rules and shared risk, without the imposition of civilizational unification.

Governance of aggregate talent, not only resources

A transition from a model in which the key object of management is oil, gas, ores, workforce, to a model in which the main asset is people, their knowledge, cultural and scientific potential, entrepreneurial and cooperative initiatives.

Reduction of structural vulnerability to global crises

The formation of such food, logistics, data, education and culture chains that cannot be instantly destroyed by external pressure.

Within the alliance this is expressed in the formula:

“To live according to the laws of memory, conscience, measure and talent – and on this basis to build the economy, institutions and international rules.”

2. What we want from the world and in the world

Moving to the external dimension, SARAFAN ALLIANCE formulates external goals with respect to the world order:

A multipolar but not fragmented world

recognition of real civilizational diversity;
rejection of attempts at a single normative matrix imposed from outside;
at the same time – the presence of shared, commonly accepted rules for dealing with resources, people, technologies and nature.

A new architecture of global cooperation

priority of cooperative, not exclusively corporate models;
creation of international regimes in which the countries of the Primary Belt participate not only as suppliers of raw materials, but also as co‑owners of technological, logistic and cultural ecosystems;
development of instruments of joint ownership, profit‑and‑loss‑sharing and cooperative platforms instead of one‑dimensional domination of interest‑bearing debt.

Coordinated civilizational dialogue with the Secondary Belt

recognition of the contributions of the Secondary Belt to industrialization, science and culture;
elaboration of a language in which projects, strategies and performance indicators are translated into civilizational categories of measure, justice and responsibility;
creation of venues where the national strategies of great powers can be embedded into a broader framework without destroying the sovereignty of others.

A shared regime for the protection of humanity’s basic goods

climate, water, food, health, the digital environment, cultural heritage – as objects of common care;
rejection of the practice whereby these topics are used as instruments of pressure and reallocation of power.

Recognition of the Primary Belt as a fully‑fledged center of rule‑making

participation of the countries of the Primary Belt in creating new norms of international law, technological development standards, climate and food agendas;
formation of their own institutions (academies, funds, arbitration bodies, platforms) recognized by other actors.

Thus, SARAFAN ALLIANCE does not seek from the world a change of hegemon, but a change of the level of governance: from the competition of national strategies within an unchanged architecture – to joint governance of the architecture through a civilizational meta‑project.

III. What means does SARAFAN have to obtain what we want?

SARAFAN Alliance relies not on the military power of a single state, but on the aggregate potential of the countries of the Primary Belt and on already existing forms of cooperation. The task of the strategy – just as in the U.S. NSS – is to link goals and means, but at a different level of the game.

1. Basic assets of the Primary Belt

The countries of the Primary Belt possess a number of objective advantages:

Territorial and resource foundation.

A significant share of the world’s reserves of fresh water, arable land, energy and mineral resources, biological diversity and solar‑wind potential is concentrated in Eurasia, Africa, Latin America and the regions connected to them.

Demography and youth.

Most of the world’s young population lives precisely in the countries of the Primary Belt, which creates a unique reserve of human potential that is critically important for long‑term development.

Civilizational density.

It is here that the first cities, law, religious systems, norms of measure, justice and collective responsibility arose. This provides access to a long line of institutions and practices that can be reinterpreted and used as the basis for a new architecture.

Experience of communal and cooperative organization.

The traditions of communities and of artel‑, cooperative and family‑clan forms of management create a cultural base for a cooperative economy and shared‑risk models.

2. Intellectual and semantic resources of SARAFAN

SARAFAN relies on research and methodological work already carried out:

The civilizational model of the Primary/Secondary Belts.

The model makes it possible to describe the world not only through geopolitics and GDP, but through types of civilizational experience, attitudes towards measure, conscience, debt burden, management of resources and the human being.

The Disruption methodology and the work of the M BALANCE Center.

Within the M BALANCE Center for Strategy and Communication, an interdisciplinary review was carried out of entrenched stereotypes of globalization, academic consensus and forms of social organization. This creates a methodological basis for designing a new status quo, and not merely adjusting the existing one.

