Peter Myers Digest: Biden killed the Petrodollar

(1) Biden killed the Petrodollar; he vowed to make Saudis “pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are”
(2) Candidate Biden Called Saudi Arabia a ‘Pariah.’ He Now Has to Deal With It – NYT (2021)
(3) Putin sets out his requirements for end to Ukraine war
(4) CNN trying to get Tucker Carlson’s Speaking Tour Canceled!
(5) China’s isolation of Tibetan youth

(1) Biden killed the Petrodollar; he vowed to make Saudis “pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are”

JUNE 14, 2024


Death of petrodollar is a Biden legacy

US President Joe Biden fist bumps Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman upon arrival for a high-stakes visit, July 15, 2022

The Deep State should have been alert five years ago when Candidate Joe Biden announced that he, if elected as president, was determined to make the Saudi rulers “pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are.”

Biden was blunt to the point of being brutal about the Saudi royal family, saying there was “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia” under King Salman’s rule.

But, instead, the Deep State felt delighted that Biden was just the man to succeed Donald Trump and reverse the Trump-era practice of forgiving Saudi human rights violations in order to preserve jobs in the American arms industry.

Biden probably knew by then that the American intelligence had concluded about the role of Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince and the de facto leader of the country, in the killing of the dissident-journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was a ‘strategic asset’ of the CIA for navigating the next Saudi succession and the ensuing regime change to a happy ending. Khashoggi’s decapitation crippled Washington’s game plan to instal a pliable ruler in Riyadh.

Today, all that is history. But unlike the Bourbons, the Saudi royals never forget or forgive. They also have infinite patience and their own concept of time and space. And last Sunday, June 9, they struck.

In great royal style, last Sunday, Riyadh simply let the 50-year-old petrodollar agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia to expire.

To recap, the term “petrodollar” refers to the US dollar’s pivotal role as the currency used for crude oil transactions on the world market per the US-Saudi deal dating back to 1974 shortly after the US went off the gold standard.

In the history of global finance, few agreements have wielded as many benefits as the petrodollar pact did for the US economy. At its core, the agreement stipulated that Saudi Arabia would price its oil exports exclusively in US dollars and invest its surplus oil revenues in US Treasury bonds — and, in a quid pro quo, the US would provide military support and protection to the kingdom.

The ‘win-win’ deal ensured that the US gained a stable source of oil and a captive market for its debt, while Saudi Arabia secured its economic and overall security. In turn, the denomination of oil in dollar elevated the dollar’s status as the world’s ‘reserve currency’.

Since then, the global demand for dollars to purchase oil has helped to keep the currency strong, not only made imports relatively cheap for American consumers but in systemic terms, the influx of foreign capital into US Treasury bonds supported low interest rates and a robust bond market.

Suffice to say, the expiration of the 1974 US-Saudi ‘oil-for-security’ deal has far-reaching implications. At the most obvious level, it highlights the shifting power dynamics in the oil market with the emergence of alternative energy sources (eg., renewables and natural gas) and new oil-producing countries (eg., Brazil and Canada) challenging the traditional dominance of West Asia. But this is more the optics of it.

Crucially, the petrodollar’s expiration could weaken the US dollar and, by extension, the US financial markets. If oil were to be priced in a currency other than the dollar, it could lead to a decline in global demand for the greenback, which, in turn, could result in higher inflation, higher interest rates, and a weaker bond market in the US.

Suffice to say, going forward we may expect a significant shift in global power dynamics with the growing influence of emerging economies, the changing energy landscape and a tectonic shift in the global financial order as it enters a “post-American” era. The bottom line is that the US dollar’s dominance is no longer guaranteed.

There is no question that Saudi Arabia has a roadmap worked out. Four days before the expiration of the oil-for-security deal, <>Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia has joined a China-dominated central bank digital currency cross-border trial, “in what could be another step towards less of the world’s oil trade being done in U.S. dollars.”

The announcement on June 4 came from the Switzerland-based Bank for International Settlements [BIS], an international financial institution owned by member central banks. It means that Saudi central bank has become a “full participant” of Project mBridge, a collaboration launched in 2021 between the central banks of China, Hong Kong, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.

The BIS announcement took note that mBridge had reached “minimum viable product” stage — that is, it is ready to move beyond the prototype phase. By the way, 135 <>countries and currency unions, representing 98% of global GDP, are currently exploring central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs.

