Tag Archives: Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

March 13, 2026 · 21:52

Labels

We like them in one way and we usually dislike them when they are applied on ones self. So here I was (several hours ago) and I saw an article pass by. The title looked OK, but the content was anything nothing like that. So lets take a look at the article. It is Solidarity (at https://solidarity.net.au/highlights/the-sordid-world-of-australia-and-the-uae/) where we see ‘The sordid world of Australia and the UAE’ and it starts with my first question ‘What is sordid?’ It means “involving immoral or dishonourable actions and motives”, as I see it, both the UAE and Australia are as far as I know not involved in immoral (or dishonourable) actions. But lets give the writer a chance. Perhaps this is something I never knew (not really). So we get the first setting. “The Albanese Government’s rush to give “defensive military support” to the dictatorial United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the Persian Gulf” as I expected it goes downhill from the start. First there is “dictatorial United Arab Emirates (UAE)” dictatorial means “typical of a ruler with total power”, as such the article is a lie from the start. The United Arab Emirates is for a better term an elective semi-constitutional monarchy and it is governed by President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and it has Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan as vice presidents. Do you really think that this is a nation with a ruler with total power? So, we see in several descriptions that “The UAE is an authoritarian state but generally liberal by regional standards.” I see it as an oxymoron (not the same as an American), a ruler with total power and liberal by regional standards? It seems that the labels do not match correctly. I see it that there is some authoritarian settings due to Islamic law, but unlike Saudi Arabia the UAE has 74.5% Islam (official), 12.9% Christianity, 6.2% Hinduism, 3.2% Buddhism, 1.3% Agnosticism and 1.9% other. It is my speculative guess that the 1.9% are britons who identified as either Hogwarts students or Jedi’s (but that is my weird sense of humor acting up).

So then we are given “On 8 March, on the ABC’s Insiders program, when asked to which country would Australia send “military assistance”, Nine journalist Peter Hartcher, responded, “I think the most likely candidate is the UAE because the Australia-UAE relationship has very quietly involved military co-operation for a very long time. “The Al Minhad airbase, which was hit by an Iranian missile a couple of days ago, is where the Australian Air Force operates from in the Middle East.”Indeed six days earlier, Defence Minister Richard Marles was pressed by journalists to admit that Iranian drones had hit the Al Minhad Air Base (AMAB) and that there were no casualties.” It is followed by “The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra defence think-tank, wrote that the CEPA saw “the elevation of the UAE–Australia relationship to a strategic partner”. “In 2024, Australia’s non-oil trade with the UAE reached US$4.2 billion.” It continued, “Meanwhile, two-way investment stock stood at $US16 billion by the end of 2024, with $US3 billion of direct investment in Australia from the UAE.”” As I see it, a mutually beneficial investment setting, one that could be beneficial to Australia and deliver optional hardware to the UAE.

Then we get “The UAE’s military purchases from Australia are being used to vie for control in war-torn Sudan. In Sudan, Russia is on the UAE’s side, while a range of sub-imperial Middle East powers are lined against it, such as Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye. In 2015, the UAE had lined up with Saudi Arabia to carve up Yemen. But by late 2025 they had fallen out with each other.” So where is the evidence of that? It is a simple question. The story was written by Tom Orsag and as I see it, just another rebel without a clue. As labels go, that is the one I am wielding. It is another side of labels. I don’t know this Tom Orsag, never met him and from what I read, I don’t like him much. My reasoning? “In 2015, the UAE had lined up with Saudi Arabia to carve up Yemen.” I might not be the most political grape in the cluster, but as I see it, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE got in this to deal with the Houthi terrorists. I do know they had a falling out, but I know too little on the Yemen situation to give a Rin down on that, what I do know is that both were against the Houthi terrorists. In finale we get “Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem had shared a “torture video” with Epstein. The UAE is among the corrupt Arab ruling classes circling Gaza as part of the Trump’s ghoulish “Board of Peace”.” Where is the evidence that “The UAE is among the corrupt Arab ruling classes circling Gaza”? It is a simple enough question. The setting of “Arab ruling classes circling Gaza” might be correct, Largely the UAE is Muslim, that doesn’t make them corrupt. For one, Christianity is the most corrupt religion in history (as far as I can tell), so what is this article beyond setting the readers against the UAE? Lets be clear the UAE has become one of the most powerful investment houses for all within the last 50 years. Everyone wants to be there and everyone wants to strike it rich, from investors to influencers. They all have an axe to grind with the proverbial profit setting and Iran isn’t helping any. As such I created military IP and gave it to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE. I take delight into destroying the infrastructure of anyone attacking civilian targets. And as I see it, harbours and railways are excellent ways to cripple the IRGC, bombing the 10 refineries might also help as they create income for Iran. The one fact that I can prove of is “Last October, Albanese visited the capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi, to sign the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). This signing coincided with the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries.” It is also a given fact, so that helps, but there is too little evidence and too much conjecture, which means “conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information”, a setting that people like Tom Orsag like, they add their own conclusions to this and sell it as ‘journalism’, I admit this isn’t entirely incorrect. However, I believe more facts are required. So where did he get “Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem had shared a “torture video” with Epstein”? One of the other conspiracy theorists? As far as I know Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem is an Emirati businessman. The only ‘facts’ I see is that Bin Sulayem as one of six men whose names had been redacted from the Epstein files but whom Khanna had been able to identify after spending two hours viewing unredacted files at the United States Department of Justice. This is gotten the from the Guardian as far as I know, and the Guardian is a good newspaper, but I am reliant on evidence and there is too little of it.