Root‑based approach to meanings.

A body of research on the Afrasian (Afroasiatic) language family and the root structure of Semitic and related languages is used, in which triconsonantal roots are described as carriers of basic social meanings (agreement, measure, justice, duty, community, gift, exchange, etc.). On this basis a working corpus of roots and semantic fields has been formed, which allows for the formalization of types of socio‑economic interaction and their translation into the language of contracts, regulations and institutions.

3. Institutional and network capabilities

SARAFAN is not being created “from scratch,” but is assembling and strengthening institutional and network resources that already exist:

Core institutions of SARAFAN.

SARAFAN Alliance Office – coordination and organizational center.
Meaning Center (M BALANCE) – semantic and methodological core.
Scientific Council – network of scholars and experts from the countries of the Primary and Secondary Belts.
Cultural Directorate – network of cultural institutions and leaders.
Cooperative Network Platform – a digital platform for cooperation among people, communities, cities, universities, cooperatives and businesses.

Network configuration.

Formats of interaction already exist – BRICS, regional unions, sectoral associations, university and city networks. SARAFAN uses them not as competitors, but as ready‑made nodes that can be linked into a single civilizational architecture.

4. Economic and cooperative potential

The countries of the Primary Belt have the opportunity to reset their role in the global economy:

From raw‑material appendage to value‑added chains.

There is an opportunity to build cooperative chains in agro‑industry, resource processing, energy, logistics, digital and creative industries in which the countries of the Primary Belt act not only as suppliers of resources, but also as co‑owners of infrastructure, technologies and brands.

Cooperative models and alternatives to interest‑bearing debt.

The rich tradition of Islamic, Christian and other legal and ethical approaches to limiting usury creates a basis for developing equity‑based, partnership and cooperative financial mechanisms in which profit and risk are shared rather than shifted to the weaker side.

Regional logistics and transport corridors.

The geography of the Primary Belt makes it possible to form alternative trade and exchange routes – both overland and maritime – reducing vulnerability to sanctions‑based and transit pressure.

5. Digital platform and technologies

The key lever of SARAFAN is a digital platform that connects people, projects, resources and knowledge into a single cooperative environment.

The platform combines the functions of a social network, a cooperative marketplace and an educational / research‑practical environment.

An artificial intelligence module is embedded into the platform, which:

sets unified metrics and formats for describing projects and interactions;
helps participants find partners and best practices;
provides prompt access to databases, case studies and analytics;
supports monitoring of the fairness of benefit and risk distribution.

Thus, SARAFAN obtains an operational infrastructure comparable in scale to the platform systems of the Secondary Belt, but oriented toward cooperation rather than monetization of attention and data.

6. Legitimacy and demand for a new order

Finally, SARAFAN’s most important resource is the legitimacy of the project:

the countries of the Primary Belt make up the majority of the world’s population and a significant share of its cultural and resource potential;
in these societies there is a growing demand for a more just, respectful and cooperative architecture of the world;
at the same time, fatigue is growing with the debt‑, sanctions‑ and unilaterally interpreted “universal” agenda.

The SARAFAN Strategy is designed to gather all these disparate assets into a single coherent system – just as the NSS describes the consolidation of American resources, but at another level and with different goals.

IV. The SARAFAN Strategy

1. Principles

The external and internal policy of SARAFAN Alliance is based on principles that set a different framework compared to the national strategies of great powers:

Civilizational mutual responsibility.

The basic unit of the world is not only the nation‑state, but also civilization as the bearer of long memory and its own norms of measure and justice. The countries of the Primary Belt recognize mutual responsibility for preserving and developing this memory and do not claim the right to unify other civilizations.

Primacy of measure and conscience over naked profit.

Economy, finance, technology and politics are regarded as tools subordinated to the categories of measure, justice and responsibility to future generations. Growth achieved at the price of destroying people, communities and nature is not recognized as sustainable or legitimate.

Sovereignty without domination.

