Our People > Zamirbek Minbaev

Contributor

Zamirbek Minbaev is an independent analyst based in Kyrgyzstan, working on systemic risk, sanctions-era statecraft, Central Asian geopolitical positioning, and political-economic architecture.

Articles

opinion

Kazakhstan’s Mineral Future Still Carries an Oil Risk Premium

In June, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev went to Brussels with a future-facing offer: Kazakhstan could become Europe’s non-Chinese option in critical minerals. Astana presented the country as a base for processing, long-term offtake, and industrial cooperation, rather than another source of ore. A month later, Kazakhstan’s older vulnerability reappeared. Drone attacks near the Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal at Novorossiysk disrupted loadings and forced production cuts in Kazakhstan. By July 27, loading had resumed, with tankers receiving crude supplied by Tengizchevroil. The interruption was brief, but it exposed a structural problem. Kazakhstan’s future mineral offer still rests on an economy whose main export artery runs through Russia and the Black Sea. That is the central tension in Kazakhstan’s new resource diplomacy. Astana wants Europe to help build a future supply chain. Its present still depends on an oil corridor it does not fully control. Kazakhstan is asking Europe to make future demand bankable. A mineral deposit does not become part of a European supply chain when officials announce it in a joint statement. It needs geological confirmation, financing, processing technology, reliable power, water, logistics, and customers prepared to sign contracts years before the first shipment. This is why offtake sits at the heart of Tokayev’s proposal. Long-term purchase commitments can turn European concern over Chinese dominance into financeable projects. If Europe wants another source tomorrow, it must help fund extraction, processing, and internationally accepted standards today. Kazakhstan says it is ready to supply 21 of the 34 materials on the EU’s critical raw materials list. It also wants more of the value chain to remain at home. European capital and technology would support local processing, laboratories, skills, and higher-value production instead of simply moving raw materials abroad. Europe has good reason to listen. China dominates the processing of many minerals used in batteries, advanced manufacturing, digital infrastructure, and defence. European industry wants alternatives, but diversification cannot be improvised after a supply shock. Mines and processing plants take years to finance, permit, construct, and qualify. For Kazakhstan, the minerals offer is also an attempt to upgrade an older relationship. Western companies already know the country through Tengiz, Kashagan, and decades of oil investment. Astana now wants to move from extraction towards processing and a stronger position in industrial supply chains. But the old oil story still prices the new minerals story. The CPC episode showed why. The pipeline carries crude from Tengiz, Kashagan, and Karachaganak through Russian territory to Novorossiysk. It handles more than 80% of Kazakhstan’s oil exports and ties much of the country’s hard-currency income to a route outside Astana’s full control. A short halt was enough to cut output sharply at fields more than 1,500 kilometres away. Tokayev’s call in Omsk to freeze the war in Ukraine should be read partly in that context. It reflected more than the diplomatic caution expected from a neighbour of Russia. The war is now touching Kazakhstan’s export system through tanker security, insurance risk, production schedules, and investor confidence. Astana wants European finance for...