And when we see these kind of articles, the standard of the Guardian is pulled down as well. We can look at labs all we can, but there is a hindsight of that, labels are massively inaccurate, they are merely handy in setting our own failing sets of standards. OK, that is not always correct, but that is how I see it. What does matter is that there are faces trying to break up the UAE and Australia. This is not a good thing, especially when it is done with rumor, conjecture and visible inaccuracies. A populist setting that for the most of the time benefits the wrong parties and even if I am not an Albanese fan. He has never done anything immoral or dishonourable, I’m merely not a Labor fan. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with the UAE. I am not commenting on the Sudan war as I know nothing of it, but this article is loaded with terms like ‘Barbarous US’ (which is only partially true, because not all Americans are Karens or Vegans) and ‘a range of sub-imperial Middle East powers’ it sounds nice but the problem with labels is that they tend to be different from person to person and as these labels are warped into a populist setting, take 100 people and over 60 will have a slightly different meaning for it, it is how populism works but when the news and journalists handle populist settings, the problem increases, not decreases, or properly informs the wider audience. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it.

Have a great day, it’s almost time for me to enjoy Saturday.

On one side

That is the setting I was confronted with early this morning. I actually am not sure where I stand, this happens. It started with the Guardian article ‘Telegraph takeover: UK issues ‘stop meddling’ order to UAE-backed consortium’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/jan/30/telegraph-takeover-uk-issues-stop-meddling-order-to-uae-backed-consortium). As such there are issues. In the first we get “The UK government has issued a legal order stopping a UAE-backed consortium from meddling with the Telegraph, including making any changes to top management and editorial executives, until investigations into its proposed takeover are complete.” As such, this is the Telegraph, not some newspaper with credibility like the Times. The Telegraph has been throwing its credibility down the drain faster than a nymphomanic hooker on roofies (just saying).

We are also given “Lucy Frazer, the culture secretary, issued the pre-emptive action order after RedBird IMI’s last-minute move to create a new UK holding company to house the Telegraph and the Spectator if its complex deal with the Barclay family to take control goes through.” So it was pre-emptive? Fair enough but in that same light we got last November “Lucy Frazer said the Media Bill puts ‘protection of our free press’ at its core.” I don’t think she has a clue what freedom means until it serves HER purpose. In all this there is a side the Guardian and plenty of others ignore. It is seen with “house the Telegraph and the Spectator if its complex deal with the Barclay family to take control goes through.” As such who spoke to the Barclay family on this? I cannot find any article in that regard. This is just another Islamophobia setting and the media is key to reducing that tension, so I wonder what Frazer has on her order list. We can assume that “It is the latest skirmish in the battle for control of the Telegraph in a pivotal year for UK politics, with a general election due to be held in the autumn.” You see the Telegraph is conservatively tainted, as is Lucy Frazer. Is there a chance that they fear that reduced exposure could cost them the elections? It is highly speculative from me, but we cannot see ANY evidence that the acts by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan are evil, nothing more than a man being a shrewd business man and I think the UK needs more of those (but that too is my speculative view). Still there is an enormous amount of evidence missing. So what made this deal is such a “complex deal with the Barclay family”? It could be, but we aren’t given this part are we. Just a lot of emotions of some cultural sheila in the fear group (Australian expression). You see what everyone is forgetting is that the Barclay family is largely linked to the Telegraph Media Group. It represents (apparently) a value in the region of £500m to £700m. Lets not forget how they were duped by Bjorn Lomborg’s climate propaganda, covid misinformation and that list goes on for some time, so how is not prosecuting those people, avoiding Leveson and some other small stuff serving the people and selling the paper to a UAE corporation is not? Lets not forget that the UK has 12 daily newspapers in circulation. As such I have questions and so should you. Perhaps there are valid reasons to fear PR settings, but that fear was taken away from that person in the Mummy 4 (Rupert Murdoch), so why are they still afraid? I think I know, but I will let you figure that part out for now. We are also given ‘Telegraph could become ‘PR arm’ of UAE after proposed takeover, MPs warned’ (source: Guardian) and consider that the UK population is 68 million, the Daily Telegraph represents a circulation of around 318,000 a day, that represents a mere 0.4%, so where is the danger? I cannot see it, but perhaps someone will put out a much larger article (in an actual newspaper) to debunk my setting and give us the real deal. I could be wrong, I really could be and I am not certain where I stand, but at present it seems that this Frazer girls is responding to a different match ring and we aren’t told what exactly it is.