SARAFAN proceeds from the right of every state and community to sovereign development, but does not recognize the right of any power – including within the Primary Belt – to structural domination and exploitation of others.

Horizontal cooperation instead of bloc confrontation.

The alliance creates mechanisms of cooperation between countries, cities, communities, universities and cooperatives, minimizing militarization and bloc logic. SARAFAN is not built as a military or antagonistic bloc.

Priority of talent and value creation over rent.

The main object of protection and development is human talent and the ability to create value in fair forms. SARAFAN policy is aimed at reducing the role of purely rent‑seeking and speculative incomes that are not linked to real labor and risk.

Inclusivity and compatibility.

SARAFAN does not require ideological conformity or unified models of internal order. The condition of participation is the recognition of the principles of memory, conscience, measure and fair cooperation. National strategies (including strategies of great powers) can be embedded into the SARAFAN architecture without giving up sovereignty.

Digital transparency and trust.

The use of the digital platform and embedded AI is aimed at ensuring transparency of cooperation chains and of benefit and risk distribution, not at total control. Data and algorithms must serve to strengthen trust between participants, not as hidden mechanisms of manipulation.

2. Priorities

On the basis of these principles, SARAFAN formulates priorities for the period 2025–2030:

Food, water and climate security of the Primary Belt.

The formation of resilient chains of production and distribution of food, water and basic resources within the Belt; reduction of vulnerability to external shocks and manipulation.

New financial and cooperative architecture.

Development of cooperative, equity‑based and partnership financial instruments that limit the domination of interest‑bearing debt and debt dependence. Creation of talent and cooperation funds operating on principles of shared risk and fair distribution of income.

The SARAFAN digital platform as a daily point of entry.

Deployment and scaling of the platform that unites people, projects, knowledge and resources. Embedding AI modules that ensure unified metrics, access to practices, analysis of cooperation chains and support for decision‑making.

Cultural and educational subjectivity.

Support for the languages, cultures, educational programs and research centers of the countries of the Primary Belt. Creation of network academies, residencies, festivals and media projects that form a new narrative about the role of the Primary Belt in the world.

Cooperative value‑added chains.

Launch and scaling of specific chains in agro‑ and food industry, energy, resource processing, logistics, creative industries and the digital economy in which the countries of the Primary Belt act as co‑authors and co‑owners.

Institutions of trust and arbitration.

Creation of mechanisms for dispute resolution, standards of participation, codes of measure and justice, which rely on civilizational traditions but are framed in modern legal and technological language.

3. SARAFAN spaces (regions)

Unlike the national strategy of a single power, SARAFAN is based on a distributed configuration of spaces of the Primary Belt. For the purposes of security and development we distinguish several key contours.

A. Eurasian backbone (Russia – Eurasia – China / Asia)

The Eurasian contour is the load‑bearing beam of SARAFAN security:

the largest landmass connecting Europe, Asia and the Middle East;
critical resources (energy, metals, food, transit corridors);
developed scientific schools, engineering culture, experience of industrial modernization.

For SARAFAN, priorities here are:

climate and food security: coordinated programs in agro, water resources, storage and processing;
the transport‑logistics backbone of the Primary Belt: land and sea routes alternative to sanctioned and unilaterally controlled corridors;
scientific and technological consortia: cooperation in energy, climate, materials science, AI, secure digital infrastructure;
semantic dialogue with the Secondary Belt: Russia, China and a number of Asian countries act as natural intermediaries between the civilizational language of the Primary Belt and the project language of the Secondary.

B. Africa

Africa is simultaneously a civilizational source and a key space of future growth:

young population, enormous resource and agricultural potential;
high climate risks and vulnerability to debt‑, sanctions‑ and raw‑material models of exploitation.

For SARAFAN:

transition from a logic of “aid” to a logic of investment and cooperation: joint projects in energy, agro, infrastructure, digital connectivity;
protection of Africa’s right to be a co‑author of rules, not only a supplier of raw materials and a sales market;
integration of African universities and cultural centers into the SARAFAN network, creation of academies and residencies;
focus on critical minerals and climate resilience as a shared interest of the Primary Belt.