7 days ago

Census

Opinion: Uzbekistan Census – When the Village Reappears in the City

Uzbekistan's first census in 37 years did more than revise the country's population upward. It changed the map of where pressure is accumulating. The preliminary results put the population at 39,047,321 – 810,617 above the official estimate. That alone resets a planning baseline. Schools, clinics, housing, labor forecasts, and regional budgets all depend on knowing how many people a state is governing. The deeper story lies in the distribution. The largest correction was in Tashkent Region. Its population had been estimated at roughly 3.2 million. The census put it at nearly 3.8 million, moving it from seventh to third among Uzbekistan's regions. Five regions, Namangan, Jizzakh, Kashkadarya, Surkhandarya, and Bukhara, came in below estimate. This suggests that demographic pressure is more concentrated in and around Tashkent than the planning baseline assumed. The central question is now absorption: whether the state can integrate people whom a narrowing rural economy, growing water stress, tighter access to Russia's labor market, and rising expectations are all pushing toward its cities. The Arithmetic of Absorption More than 600,000 young people enter Uzbekistan's job market each year. The administration has said that by 2030, the annual figure will reach one million. Official unemployment fell to 4.9% in the third quarter of 2025, but 760,000 people were nevertheless registered as job seekers. Moreover the International Labour Organization estimates that informal employment accounts for about 40% of the workforce. Those figures complicate the headline rate. Much of the intake is still not finding stable, formal, better-paid work. This is the arithmetic driving everything else. The gap between the number entering the labor market and the number the formal economy can absorb has not disappeared, rather it has relocated. Some of this pressure has moved abroad, while the rest remains in villages as underemployment or has shifted to regional towns. But the census shows that much of it is shifting toward Tashkent and the region around it, where jobs, construction sites, universities, and expectations are concentrated. This does not mean every young person is leaving the countryside, or that rural life is collapsing. Uzbekistan's village economy remains large and socially central. Yet it can no longer absorb pressure as it once did, while older outlets are narrowing. How Water Multiplies the Pressure Water stress is one force among several. People leave when rural livelihoods become less secure, farm income less reliable, and the city starts to look like the only route into cash, education, and mobility. The rural economy was already changing before the latest water shocks. Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries accounted for 17.3% of GDP in 2025, down from 18.5% a year earlier. That is not necessarily a sign of failure. It is part of economic transformation. The problem begins when the transition outpaces the state's capacity to absorb people who lose their foothold in the old economy. Water rarely drives rural migration by itself. It erodes the remaining foothold of those still holding on. In vulnerable agricultural regions, especially along the Amu Darya, shortages sharpen an already...

3 weeks ago

Labor Migration

Opinion: Russia’s Migration Crackdown Tests Central Asia’s Labor Alternatives

Russia is no longer the unquestioned labor destination it once was for Central Asian workers. That shift is real, but it is easy to overstate. The Times of Central Asia recently reported that labor migration from the region is becoming more diverse. Workers are looking not only to Russia, but also to South Korea, the Gulf states, the United Kingdom, Poland, Belarus, and other destinations. The old Russia-centered model is weakening, even if it has not collapsed. The question is scale. It now intersects with two other filters: legal status and banking access. Alternative labor markets can absorb some Central Asian workers, but they cannot yet replace the Russian labor outlet. Russia did not function as an ordinary destination. For years, it acted as the region's largest external labor valve: geographically close, linguistically familiar, legally accessible for some, and large enough to absorb millions of workers across construction, services, logistics, agriculture, and municipal labor. South Korea, the UK, Poland, and the Gulf can offer higher wages and more formal recruitment channels. They can also reduce overdependence on Moscow. But they are more selective, more bureaucratic, and much smaller in immediate absorption capacity. That leaves a more important question: can new destinations expand fast enough to offset a narrowing Russian market? For now, the answer is probably no. Diversification Is Real, but Not Replacement The difference between diversification and replacement is crucial. A worker from Kyrgyzstan leaving for seasonal work in the UK, or a worker from Uzbekistan entering an organized recruitment program in South Korea, represents a genuine shift. These routes can be safer, better paid, and less exposed to the social hostility now facing many Central Asian migrants in Russia. But they cannot absorb workers on the same scale. Russia's labor market absorbed Central Asian workers in very large numbers because it had a combination few other destinations can match: proximity, low entry costs, dense migrant networks, Russian-language familiarity, and long-standing informal labor channels. Even as those channels become more restrictive, they remain embedded in household economies across the region. This is why diversification should be read as a partial adaptation, not a full exit. For governments in Tashkent, Bishkek, and Dushanbe, the search for new labor markets is necessary. It reduces exposure to Russian policy shocks. It gives workers more choices. It also helps governments negotiate better legal recruitment schemes. Yet the structural problem remains. If Russia closes the door faster than alternatives can open, pressure does not disappear. It returns home through unemployment, lower remittances, and frustrated expectations. The EAEU Line Russia's migration crackdown does not affect Central Asia evenly. The most important dividing line is not geography. It is legal status. Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which allows the free movement of labor among member states. In practical terms, citizens of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan have a different legal status in Russia than citizens of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. They do not face the same work-permit and labor-patent system. That does not...