(2) Candidate Biden Called Saudi Arabia a ‘Pariah.’ He Now Has to Deal With It – NYT (2021)

Candidate Biden Called Saudi Arabia a ‘Pariah.’ He Now Has to Deal With It.
In a coming call with King Salman, the president plans to warn him that the United States will soon make public intelligence about the Saudi crown prince’s role in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

By David E. Sanger
Published Feb. 24, 2021
Updated Feb. 26, 2021

WASHINGTON — As a candidate, President Biden left no doubt what he thought about how the United States should deal with Saudi Arabia.

His plan, he said, was to make the Saudis “pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are.” Mr. Biden was equally blunt about the Saudi royal family. There is “very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia,” he said.

Now, as president, Mr. Biden must deal with that government, whether it has redeeming value or not. And he must navigate a series of campaign promises to cut off arms shipments and make public the American intelligence conclusions about the role of Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince and the de facto leader of the country, in the killing of the dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

That process appears likely to begin this week when Mr. Biden plans to hold his first conversation with the ailing King Salman. And while the call will be full of diplomatic pleasantries, officials say, the real purpose is to warn him that the intelligence report is going to be declassified and published. The White House would say little about the carefully sequenced set of events, other than that no conversation between the two men had yet been scheduled — though clearly one was in the works.

“The president’s intention, as is the intention of this government, is to recalibrate our engagement with Saudi Arabia,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Wednesday.

While the Trump administration dealt at length with the crown prince — who was frequently in contact with Jared Kushner, former President Donald J. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser — Mr. Biden is taking the position that King Salman is still the country’s leader, and the only one he will talk with directly. Since the crown prince serves as the defense minister, he has been told to communicate with Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.

But the issue of protocol is less important than the sharp shift in the way the Saudis are being treated.

Nearly three weeks ago, at the State Department, Mr. Biden ordered an end to arms sales and other support to the Saudis for a war in Yemen that he called a “humanitarian and strategic catastrophe.” American defensive arms will continue to flow, largely to protect against Iranian missiles and drones, but Mr. Biden was making good on a campaign promise to end the Trump-era practice of forgiving Saudi human rights violations in order to preserve jobs in the American arms industry.

For the administration to go directly after Prince Mohammed, the workaholic, unforgiving son of the king known as M.B.S., is an entirely different kind of problem. The content of the assessment, chiefly written by the C.I.A., is no mystery: In November 2018, The New York Times reported that intelligence officials had concluded that the crown prince ordered the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, who was drugged and dismembered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

The agency buttressed the conclusion with two sets of communications: intercepts of the crown prince’s calls in the days before the killing and calls by the kill team to a senior aide to the crown prince.

The Trump administration issued sanctions against 17 Saudis involved in the killing. But the administration never declassified the findings — even stripped of the sources and methods — and avoided questions about Prince Mohammed. Senior Trump officials often got angry when asked about their commitment to follow the evidence. They often asked in return whether the United States should abandon a major alliance because of the death of a single dissident and journalist.

Mr. Biden’s view was the opposite. Now Saudi officials are trying to figure out whether the new president seeks to isolate the future Saudi ruler — and will try to prevent him from becoming the nation’s leader — by imposing sanctions on him and leaving him open to criminal prosecution.

“I would certainly not say his concerns or his views have changed,” Ms. Psaki said when pressed about Mr. Biden’s characterization of Saudi Arabia as a “pariah” state. Yet it seems unlikely that that term will be used in the diplomatic readout the administration will provide after the call.

The big question is what action Mr. Biden decides to take against the crown prince.

“I hope his message is that we have to sanction M.B.S. with the exact same sanction we imposed on the 17 other Saudi accomplices in this murder,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, an organization Mr. Khashoggi started. “A travel ban and an asset freeze. Anything less will look like we are giving him special treatment and undermine the sanctions that we have imposed.”

“Even the Trump administration found itself forced to take action” against the other 17, Ms. Whitson said.

“The message to the Saudis has to be to get rid of this guy,” she said.

David E. Sanger is a White House and national security correspondent. In a 38-year reporting career for The Times, he has been on three teams that have won Pulitzer Prizes, most recently in 2017 for international reporting. His newest book is “The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage and Fear in the Cyber Age.”