C. Latin America

Latin America is a space of intersection of Primary and Secondary experience:

deep civilizational roots mixed with colonial and industrial layers;
rich resources, agricultural and energy potential, strong cultural codes.

Priorities for SARAFAN:

cooperative chains in agro, food industry, energy and creative industries;
partnerships between cities and regions: cultural, educational and scientific networks (universities, festivals, media);
alternative financial and trade models reducing dependence on one‑sided credit and sanctions regimes;
the role of Brazil as one of SARAFAN’s “anchors” in South America.

D. Western Asia and the Arab world

This contour is critical for energy, logistics and meanings:

energy carriers, strategic straits, transit hubs;
strong religious‑civilizational traditions of measure and limitations on usury.

For SARAFAN:

transformation from a zone of conflicts into a zone of cooperation – in energy, technologies, climate and food security;
use of traditions of prohibition of interest‑bearing debt and equity financing as the basis of a new SARAFAN financial architecture;
formation of hubs in the UAE and other centers of the region as venues for dialogue between the Primary and Secondary Belts;
linkage with Africa and Eurasia as a single energy‑logistics and cultural belt.

E. Linkages with the Secondary Belt (USA, EU, Japan and others)

SARAFAN is not built against the Secondary Belt. It sets a framework within which interaction with it becomes more predictable and fair.

Priorities:

civilizational dialogue: translating the language of national strategies (such as the 2025 U.S. NSS) into a format compatible with the categories of memory, measure, conscience and talent;
selective technological and scientific partnerships based on transparent rules that exclude debt and sanctions traps for the countries of the Primary Belt;
joint climate, food and scientific projects in which the parties recognize equality and long‑term mutual responsibility;
protection of the cultural and educational subjectivity of the Primary Belt while maintaining open exchange of knowledge and people.

V. Implementation Road Map 2025–2030 (in a security logic)

The SARAFAN Road Map describes how the meta‑project moves from a concept to a system that influences the security and resilience of the Primary Belt. It is based on four phases aligned with your original Road Map but reformulated in a security logic.

Phase 1. Formation (December 2025 – June 2026)

Goal: to move SARAFAN from a research and conceptual state to an established platform that reduces the strategic vulnerability of the countries of the Primary Belt.

Key blocks:

Legal and institutional formalization

registration of the SARAFAN Alliance Office in the chosen jurisdiction;
adoption of the charter, basic regulations and principles of participation;
formation of the supervisory board, executive team and secretariat.

Fixing the Meaning Center (M BALANCE) as the semantic core

consolidation of the status of the M BALANCE Center for Strategy and Communication as the methodological center of SARAFAN;
adoption of the basic methodology (Disruption, Primary/Secondary Belt model, root‑based approach to meanings);
publication of Guide Book v1 / Security Strategy 2025 and a glossary of key concepts.

First circle of “shareholders” (anchor states and nodes)

finalization of negotiations with Brazil, China, the UAE, Morocco and Russia as key anchor participants;
fixation of framework agreements on support for SARAFAN and participation in governance.

Founding event “SARAFAN Alliance – RETHINKING 2045” (Abu Dhabi, May 2026)

strategic part: discussion and adoption of the SARAFAN Alliance doctrine and program (theoretical, economic, business and communication blocks, governance regulations);
cultural part: SARAFAN Festival, revealing through the cultures of the participating countries the meaning of “SARAFAN” as a space of meeting, exchange, agreement, celebration and joint planning of the future.

Launch of the security and trust architecture

formation of the Scientific Council and the Cultural Directorate;
formulation of the technical assignment and architecture of the Cooperative Network Platform;
definition of initial priorities in food, climate, logistics and cultural security.

Result of the phase: SARAFAN exists as an established meta‑project with recognized founders, a basic doctrine, an institutional framework and political legitimization through the founding event.

