Two and a half years ago, when the last coalition forces left Iraq, U.S. President Barack Obama said that Americans were “leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.” But today jihadists are tearing the country apart, having taken several major cities in the north, including the second largest one, Mosul. On June 10, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared a state of emergency and called for outside assistance, meaning primarily support (including military) from the U.S. But American strategists, who are embittered by their previous campaign, which was costly both in financial resources and human lives, have virtually ignored this appeal. Even without it, Obama′s approval rating is low, and the entanglement of the country in a new military campaign would destroy any hope that the Democrats would win the next presidential election.

On July 15th leaders of the BRICS nations agreed to establish a New Development Bank (NDB) while attending the group summit in Fortaleza, Brazil. This announcement has caused extraordinary attention all around the world, marking the undeniable significance for the future development of the BRICS, as well as the entire foundation of the international financial institutions. Naturally, the NDB creation initiative has prompted optimistic feedback as well as raised questions and skepticism. WEJ has invited two renowned experts to explain the meaning of the BRICS New Development Bank announcement and attempt to predict what this initiative might bring to global financial and economic development.

Ever since the shale gas revolution in the US that received its recognition in the second half of the 2000s, the majority of global energy experts have spoken of the gigantic changes to the market that the US will bring in the near future. Although the US LNG has not yet changed the face of the global energy supply chains, it has all the potential to redraw the energy maps after 2017-2018 when the mass exports of liquefied gas would begin. But in the midst of the US energy breakthrough, small attention is given to what we believe might be yet another “game-changer”.

Corruption everywhere inhibits economic growth and hinders the development of the private sector. Research conducted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that 67 of 144 states have named corruption as one of the three major obstacles to doing business in their countries. In developing economies, the level of corruption is generally higher than in developed countries, and this prevents the former from effectively implementing strategies to reduce poverty and leads to an increase in social inequality. In addition, corruption repels investors and reduces the investment attractiveness of the country, which generally has a negative impact on the economy. It is estimated that the cost of corruption (in other words, losses caused by the spread of corruption) amounts to more than 5% of world GDP (or $2.6 trillion, according to WEF data).

On June 27 the EU signed an Association Agreement with three post-Soviet states: Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. Traditionally, the EU uses Association Agreements to strengthen economic ties with countries outside the Union. The EU simplifies trade and harmonizes certain standards, including technical and legal ones, by creating a more favorable environment for economic cooperation. But in the cases of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, the Agreement has obvious political significance.

The South Stream project is a very topical issue, as it determines Europe′s prospects for energy security. Not so long ago, the project was subjected to considerable criticism from the heads of some European countries, largely due to the political crisis in Ukraine and the role that Russia plays in it. WEJ tried to find out how the South Stream project impacts Europe and the reason why certain European leaders wish that it would fail.