(3) Putin sets out his requirements for end to Ukraine war

June 15, 2024

Putin’s Full Speech: BRICS, NATO Expansion and Ukraine Peace Talk Conditions

[…] What follows is a full reproduction of the English language version Sputnik put out.

<> Putin’s Full Speech at Foreign Ministry: BRICS, NATO Expansion and Ukraine Peace Talk Conditions – Friday, June 15 2024


[…] Western countries have frozen part of Russia’s assets and currency reserves. Now they are considering how to provide at least some legal basis to finally appropriate them. But despite all the legal trickery, theft will undoubtedly remain theft and will not go unpunished, on the other hand.

The issue is even deeper. By stealing Russian assets, they will take another step towards destroying the system they created themselves, which for many decades ensured their prosperity, allowing them to consume more than they earned, attracting money from around the world through debts and obligations. Now it is becoming clear to all countries and companies, sovereign funds, that their assets and reserves are far from safe — in both legal and economic terms. And the next in line for expropriation by the US and the West could be anyone — these foreign state funds could be among them.

Distrust of the financial system based on Western reserve currencies is already growing. There has been an outflow of funds from securities and debt obligations of Western states, as well as some European banks, which until recently were considered absolutely reliable places for storing capital. Now even gold is being withdrawn from them. And they are right to do so.

I believe that we need to seriously intensify the formation of effective and safe bilateral and multilateral foreign economic mechanisms, alternative to those controlled by the West. This includes expanding settlements in national currencies, creating independent payment systems, and building production and distribution chains bypassing channels blocked or compromised by the West.

Of course, efforts to develop international transport corridors in Eurasia — a continent whose natural geographic core is Russia — must continue.

I instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to fully support the development of international agreements on all these areas. They are extremely important for strengthening economic cooperation between our country and our partners. This will also give new impetus to the construction of a large Eurasian partnership, which can essentially become the socio-economic basis of a new system of indivisible security in Europe.

Dear colleagues! The essence of our proposals is to form a system within which all states would be confident in their own security. Then we can indeed approach the resolution of numerous conflicts that exist today in a truly constructive manner. The problems of the security deficit and mutual trust apply not only to the Eurasian continent; growing tensions are observed everywhere. And how interconnected and interdependent the world is, we see constantly, and a tragic example for all of us is the Ukrainian crisis, whose consequences are felt all over the planet.

But I want to say right away: the crisis related to Ukraine is not a conflict between two states, let alone two peoples, caused by some problems between them. If that were the case, there is no doubt that Russians and Ukrainians, who are united by a common history and culture, spiritual values, millions of family, kinship, and human ties, would have found a way to fairly resolve any issues and disagreements.

But the situation is different: the roots of the conflict are not in bilateral relations. The events in Ukraine are a direct result of global and European developments of the late 20th – early 21st century, of the aggressive, brazen, and absolutely adventurous policies that the West has been conducting all these years long before the special military operation began.

These Western elites, as I said today, after the end of the “Cold War,” embarked on a course of further geopolitical restructuring of the world, creating and imposing the notorious order based on rules, into which strong, sovereign, and self-sufficient states simply do not fit.

Hence the policy of containing our country. The goals of this policy are openly declared by some figures in the US and Europe. Today they talk about the notorious decolonization of Russia. Essentially, this is an attempt to provide an ideological basis for the dismemberment of our homeland along national lines. In fact, there has long been talk of the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and Russia. Everyone sitting in this room is well aware of this.

Implementing this strategy, Western countries have taken the line of absorbing and military-political development of territories close to us. There have been five, and now six, waves of NATO expansion. They tried to turn Ukraine into their stronghold, to make it “anti-Russia.” To achieve these goals, they invested money, resources, bought politicians and entire parties, rewrote history and educational programs, nurtured and grew groups of neo-Nazis and radicals. They did everything to undermine our interstate connections, to divide and set our peoples against each other.

Such policies were further obstructed by southeastern Ukraine — territories that have been part of great historical Russia for centuries. People lived there, and still live, who, including after Ukraine declared its independence in 1991, advocated for good and very close relations with our country. People — both Russians and Ukrainians, representatives of different nationalities, who were united by the Russian language, culture, traditions, historical memory.