The other part is that (no matter how complex), was the move legal. So now we are stopping legal moves whilst governments all over the world can’t be bothered to stop criminals? What kind of place are they running there?

I will let you figure it out as you start the midweek and I await the arrival of Thursday.

Blackmail as premeditation

These is a side to everything. Peace, War and everything in-between is in the eye of the beholder, in the wake of political needs some will say, but that too is a side of a mere point of view. So when I saw the Bloomberg article (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-28/manchester-city-s-owner-helps-usher-more-russian-tycoons-to-uae) titled ‘Manchester City’s Owner Helps Usher More Russian Tycoons to UAE’ we see the side that many shy away from. It starts with “Sheikh Mansour also has a behind-the-scenes role that’s become increasingly important in recent months: Helping manage relationships with wealthy Russians looking to move money into the UAE, according to several people familiar with Abu Dhabi’s engagement with Russians, who requested anonymity as the information isn’t public.” With the added “Even as the U.S., EU and other countries have blitzed Russia with thousands of new financial restrictions, making it the world’s most-sanctioned nation, the UAE hasn’t imposed any. Officials in the Middle Eastern nation have taken the stance that Abu Dhabi respects international law but isn’t required to follow measures implemented by specific countries and that the UAE has the right to adopt its own policies, several people familiar with their thinking said.” It is supported by “That approach, though, has fuelled concern among some Western officials who are worried about holes in their own sanctions programs. Earlier this month, Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo voiced Washington’s worries about Russian tycoons moving assets to the UAE in a call with UAE officials, two people with knowledge of the discussions said”. You see, the setting is even more different from what we see. You see, some places cannot be touched, some ships are unattainable and other material matters cannot be touched as the owners identities are hidden from view. There are two parts in all this.

In the first there is the matter of his highness Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. He is from the UAE, he does what is best for the UAE, a Emiratian as it were (is that the right pronunciation?) The larger setting is not what he does, it is that there is no war with Russia in the UAE, more important, the blackmail grip on these oligarchs is not entirely legal. Lets look at the clear evidence. These oligarchs are Russians, they therefor embraced friendships with the ruler of that place (Vladimir Putin), this was never a crime. Then the Ukrainian issues started and the oligarchs were split in two teams (as Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich most likely would say) those who openly support Putin and those who do not. Take Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich he is also a philanthropist and the former owned of Chelsea FC (they might be the same). So are the acts against him valid? Consider what he did in the BEGINNING of the war. It casts a shadow over the acts against the oligarchs. And the demented statement by President Biden “We’re going to seize their yachts, their luxury homes, and other ill-begotten gains”, really? What laws were broken, what prosecution was not correctly made? I do not care either way, but there are laws and yes, Russia has to pay for EVERY kopek of damage that they created in Ukraine. But should the oligarchs? Perhaps those in Russia, but those abroad? Those who openly supported Putin’s war in Ukraine perhaps, the rest? I feel uncertain.

And when we reconsider “some Western officials who are worried about holes in their own sanctions programs” we see the folly of their taxation laws, the holes are large enough to park a 500 feet yacht in. Failure after failure and the entire emotional setting does not help any, mainly because the emotional setting is not a legal one and now we see that Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan has a case to present to his nation. And if this works the UAE will see another wave of long term investments. Long after the US is deserted by too many players, the UAE will hold on. Is it fair? Fair does not come into it. These oligarchs are not involved in a war, they are not involved in bombing the Ukraine. That is the Russian government, the Russian army, navy and airforce. If an oligarch is part of those, then yes, he (or she) become fair game. And should the American government object, then perhaps they can pull the papers on a place called IG Farben and certain people that were given options in the US. So how come that BASF and Siemens were allowed to continue AFTER WW2? Did they not have factories in Auschwitz? As I see it, the US does not have a billionaire problem, it has a hypocrisy problem and the refusal to overhaul tax laws is pretty much a top 3 item in American economy. As I personally see it Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan found a way to propel his nation (as a citizen), is he to blame? I do not believe that he is. Yes, some people and a lot of Ukrainians have an issue with that and I accept that the Ukrainians are not happy, they have every right to be, but laws are laws and there is a dangerous line that the west is trying to avoid. It is a dangerous line as it leads to WW3 and these nations are either fully committed or they are not. I cannot judge here, because war is a dangerous play, a World War even more so and there could be nuclear repercussions, we need to accept that and that is the red line that a lot of nations are trying to avoid. It makes perfect sense. If there is on upside to all this (the UAE) it will be that the harbour that they hand the oligarchs is also the roof that stops them from becoming a nuclear target. It could be seen by some as premeditated blackmail. Can we blame them, or blame anyone for having that thought? The UAE must do what is best for the UAE and as I see it, that is exactly what Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan seems to be doing.

Tag Archives: Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

Labels

On one side

Blackmail as premeditation

Recent Posts

Archives