Will the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) ever introduce a common currency to challenge the dominance of the U.S. dollar in the world economy? Like many traditional international economists, I generally reject the idea, despite my role in creating the acronym BRICS, which led to the creation of the official BRICS club (later expanded to BRICS+ with the addition of five new members).
Media outlets around the world are dying. In addition to the constant lack of funding, they now have to contend with artificial intelligence and chatbots that are drawing away audiences.
The just-concluded talks between representatives of the United States, Russia and Ukraine in the United Arab Emirates aimed at ending Russia’s war in Ukraine ended, not surprisingly, almost exactly where they began.
Continued attempts to frustrate multilateral tax cooperation are at the heart of a global program to replace democratic governance with the coercive rule of the extremely wealthy – or what we call 21st century Caesarism. Any strategy to counter this program must therefore take into account that taxing the extremely wealthy is essential to saving democracy.
When it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), the biggest problem for Europe is not the sudden emergence of advanced models abroad or the penetration of American and Chinese platforms into its markets. The problem lies in the general political economy of artificial intelligence, which relies on exactly those areas where Europe is lagging behind: accumulated industry power; computing (data centers and chips); and a truly unified market where strategic, large-scale growth is possible.
The EU was created as an antidote to power politics. But to survive, it needs to become a superpower, which contradicts the principles on which it was founded. The reason for this is US President Donald Trump forcing the EU to change virtually against its will.
US President Donald Trump seems determined to reshape the North Atlantic region, and is prepared to destroy the transatlantic West in the process. Trump and his advisors appear to believe that alliances such as NATO are a burden and that “only America” will achieve true greatness. However, analyzing the administration’s performance over the past year, one can only find evidence of its self-weakening.
At virtually every historical turning point in the last century and a half, liberal democracy has been declared to be dying. This was the case in the 1930s, when supposedly “effective” fascist regimes spread, and in the late 20th century, when state capitalism contributed to the success of the “Four Asian Tigers” (Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan) and then, most remarkably, China. The same can be said today about the rise of authoritarian leaders who seem to be able to make quick decisions and take decisive action, if not long-term planning.
The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) over the past two years has led some to conclude that AI will soon make higher education, especially in the humanities, unnecessary. According to this view, young people are better off skipping university and learning directly from the workplace.
Since the beginning of 2026, concerns about the artificial intelligence bubble have intensified as investors and policymakers have focused on whether and when it might burst. But the real question is not whether current estimates are inflated, but whether the new business model of artificial intelligence is different from the business models of previous technological revolutions.
There is no direct precedent for the U.S. Justice Department’s threat to bring criminal charges…
The press gleefully presented the overthrow of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro by US President Donald Trump as a prime example of the new “Monroe Doctrine”: a foreign policy stance that combines Trump’s aggressive transactional diplomacy with President James Monroe’s nineteenth-century assertion of US patronage over the Western Hemisphere. However, personalizing intervention in Venezuela has proven problematic, as Trump has twice been elected on a platform rejecting precisely the “regime change” and “nation-building” he now appears to be seeking.
The North Atlantic region is undergoing radical historical changes as the rift between Europe and America deepens. Under the leadership of President Donald Trump, the United States seeks to create a world order based solely on spheres of interest and dominated by the “big three” world powers: the United States, China and Russia. To achieve this goal, the Trump administration is ready to abandon the traditional foundations of U.S. influence: the network of alliances and values that have underpinned American democracy for 250 years.
In early December, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov gave a succinct characterization of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS), calling it “generally consistent with our vision.” He’s right. The NSS does not contain even a hint of criticism of Russia, either for its increasing authoritarianism in domestic politics or for its blatant military aggression against Ukraine. Instead, it chooses Europe – America’s longtime democratic friend and ally – to hurl particular insults at.
On the eve of the AI Impact summit in India in February, it is clear that most countries still do not have a workable model for managing this technology. The US has pretty much left the issue to market forces, the EU relies on regulatory oversight, and China relies on the concentration of power with the state. But none of these options are realistic if your country, like many others, has to manage AI without large regulatory structures or massive computer power. No, we need a different system that embeds the principles of transparency, consent and accountability directly into the digital infrastructure.
US President Donald Trump’s adoption of so-called stable coins as a means of projecting America’s financial power and maintaining the dollar’s global dominance has prompted calls for a “strategic response” from the EU. If Europe does not take a stand in this techno-financial revolution, it is argued that its monetary sovereignty and financial stability will deteriorate. But these warnings are as unfounded as they are ominous.
Europeans have long lamented the continent’s lack of globally competitive technology companies. But with Donald Trump back in the White House, the goal of ending Europe’s dependence on U.S. tech giants has taken on new urgency. With U.S. tech oligarchs interfering in European elections and the Trump administration seeking to sabotage European digital regulation, this dependence is no longer just an economic problem; it is a serious threat to security, sovereignty and democracy in Europe.
The national security strategies periodically released by all U.S. administrations usually don’t say much and are quickly forgotten. But the newest strategy, unveiled by the Trump administration late last week, is an exception. It is a must-read because it outlines the largest reorientation of U.S. foreign policy since the Cold War began 80 years ago.
Public procurement accounts for about 14% of the EU’s GDP, making it one of the most powerful tools for the EU to shape markets and move towards its political goals. However, a recent analysis by the European Commission has confirmed what many governments and companies had already guessed: the current system is not helping to simplify public spending procedures, make them more strategic and green. More than 75% of public contracts still do not include environmental parameters, so it is not surprising that current spending is so poorly aligned with the EU’s stated industrial and climate goals.
Ask a room of central bankers how many of them want a less stable financial system, and you will find that few (if any) will raise their hand. Ask how many of them support intrusive, costly supervision, endless box-filling and process-heavy enforcement, and the result will be the same. This contradiction is at the heart of the Basel Committee’s recent statement, supported by all members, including U.S. members, calling for the Basel III rules to be implemented “fully and consistently.”