1 month ago

Water Security

Opinion: The Amu Darya Stress Test – Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and the Politics of Agricultural Adaptation

Central Asia’s water crisis is usually discussed as a problem of rivers, reservoirs, and diplomacy. But in 2026, the Amu Darya is also becoming something else: a test of state adaptation. The river basin entered the irrigation season under acute pressure. According to data cited by Kabar, the flow of the Amu Darya stood at only 66.8% of its normal level as of February 11, compared with 101.8% a year earlier. The Times of Central Asia previously reported that the river’s flow could fall to around 65% of its historical norm, raising risks for food security and agriculture across downstream states. Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s Qosh-Tepa Canal is advancing. The canal, one of the Taliban government’s most ambitious infrastructure projects, is designed to divert water from the Amu Darya to irrigate large areas of northern Afghanistan. Carnegie Politika has estimated that, once fully operational by 2028, it could take up to 10 cubic kilometers of water annually from the river. For Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, the implications are direct. Both rely heavily on Amu Darya water. Both inherited agricultural systems shaped by Soviet-era irrigation, cotton production, and centralized planning, and both are now facing a combination of climate stress, upstream extraction, and aging water infrastructure. Yet their responses are increasingly different. The emerging contrast is not simply between two agricultural policies; it is between two institutional logics: adaptation and control. Uzbekistan’s Adjustment Strategy Uzbekistan is one of the most exposed countries in the region. Its population is large, its agriculture remains water-intensive, and some of its most vulnerable regions, including Khorezm and Karakalpakstan, sit near the lower reaches of the Amu Darya. For decades, the old model relied on large-scale irrigation, cotton, rice, and the assumption that water would continue to move through the regional system much as it had before. That assumption is now weakening. Tashkent’s response remains costly and far from complete. Uzbekistan still faces serious water losses, degraded land, salinization, and uneven implementation of reform. But the direction of travel is visible: the state is trying to reduce exposure by changing crops, infrastructure, and diplomatic behavior. Rice is one example. Traditional flooded rice cultivation is extremely water-intensive, and water shortages have already pushed some Uzbek rice farmers away from traditional Amu Darya regions toward areas with more stable access to water. Uzbekistan has also begun experimenting with less water-intensive methods. In Karakalpakstan, UNDP has supported the introduction of upland rice, which can reduce water consumption by up to 40% compared with traditional rice cultivation. Separately, Uzbekistan has announced plans to expand resource-efficient rice cultivation, including drip irrigation and drought-resilient rice varieties. The state is no longer treating the old water-intensive model as untouchable. In 2026, Uzbekistan allocated significant public financing for water-saving technologies. Government-linked reporting has described plans to expand drip irrigation, sprinkler systems, and laser land leveling across hundreds of thousands of hectares, with a broader target of expanding water-saving technologies to 3.5 million hectares by 2028. Laser leveling may sound technical, but its use reflects a shift from simply demanding more...

1 month ago

UN Security Council

Opinion: Beyond Multivectorism – What Kyrgyzstan’s UN Security Council Win Really Shows

Kyrgyzstan's election to the United Nations Security Council for the 2027-2028 term is more than a diplomatic milestone. It is a case study in how a small state can create political weight without possessing a large economy, military power, or a dominant regional position. On June 3, Kyrgyzstan won its first-ever seat on the Security Council after a competitive four-round contest with the Philippines for the Asia-Pacific Group vacancy. Bishkek led from the first round, with 105 votes against Manila's 85, and increased its support through each subsequent ballot. It finished with 142 votes to 49. The result is significant because this was not an uncontested regional rotation. Kyrgyzstan had to assemble a qualified two-thirds majority across the wider UN General Assembly. That required more than support from its immediate neighbors. Bishkek had to build support across regions, institutions, and political blocs. The deeper lesson is that small-state agency should not be measured only by material resources. It should also be measured by the ability to assemble coalitions. A Campaign Larger Than Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan's campaign was not presented simply as a request for national recognition. President Sadyr Japarov framed the bid as a question of representation. When Kyrgyzstan intensified its campaign in 2024, he drew attention to the number of UN member states that had never served on the Council and argued for broader representation, particularly for African countries. Bishkek also positioned itself as a voice for small, developing, landlocked, and mountainous states facing security, climate, and connectivity challenges. That framing gave the vote wider political weight. Kyrgyzstan could not outspend larger states; it could not offer a large domestic market or a major security umbrella. But it could translate its limitations into a broader political language: underrepresentation, sovereign equality, regional balance, and the need for smaller states to have a voice in global decision-making. The campaign also received visible regional backing. In December 2025, all five Central Asian presidents endorsed Kyrgyzstan's candidacy, presenting the bid as a regional effort rather than a purely national one. That was the first layer of the coalition. The second was broader. In May 2026, the African Group at the United Nations received a dedicated briefing on Bishkek’s candidacy from Edil Baisalov, Kyrgyzstan’s newly appointed ambassador to the United States and a special envoy of the president. This followed Kyrgyzstan's public support for wider African representation in the Security Council. Because the UN ballot was secret, it would be impossible to claim that African votes delivered Kyrgyzstan's victory. Nor would it be accurate to reduce the campaign to a simple exchange of support. But the African track was an observable part of a wider coalition strategy. Bishkek aligned its own candidacy with an issue that mattered to a much larger group of states: the imbalance of representation inside the Security Council. From Multivectorism to Coalition Brokerage Central Asian foreign policy is often described through the language of multivectorism. The term usually refers to balancing among Russia, China, the West, Turkiye, and other external powers...