The position, mood, interests, and voices of these people — millions of people living in the southeast — had to be taken into account by former Ukrainian presidents and politicians who fought for this post, used the votes of these voters. But, using these votes, they maneuvered, lied a lot, talked about the so-called European choice. They did not dare to break completely with Russia because the southeast of Ukraine was inclined differently, and this could not be ignored. Such duality has always been inherent in Ukrainian power throughout the years since recognizing independence.

The West, of course, saw this. They had long seen and understood the problems there that could be stirred up, understood the restraining significance of the southeastern factor, and that no amount of years of propaganda could fundamentally change the situation. Certainly, much was done, but fundamentally it was difficult to alter the situation.

It was impossible to distort the historical identity and consciousness of the majority of people in southeastern Ukraine, to eradicate from them, including the younger generations, the positive attitude towards Russia and the sense of our historical commonality. And so they decided to act with force again, to simply break the people in the southeast, to disregard their opinion. For this, they organized, financed, and certainly took advantage of the internal political difficulties and complexities in Ukraine, but still systematically and purposefully prepared an armed coup d’état.

Ukrainian cities were overwhelmed by a wave of pogroms, violence, and killings. Power in Kiev was finally seized and usurped by radicals. Their aggressive nationalist slogans, including the rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators, were elevated to the rank of state ideology. A course was proclaimed to eliminate the Russian language in state and public spheres, pressure on Orthodox believers increased, interference in church affairs, which ultimately led to a split. No one seems to notice this interference, as if it is normal. Try to do something different elsewhere, and there will be so much artistic whistling that your ears will fall off. But there it’s allowed, because it’s against Russia.

Millions of residents of Ukraine, primarily from its eastern regions, opposed the coup, as is known. They were threatened with reprisals and terror. And above all, the new authorities in Kiev began preparing an attack on the Russian-speaking Crimea, which at one time, in 1954, as you know, was transferred from the RSFSR to Ukraine in violation of all laws and procedures, even those in force at that time in the Soviet Union. In this situation, of course, we could not abandon, leave unprotected the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents. They made their choice, and in March 2014, as is known, the historic reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia took place.

In Kharkov, Kherson, Odessa, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, Lugansk, Mariupol, peaceful protests against the coup began to be suppressed, terror was unleashed by the Kiev regime and nationalist groups. It probably doesn’t need to be recalled, everyone remembers well what happened in these regions.

In May 2014, referendums were held on the status of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, where the overwhelming majority of residents voted for independence and sovereignty. Immediately the question arises: could people express their will in this way, could they declare their independence? Those sitting in this hall understand that of course they could, they had every right and grounds for it, including under international law, including the right of peoples to self-determination. I don’t need to remind you, but nonetheless, since the media is working, I will say, Article 1, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter gives this right.I remind you in this regard of the notorious Kosovo precedent. It was talked about many times in its time, now I will say it again. The precedent, which Western countries created themselves, in a completely analogous situation, recognized the separation of Kosovo from Serbia as legitimate, which took place in 2008. Then followed the well-known decision of the International Court of Justice of the UN, which on July 22, 2010, based on paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, ruled, I quote: “There is no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence stemming from the practice of the Security Council.” And the next quote: “General international law does not contain any applicable prohibition on declarations of independence.” Moreover, it was recorded that parts of a country, any country, that decide to declare their independence, are not required to consult the central authorities of their former state. Everything is written there, all in their own hand, in black and white.

So, did these republics – Donetsk and Lugansk – have the right to declare their independence? Well, of course, yes. The question cannot even be considered otherwise.

What did the regime in Kiev do in this situation? Completely ignored the choice of the people and unleashed a full-scale war against the new independent states – the people’s republics of Donbass using aviation, artillery, tanks. Bombing and shelling of peaceful cities, acts of intimidation began. And what happened next? The residents of Donbass took up arms to protect their lives, their home, their rights, and legitimate interests.

In the West, there is now a constant thesis that Russia started the war within the framework of the special military operation, that it is the aggressor, and therefore strikes can be made on its territory using Western weapon systems, Ukraine allegedly defends itself and can do this.

I want to emphasize once again: Russia did not start the war; it was the Kiev regime that, after the residents of part of Ukraine declared their independence in accordance with international law, began and continues military actions. This is aggression if we do not recognize the right of these peoples living in these territories to declare their independence. What else could it be? This is aggression. And those who have been aiding the Kiev regime’s war machine all these years are accomplices to the aggressor.