Phase 2. Expansion and pilot security contours (2026–2027)

Goal: to turn SARAFAN from an institutional framework into an operating network that begins to reduce specific vulnerabilities of the countries of the Primary Belt.

Regional nodes and SARAFAN councils

launch of nodes in Africa, Latin America, China/Asia and the Arab world;
formation of regional scientific‑cultural‑economic councils.

First program verticals (as security instruments)

Culture: cultural routes, festivals, residencies that strengthen trust and a shared space of memory.
Education: network programs, exchanges, schools – forming the core of new humanities scholars and strategists.
Science & Climate: consortia on climate, food security and water.
Cooperative Economy: pilot cooperative chains (agro, processing, energy, creative industries).
Media & Narrative: projects shaping the SARAFAN narrative as an alternative to conflict‑driven geopolitics.

SARAFAN digital platform (MVP)

launch of the first version of the platform as a daily entry point for people, communities and projects;
registration of the first participants (cities, universities, cooperatives, SMEs, cultural centers);
introduction of a basic AI module:
- unified formats for describing projects and cooperation chains;
- hints on best practices;
- initial analytics on the fairness of benefit and risk distribution.

Interregional cooperative chains

launch of 2–3 interregional chains (for example: Russia–Africa–Middle East; Brazil–Africa; Latin America–Eurasia) in the spheres of food, logistics, creative industries;
formalization of these chains in the form of SARAFAN‑type agreements (root‑based semantic vocabulary, principles of measure and fair cooperation).

Update of strategic documents

publication of Guide Book / Security Strategy v2 taking into account the results of pilots;
preparation of analytical reports on the duality of the Primary/Secondary Belts and the first cases of “security through cooperation.”

Result of the phase: SARAFAN operates as a network with regional nodes, a digital platform, pilot programs and the first measurable effects in food, climate, economic and cultural security.

Phase 3. Consolidation and institutionalization (2027–2029)

Goal: to consolidate SARAFAN as a sustainable architecture of security and development rather than a one‑off project.

International academies and research institutes

creation of SARAFAN academies (culture, humanities, climate, cooperative economy);
institutes for the study of climate, food security and civilizational balance.

Normative and arbitration mechanisms

development and adoption of the SARAFAN Code of Measure and Fair Cooperation;
creation of SARAFAN arbitration and mediation institutions for resolving disputes between participants according to their own rules.

Platform 2.0 and deepening of the AI module

expansion of AI functions:
- forecasting risks of supply chains;
- modelling climate and food scenarios;
- assessing the impact of projects on overall security and resilience;
- integration of educational and scientific services (online courses, databases, libraries).

SA·RA·FAN cultural brand

bringing the SARAFAN cultural brand to the international level (festivals, media, co‑productions, quality labels);
consolidation in mass consciousness of SARAFAN as a symbol of fair cooperation and a new humanistic center of power.

Result of the phase: SARAFAN has its own academies, codes, arbitration bodies, a resilient digital platform and a recognizable cultural brand. The security of the countries of the Primary Belt increasingly rests on their own institutions and chains, and not only on external structures.

Phase 4. Global integration and balance (2029–2030)

Goal: to embed SARAFAN as a recognized element of the global architecture of security and development.

Full‑format Primary Belt

expansion of participation of countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Arab world and Eastern Europe;
formalization of the Primary Belt as a politically non‑military but institutionally mature subject of dialogue with the Secondary Belt.

International agreements and regimes

development and signing of SARAFAN‑type agreements in the spheres of food, climate, water, the digital environment and cultural heritage;
institutional bridges between SARAFAN and existing global organizations.

Talent and cooperation funds

creation of international funds investing in talents, knowledge and cooperative projects of the countries of the Primary Belt;
operation on principles of equity participation and shared risk, with limitations on the domination of interest‑bearing debt and purely rent‑seeking models.

Joint formats with state strategies of great powers

pilot programs in which national strategies (for example, the U.S. NSS or EU documents) are correlated with the principles of SARAFAN;
dialogue venues on topics where interests coincide: climate, food, health, conflict prevention, AI regulation.