2 months ago

Water Security

Opinion: Water Without a Guarantor – Central Asia’s Next Security Test

The Fourth High-Level International Conference on the International Decade for Action, “Water for Sustainable Development,“ taking place in Dushanbe on May 25-28, comes at a difficult moment. Central Asia's water problem is no longer only about environmental management; it is moving into the field of regional security. The conference agenda is familiar and necessary: climate, investment, innovation, transboundary cooperation, and the implementation of the Water Action Decade. The harder question is what happens outside the conference hall. Does Central Asia still have a credible way to stop water stress from becoming an interstate crisis? For decades, the region operated in a post-Soviet setting in which Moscow shaped many security calculations, even though it was never a formal water arbiter. That setting has weakened. Russia has not disappeared from Central Asia, and it still retains military, economic, and institutional leverage. But since 2022, its role as the assumed external stabilizer has become less convincing. The result is not a simple vacuum. It is a more awkward reality: a region with many outside actors, but no trusted water-security guarantor. The Old Backdrop Is Weakening Central Asia's water system was built around a Soviet-era division of functions. Upstream republics, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, controlled the mountains, reservoirs, and hydropower potential. Downstream republics, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, depended on seasonal water flows for agriculture, food security, and social stability. The Soviet system managed those tensions through central planning. After independence, cooperation became more fragile. Water, energy, borders, electricity, and agriculture were separated into national strategies. The rivers, however, remained transboundary. For many years, Russia remained the largest external power around which regional security calculations were organized. That did not make Moscow an effective water manager, but it helped shape the political environment. Today, that environment has changed. The CSTO did not prevent the Kyrgyz-Tajik border escalations of recent years. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan eventually reached a border agreement through direct negotiation rather than outside enforcement. That difference is not academic. Water disputes are rarely settled by conferences alone. They need trusted channels for mediation, compensation, and restraint when pressure builds. Central Asia has plenty of statements about cooperation. It has fewer tools for managing coercion when water becomes scarce. Three Pressure Points The region's water-security stress is already visible in three places. The first is Afghanistan's Qosh-Tepa Canal. The canal draws water from the Amu Darya, a river system critical for Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Because Afghanistan was not part of the old Soviet water-allocation arrangements, the Taliban government is creating a new upstream reality outside the inherited regional framework. Estimates of the canal's downstream impact vary widely. Some analyses suggest it could divert between 15 and 30% of the Amu Darya's flow, depending on the completion timeline, irrigation efficiency, and water-management practices. The Times of Central Asia previously reported that reduced Amu Darya flows could indirectly affect Kazakhstan if Uzbekistan compensates by drawing more heavily on the Syr Darya. Carnegie has described the Qosh-Tepa as a serious test for regional water cooperation. The second pressure point...