Back in 2014, the residents of Donbass did not give in. Militia units stood their ground, repelled the punitive forces, and then drove them back from Donetsk and Lugansk. We hoped this would sober up those who unleashed this massacre. To stop the bloodshed, Russia made the usual appeals – calls for negotiations, and they began with the participation of Kiev and representatives of the Donbass republics with the assistance of Russia, Germany, and France.

The conversation was difficult, but nevertheless, as a result, the Minsk agreements were concluded in 2015. We took their implementation very seriously, hoping that we could resolve the situation within the framework of a peaceful process and international law. We expected that this would take into account the legitimate interests and demands of Donbass, enshrine a special status for these regions in the constitution, and the fundamental rights of the people living there while maintaining the territorial unity of Ukraine. We were ready for this and were ready to persuade the people living in these territories to resolve issues in this way, repeatedly offering various compromises and solutions.

But in the end, everything was rejected. The Minsk agreements were simply thrown in the trash by Kiev. As representatives of the Ukrainian elite later admitted, none of the provisions of these documents suited them; they just lied and twisted as much as they could.

The former Chancellor of Germany and the former President of France, who were essentially co-authors and guarantors of the Minsk agreements, later admitted outright that they had no intention of implementing them; they simply needed to stall the situation to buy time for assembling Ukrainian armed formations and pumping them up with weapons and equipment. They simply “fooled” us again, deceived us.

Instead of a real peace process, instead of the policy of reintegration and national reconciliation, which they loved to pontificate about in Kiev, Donbass was shelled for eight years. They carried out terrorist attacks, killings, and organized the harshest blockade. All these years, the residents of Donbass (women, children, the elderly) were declared “second-class” people, “subhumans,” and were threatened with reprisals, saying, “we’ll come and settle scores with each one.” What is this, if not genocide in the center of Europe in the 21st century? And in Europe and the US, they pretended that nothing was happening, no one noticed anything.

At the end of 2021 – beginning of 2022, the Minsk process was finally buried by Kiev and its Western patrons, and another massive strike on Donbass was planned. A large grouping of Ukrainian armed forces was preparing to launch a new offensive on Lugansk and Donetsk, of course, with ethnic cleansing and huge human casualties, hundreds of thousands of refugees. We were obliged to prevent this catastrophe, to protect the people; we had no other choice.

Russia finally recognized the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. After all, we did not recognize them for eight years, still hoping to come to an agreement. The result is now known. And on February 21, 2022, we concluded treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with these republics, which we recognized. Question: did the people’s republics have the right to ask us for support if we recognized their independence? And did we have the right to recognize their independence just as they had the right to declare their sovereignty in accordance with the mentioned articles and decisions of the International Court of Justice of the UN? Did they have the right to declare independence? They did. But if they had such a right and used it, then we had the right to conclude a treaty with them – and we did, and I repeat: in full accordance with international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter.

At the same time, we appealed to the Kiev authorities to withdraw their troops from Donbass. I can tell you, there were contacts; we immediately told them: withdraw your troops from there, and everything will end there. This proposal was practically immediately rejected, simply ignored, although it provided a real opportunity to close the issue precisely in a peaceful way. […]

Today we are making another specific, real peace proposal. If Kiev and the Western capitals reject it, as before, then ultimately this is their affair, their political and moral responsibility for the continuation of the bloodshed. Obviously, the realities on the ground, on the line of combat contact, will continue to change not in favor of the Kiev regime. And the conditions for starting negotiations will be different.

I emphasize the main thing: the essence of our proposal is not some temporary truce or cessation of fire, as the West wants, to recover losses, rearm the Kiev regime, and prepare it for a new offensive. I repeat: it is not about freezing the conflict, but about its final resolution.

And I will say once again: as soon as Kiev agrees to such a course of events as proposed today, agrees to the complete withdrawal of its troops from the DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, and actually begins this process, we are ready to start negotiations without delay.

I repeat: our principled position is as follows – neutral, non-aligned, non-nuclear status of Ukraine, its demilitarization and denazification, especially since these parameters were generally agreed upon during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022. Everything was clear about demilitarization, everything was spelled out: the number of this and that, tanks. Everything was agreed upon.

(4) CNN trying to get Tucker Carlson’s Speaking Tour Canceled!

Tucker Carlson Tickets

CNN Desperately Tries To Get Tucker’s Speaking Tour Canceled!