Result of the phase: SARAFAN functions as a supranational civilizational security platform which:

reduces the structural vulnerability of the countries of the Primary Belt;
offers the Secondary Belt rules of the game without destroying its national strategies;
transfers great‑power competition into the space of agreed rules and projects.

VI. Measurement and monitoring system (SARAFAN KPIs)

The SARAFAN Security Strategy must rest not only on declarations, but also on measurable progress. Unlike classic national strategies focusing on military and GDP metrics, SARAFAN adds civilizational, cooperative and platform levels of assessment.

1. Principles of measurement

Multilayeredness.

Not only economic results are measured, but also changes in the architecture of cooperation, the quality of institutions, trust and talent.

Quantitative + qualitative indicators.

KPIs capture both “hard” indicators (volumes, shares, number of participants) and qualitative changes (new norms, practices and forms of interaction).

Tied to Road Map phases.

For each phase of 2025–2030 target levels are set that make it possible to check whether SARAFAN’s development corresponds to its stated objectives.

Transparency and digital recording.

Data are collected through the SARAFAN digital platform, which allows participants to see the overall picture and trust the results.

2. Institutional contour

Goal: to consolidate SARAFAN as a sustainable meta‑project, not as a one‑time initiative.

Example KPIs:

number of countries and key cities that have signed SARAFAN framework agreements;
number of functioning institutions: Alliance Office, Meaning Center, Scientific Council, Cultural Directorate, regional nodes;
existence and updating of basic documents (Guide Book / Security Strategy, Code of Measure and Fair Cooperation, arbitration regulations);
regularity and status of main events (annual summits, SARAFAN Festival, academic forums).

3. Platform and digital ecosystem

Goal: to make the SARAFAN digital platform a daily entry point into cooperation.

KPIs:

number of registered users (individuals, organizations, cities, universities, cooperatives, SMEs);
number of active projects and cooperative chains on the platform;
share of projects that have passed full “digital traceability” (from application to implementation);
speed of partner matching and closing of project requests;
level of use of AI modules (recommendations, analytics, access to practice databases);
share of decisions and agreements prepared using the SARAFAN root‑based semantic vocabulary.

4. Cooperative economy and development security

Goal: to move the countries of the Primary Belt from the role of raw‑material and debt appendage to the role of subjects in the joint creation of value added.

KPIs:

number and volume of cooperative value‑added chains (agro, processing, energy, logistics, creative industries, digital economy);
share of income retained within the countries of the Primary Belt in SARAFAN projects;
ratio of cooperative/equity financial instruments to classic debt schemes;
reduction in participants’ dependence on a narrow set of external financial and logistics centers;
volume of investments by talent and cooperation funds.

5. Culture, education, science and climate

Goal: to strengthen the cultural and intellectual subjectivity of the Primary Belt and its resilience to climate and food risks.

KPIs:

number of joint cultural projects, festivals, residencies and media products under the SA·RA·FAN brand;
number of network educational programs, academies, courses and participants;
number of scientific consortia and research projects on climate, water and food;
share of projects aimed at regenerative agriculture, sustainable water practices and climate adaptation;
use of native languages and cultures in SARAFAN programs (not only the “English‑language layer”).

6. Semantics, trust and civilizational balance

Goal: to return the categories of memory, conscience, measure and talent to real governance practice.

Qualitative‑quantitative KPIs:

number of contracts and agreements concluded using the SARAFAN semantic vocabulary (roots “agreement,” “measure,” “gift,” “exchange,” “community,” etc.);
number of cases in which SARAFAN mechanisms made it possible to avoid or mitigate conflict/sanctions crises through cooperative solutions;
participants’ trust index in SARAFAN institutions (based on regular surveys and participation in projects);
inclusion of the principles of memory, conscience, measure and talent in national and regional documents (development strategies, sectoral road maps).

VII. SARAFAN Alliance Risk Model

SARAFAN operates in an environment of high geopolitical turbulence and competing great‑power strategies. As in national security strategies, it is necessary to clearly define classes of risks and ways of managing them, taking into account the civilizational and cooperative character of the project.