2 months ago

Organization of Turkic States

Opinion: Turkey’s Third Vector: How the Turkic States Are Expanding Central Asia’s Room for Maneuver

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s May 13-14 state visit to Kazakhstan and the May 15 informal summit of the Organization of Turkic States in Turkistan should not be read as isolated diplomatic events. Together, they point to a larger shift in Central Asia’s geopolitical architecture. During Erdoğan’s visit to Astana, Kazakhstan and Turkey signed the Declaration on Eternal Friendship and Expanded Strategic Partnership, along with agreements covering trade, transport, energy, education, investment, defense cooperation, oil and gas, and financial-sector collaboration. The two sides also reaffirmed their goal of raising bilateral trade to $15 billion. Erdoğan was awarded the newly established Khoja Ahmed Yassawi Order, a symbolic gesture tied to the summit being hosted in Turkistan, the city most closely associated with Yassawi’s legacy. A day later, Turkistan hosted the informal summit of the Organization of Turkic States under the theme “Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development.” The timing matters. Central Asia is no longer operating inside a simple Russia-China framework. Russia remains deeply embedded in the region through security history, infrastructure, language, labor migration, and energy networks. China remains the region’s main infrastructure and trade heavyweight. The West is increasingly focused on sanctions, critical minerals, connectivity, and the Middle Corridor. But Turkey is becoming something different: not a replacement for Russia or China, but a useful third vector. Its influence is built on identity, logistics, defense technology, education, digital cooperation, and institutional networking through the Turkic States framework, rather than overwhelming capital or military dominance. Turkey as a Corridor Power Turkey cannot match China’s investment scale in Central Asia. It also cannot match Russia’s historical security depth. Ankara does not need to replace either power to matter. Its comparative advantage is different. Turkey connects Central Asia westward, to the South Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and Europe. It also offers a language of partnership that is culturally familiar and politically less threatening than great-power patronage. Tokayev captured this dimension during the joint statements in Astana, describing Turkey as a “golden bridge” connecting Europe and Asia. The framing is telling: not a partner of equal weight, but a connector, exactly the function of a corridor power. A corridor power does not dominate a region directly. It expands the routes, partnerships, platforms, and strategic options available to states that do not want to be trapped between larger powers. That is why the Erdoğan-Tokayev meeting and the Turkistan summit matter. The issue goes beyond bilateral trade. It is the gradual construction of a Turkic corridor linking identity, transport, defense, digital governance, and markets. The OTS as Identity Infrastructure The Organization of Turkic States is often dismissed as symbolic: summits, speeches, flags, cultural rhetoric, and references to shared history. That reading is incomplete. Identity is not just emotion. In international politics, identity can become infrastructure. Shared language, educational networks, media links, cultural affinity, and repeated institutional contact reduce the cost of trust-building. They make it easier to sign agreements, build transport projects, expand student exchanges, coordinate business forums, and create political habits of consultation. The...

3 months ago

New Uzbekistan

Opinion: The Reform Paradox for Uzbekistan: Global Capital, Political Control

In mid-May, Uzbekistan is preparing to take a major step onto the global financial stage – one that reflects its broader, decade-long push to open its economy to international investors. The country's National Investment Fund (UzNIF), a $2.4 billion vehicle holding minority stakes in 13 strategic state-owned enterprises, is preparing to list 30% of its capital on the London and Tashkent stock exchanges — the first time such a state-backed investment vehicle is being listed on international equity markets. For President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, the move signals that Uzbekistan wants to be seen as an investable, reforming, and globally connected state. But the planned listing also captures the central paradox of Uzbekistan's current trajectory: the country is opening economically while remaining politically closed. Foreign investors are being invited in. State assets are being partially exposed to market discipline. Capital markets are being developed. Yet the political system remains tightly managed, with limited opposition, weak institutional pluralism, and few independent channels for releasing social pressure. That is why Uzbekistan's stability should not be read only as a strength. It should also be read as a system test: can controlled modernization keep producing legitimacy without creating political mechanisms for absorbing the expectations it generates? Mirziyoyev as a Controlled Modernizer Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s political style is not that of a frontline strongman constantly mobilizing society against enemies. His approach is administrative, developmental, and transactional: reform from above, personnel control, investment attraction, infrastructure, market opening, and the redistribution of economic flows. In this sense, Mirziyoyev is best understood not as a liberal reformer in the Western sense, but as a controlled modernizer. The reform agenda is real. Uzbekistan has moved to attract foreign capital, open selected state assets, improve its business image, and position itself as a more predictable investment destination. The UzNIF listing fits this broader effort: it is designed to deepen capital markets, signal openness to international investors, and show that the state is willing to place parts of its economic architecture under market scrutiny. But the political architecture remains tightly managed. Freedom House continues to rate Uzbekistan as "Not Free" — 12 points out of 100 in its 2026 report — citing the concentration of power in the executive branch, the absence of a genuine parliamentary opposition, and severe restrictions on independent journalists and human rights defenders. This is the central tension: Uzbekistan is reforming economically, but not politically. [caption id="attachment_48249" align="aligncenter" width="2560"] Tashkent has opened up to investment over the past decade. Image: Joe Luc Barnes[/caption] Growth as Legitimacy For now, the model works because growth provides legitimacy. The World Bank expects Uzbekistan's economy to grow by around 6.4% in 2026, following 7.7% growth in 2025 – supported by domestic demand, private consumption, and continued investment. Public debt remains comparatively moderate at around 28% of GDP, and the country benefits from the perception that it is one of the more dynamic economies in the region. This gives the ruling system room to maneuver. The reform narrative allows the leadership to present itself as forward-looking without opening the...