Desperately Tries To Get Tucker’s Speaking Tour Canceled!>

The Jimmy Dore Show

16 Jun 2024 <>#TheJimmyDoreShow
Tucker Carlson is traveling the country, making appearances on stage in front of live audiences. This should not be happening, says CNN’s Oliver Darcy, who sought to contact Ticketmaster, StubHub and various arenas to find out how they could be platforming someone with such terrible views as Tucker’s. Unable to beat Carlson with their collapsing ratings, CNN has clearly opted to try to silence more successful commentators. Jimmy notes that CNN has no problem with Ticketmaster et al promoting events with war criminals like George Bush and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Tucker Carlson Live Tour: Map, Guest List, Ticket Prices, More

Published Jun 13, 2024 at 10:34 AM EDTUpdated Jun 13, 2024 at 5:08 PM EDT
Conservatives Turn On Tucker Carlson
By Billie Schwab Dunn

Former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has announced his first live tour, which will see him travel across the country for 15 different shows.

Carlson is a political commentator who hosted the talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight weeknights on Fox News until 2023. After his contract with the channel was terminated, he started hosting his show Tucker on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Now he is taking his live speaking tour nationwide, where he has invited various guests to join him on stage, including prominent conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

“Hey, it’s Tucker Carlson. The one thing we know for certain is the United States is going to be one intense place this fall moving into this presidential election. So we thought, what better time to hit the road and see the country, and we are going to this fall,” Carlson said <> in a video uploaded to X on June 10.

“We are pleased—in fact, thrilled—to announce Tucker Carlson Live which is what it sounds like: a nationwide tour and at every show will be joined by a friend, a special guest. Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck, <> Tulsi Gabbard, <> Vivek Ramaswamy, Russell Brand and many others.”

(5) China’s isolation of Tibetan youth

From: Peter Grafström <>
Subject: Concerning Chinas isolation of Tibetan youth
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:16:15 +0200

In my view the alternative for China is to see Tibet turn into the next Ukraine with a NATO-brainwashed China hating Tibetan population.

If Russia had acted as cautiously as China they wouldn’t have had to face Ukrainian russophobia today.

Tibet is the location of the world’s largest number of uranium deposits with more than 200 deposits found by 2000… 2010 — The region also boasts uranium, borax and potash. In particular, Tibet is thought to have some of the world’s largest reserves of lithium …And Rare Earth minerals…)

I recently read about how NATO litterature imposed on the russian youth in Ukraine (and perhaps even earlier in Russia proper?) were exposed to intense Russia-hatred in the educational material.

In connection with the SMO they have only recently managed to go further in bringing back quality education.

The youth learned about the war against the nazis that Soviet tanks had swastikas and all sorts gross misrepresentations indicating that they were similar to the nazis.

The educational material was written according to the liberal view that anything goes and ‘teachers’ would defend themselves with this being a personal view that they didnt have to change.

Foreigners who studied in Russia would learn that Putin had the simple job of only saying yes or no for making decisions

and teachers liked to dance because the pupils found the teacher boring.

And the pupils said they liked Vodka etc.

There was obviously a western attempt to mentally dismember Russia and to present an inferior view of everything Russian.

(Just in case you are interested in the interview with a Russian expert sweet Yana Valeryevna Lantratova, I have the text in translation from Nikolai Starikovs interview with her.
He posts like you do to his readership and I autotranslated it.
I wasnt able to figure out how to find the text on the website itself.)

>From an AP news article from november 2023 (7 months after the ohcr article you link from februari 2023) where China is allowed to comment:

“…China also has boarding schools in other parts of the country but they appear more widespread in Tibet.

Xu said they are needed to serve sparsely populated and remote rural areas.

“If the schools are too spread out, it would be difficult to have enough teachers or to provide quality teaching,” he said.

“So it’s highly necessary to have a combination of boarding schools and day schools to ensure high quality teaching and the equal rights of children.”

He said the government manages religious affairs that are related to the interests of the state and the public but does not interfere in the internal affairs of religious groups.

“We must continue adapting religion to the Chinese context and guiding Tibetan Buddhism to adapt to socialist society, which can help Tibetan Buddhism better adapt to the realities of China,” he said.

The English version of the report used the name Xizang instead of Tibet to refer to the region. The government has been increasingly using Xizang, the Chinese name for Tibet, in its English documents.