1. Classes of risks

1. Political and geopolitical risks

pressure from great powers that perceive SARAFAN as a competing center of influence;
attempts to draw SARAFAN into bloc confrontation (as an “anti‑Western” or “anti‑…” bloc);
sanctions or restrictive measures against SARAFAN institutions and key participants;
sharp changes of political elites in participating countries and revision of commitments.

2. Economic and financial risks

capture of the project by rent‑seeking and oligarchic interests, turning SARAFAN into yet another venue for rent redistribution;
underfunding of key institutions and the platform;
attempts to embed SARAFAN into old debt‑ and raw‑material models of globalization;
high dependence of individual projects on external creditors and technology suppliers.

3. Internal organizational risks

erosion of the principles of memory, conscience, measure and talent in favor of situational profit;
bureaucratization and loss of flexibility, turning SARAFAN into “just another structure” without real substance;
conflicts between participants over the distribution of benefits and status, lack of understandable arbitration;
shortage of competent personnel able to work at the junction of civilizational, economic and technological logics.

4. Digital and technological risks

cyberattacks on the SARAFAN platform, attempts to intercept data and cooperation tools;
abuse of embedded AI (manipulation of ratings, hidden promotion of some actors at the expense of others);
technological dependence on the infrastructure of the Secondary Belt (clouds, payments, critical software);
data leaks undermining trust in the platform.

5. Cultural and semantic risks

misunderstanding or distortion of the Primary/Secondary Belt model (accusations of “racism,” “anti‑Westernism,” “isolationism”);
turning the categories of memory, conscience and measure into propaganda slogans without real substance;
resistance from part of the elites interested in preserving the old global semantics;
failure of communication with their own societies (complex language, lack of simple explanations).

6. Social and legitimacy risks

inflated expectations among populations and communities about the speed of change;
distrust of supranational structures (SARAFAN may be perceived as “another global management center”);
risk of marginalization of the project in the absence of early visible successes;
legal restrictions in individual countries (bans on transnational platforms, restrictions on NGOs, digital barriers).

2. Principles of risk management

Preventiveness.

Risks are not only fixed post factum, but modelled in advance at the level of scenarios.

Decentralization and redundancy.

Critical functions (legal, digital, financial) are not concentrated in one point but distributed across countries and institutions.

Transparency and participation.

Key decisions affecting SARAFAN’s trajectory are taken with the participation of countries, cities, communities and experts, not by closed groups.

Link “meaning – institution – technology.”

Any risk‑management decision must be simultaneously checked at the level of meaning (does it contradict memory, conscience, measure), institution (who is responsible) and technology (how it is implemented on the platform).

3. Risk‑management tools

Governance architecture.

SARAFAN Supervisory Board with representatives of key regions;
ethical and methodological committee under the Meaning Center (M BALANCE);
independent audit of the digital platform and AI modules.

Legal diversification.

registration of SARAFAN and its key institutions in several friendly jurisdictions;
use of hybrid forms (funds, associations, university and city consortia) not reducible to a single NGO or IO format.

Digital security.

distributed infrastructure (microservices, mirrors, backup channels);
independent monitoring of cyberthreats;
transparent rules for AI operation, open audit of algorithms, possibility of public oversight.

Arbitration and mediation.

creation of a SARAFAN arbitration chamber for resolving disputes according to the principles of measure and fair cooperation;
procedures for mediation and “civilizational dialogue” before legal conflict.

Communication contour.

a network of media and cultural projects capable of quickly explaining the essence of SARAFAN and responding to attacks;
training of speakers and dialogue moderators in the countries of the Primary and Secondary Belts.

Scenario planning.

regular scenario sessions (geopolitical, economic, technological, climate);
use of AI models to analyze the risks of cooperation chains and propose their diversification.