3 months ago

Sanctions

Opinion: Bishkek Between Sanctions and Africa: The Quiet Architecture of Proxy Sovereignty

The official visit of Togo’s head of government, Faure Gnassingbé, to Kyrgyzstan on April 28–30 should not be read as an isolated diplomatic event. It is taking place inside an unusually dense cluster of activity: the SCO Council of Defence Ministers, the presence of China’s defence minister, the fifth meeting of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) digital and ICT ministers, and a parallel SCO Forum on Artificial Intelligence. Bishkek, in other words, was not simply hosting an African leader. It was presenting itself — intentionally or not — as a Eurasian platform where security, digital governance, AI, transport, tourism, and external partnerships intersect. This geometry deserves attention. Bishkek as a Digital Interface Over the past several years, Kyrgyzstan has worked to reposition itself — not only as a mountainous transit country, but as a provider of digital state capacity: e-government tools, secure documents, digital identification, fintech infrastructure, and special financial regimes such as the proposed Tamchy special financial and investment territory, which combines Kyrgyz sovereignty with elements of English law and international arbitration. For many African countries, this offer can be attractive. Governments across the continent are looking for administrative modernization, digital sovereignty, and alternatives to legacy Western-controlled infrastructure. For Bishkek, such partnerships offer something equally valuable: visibility, geopolitical relevance, and an opportunity to export state technology beyond Central Asia. Togo is a particularly interesting test case. Lomé is one of West Africa’s important maritime and logistical hubs, with access not only to the Gulf of Guinea but, indirectly, to the Sahel region — Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — where Russia has expanded its security footprint. If Kyrgyz digital infrastructure were to enter this corridor, it would not be a minor technical export. It would connect a Central Asian jurisdiction to one of Africa’s most strategically sensitive zones. It must be said honestly: this remains a hypothesis. Public information about specific Kyrgyz digital products being offered to Togo remains limited. But the political signal is difficult to ignore: Bishkek is not approaching this visit as a routine bilateral courtesy. The Russia Question There is a more sensitive layer to this picture. Kyrgyzstan is a close partner of Russia. Russia, in turn, is under heavy Western sanctions and is searching for alternative financial, commercial, and logistical routes. This creates a natural suspicion that Kyrgyz digital and financial infrastructure could — directly or indirectly — become useful to Russian-linked actors. This does not mean every Kyrgyz initiative abroad is directed from Moscow. That reading is too simplistic. A more precise framing is this: Kyrgyzstan may be becoming part of a distributed sanctions-era infrastructure in which Russian, Chinese, Central Asian, and Global South interests increasingly overlap. In this sense, Bishkek may not be a “front office” for Russia alone. It may be emerging as a Eurasian adapter — a jurisdiction through which larger actors can interact with sensitive markets under a less toxic, more flexible brand. A7A5 and the Closing Window The crypto-financial dimension makes this issue urgent. A7A5, a ruble-pegged stablecoin issued...

3 months ago