4. “Red lines” for preserving the essence of SARAFAN

To avoid capture and deformation of the project, the strategy establishes several fundamental constraints:

SARAFAN does not become a military bloc and does not assume military command functions.
SARAFAN does not turn into an ideological system imposing a single way of life or political order.
No country or group of actors can obtain structural dominance in SARAFAN governance.
Any decision that undermines the categories of memory, conscience, measure and fair treatment of talent is regarded as going beyond SARAFAN’s mandate.

Top 15 countries by carbon emissions

ID.PAGE — Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:11:03 +0000

Urea market grapples with EU’s CBAM as revision delayed

ID.PAGE — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 13:00:56 +0000

A considerable lack of clarity remains as to how the urea market will trade following the rollout of the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) next month, with the market still waiting on confirmation from the EU regarding key aspects of the charge calculation.

Market participants are split as to how the market will react to the additional carbon-related costs associated with the CBAM, and under which trade terms — whether fob, cfr, cif or fca — the most liquidity will be found.

No clear consensus has emerged as to which part of the supply chain will bear the increased costs. Some expect importers to absorb most of the CBAM charge when the import market is in season, while others think that the levy will weigh on fob prices from origin markets. Some expect the cost to be spread across producers and importers.

The CBAM charge depends heavily on individual plants' reported carbon emissions per tonne of urea produced, with lower fees for newer, more-efficient plants that emit less carbon and are less susceptible to unplanned outages. Plants' reported emissions vary widely, and this translates into a similarly wide carbon levy range. The fee could be as low as €15/t ($17/t), or up to as high as €70-80/t and beyond for some origins. Market participants are still waiting for the EU to confirm some key aspects of the CBAM charge calculation, even though it is set to be implemented in three weeks' time.

The costs will be partly based on average quarterly prices of emission trading scheme (ETS) contracts, which adds another layer of complexity to risk management for importers. At current ETS prices, imports from Egypt — the top urea supplier to European markets — are expected to face an average carbon levy of around €40/t. But this average comes from a wide range, given that Egypt's multiple urea plants have varying rates of carbon efficiency.

Product from central Asia — another key supply region — will face higher charges than Egyptian supplies. Urea production plants in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are older and less-energy efficient than plants in Egypt, according to trading firm Alkagesta's head of fertilizers, Vusal Muradov. Product from some central Asian plants will likely average a considerably higher CBAM cost at current rates, and European buyers will increasingly prioritise lower-emissions supply chains, Muradov said.

The latest delay to the mechanism's planned revisions has not helped matters. The European Commission on Tuesday confirmed a delay to legislative proposals to revise the CBAM, which had originally been scheduled for 10 December. Officials have yet to confirm 16 December as the new date for the proposals to be presented. One major European importer speculated, likely out of hope, that the bloc may water down the CBAM charges on urea.

The impending rollout of the CBAM prompted a surge in urea prices into Europe at the end of October and early November, with granular urea trading at above $500/t fob Egypt as importers scrambled to clear product through customs for their warehouses before CBAM charges are applied. The spike in north African prices saw importers look to atypical origins, with over 300,000t of urea from Nigeria, Oman, Malaysia, Qatar and China set to arrive in Romania, the UK and Turkey in November-December so far.

By Harry Minihan

Доктрина Трампа. Европа стала врагом США

ID.PAGE — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 03:57:41 +0000

Западная привычка к геополитической прямолинейности порой пугает. Зато всегда предельно понятно, кто друг, а кто враг. Если по какой-то причине ярлыки на участниках политических процессов поменялись, то об этом будет заявлено официально. Новая стратегия национальной безопасности США в этом отношении просто типовой документ. Хуже всех от него будет Европе.

Из-за трансатлантических связей, ТНК, НАТО, финансовых и товарных рынков США и Европа в какой-то момент срослись как сиамские близнецы. И вот в Белом доме пришла к власти администрация неоимпериалистов Дональда Трампа, а в Евросоюзе и Великобритании остались рулить элиты старого глобалистского образца.

Africa by religious groups

Andrey Matuzov — Sun, 30 Nov 2025 14:22:21 +0000