Tag Archives: Russia

February 13, 2016 · 14:51

Looking for an Exit sign

You are on board the EEC. There are four emergency exits, Brexit on the left, Frexit on the right, each marked with a red EXIT sign overhead. All doors except the overwing doors at 3 left and 3 right are equipped with emergency funds. These funds will keep you debt dependant for decades. Yes, it sounds like the speech a flight attendant might give you as you travel from the gates of the fake economic upbeat information towards the airport of Conturbare Gentem.

There is the impulse to state ‘the real issue is’, but that is not the case here. As we see ‘Brexit ‘will be the first step of the definitive decline of the EU,’ says former Prime Minister of Italy’ (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-will-be-the-first-step-of-the-definitive-decline-of-the-eu-says-former-prime-minister-of-a6861326.html). You see, I have been trying to warn my readers for well over 2 years on this danger. In a few cases it was laughed off loudly, but those ‘economic wannabe’ agents are not laughing now. When I was feeling a little evil. I asked them (as they honed me in public), to explain last week’s events, how it will lead to new prosperity. They basically told me to ‘f*ck off’. They are no longer laughing. I proclaimed these events, whilst also clearly stating that I am not an economist (a fact I did not deny). This situation was for the most a simple exercise of math, basic high school math actually, interesting how an economist missed that part.

The subtitle here is also interesting ‘Enrico Letta warns London ‘would lose a lot of influence’ on world stage‘, actually, it will not. As the UK turns their economy into a stronger engine, as we see this impact, we see that both Germany and the UK will get ahead faster and faster. Italy because of their election timing could end up with the worst deal (which sucks for Italians). You see, all that rattling we hear is empty and hollow. The financial markets might threaten to leave, but they will not, should they do so, than they end up in an even worse situation. Yes, they have options, but when the system crashes, their only option for now is Germany. If they select Paris, their issues will fossilise into a brittle solution, one that impacts their markets for decades.

In Germany they will be too isolated. In all honesty, their only decent alternative is Amsterdam, yet that comes with other perils. The Dutch DNB has stronger rules in place, so in that regard Paris seems a better choice, but overall that move isolates them from a few places down the road. London will remain the better option. And it is not even close to any decision. When we see the AFP article (at https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/30812452/cameron-confident-of-reaching-eu-deal-to-avoid-brexit/), we also see second rate top people go all out with quotes like “pragmatism and courage… and their ability to compromise” or “my wish is that the United Kingdom is and remains an active member of a successful European Union“, which are unique examples of misdirected communication. The “a deal could be reached allowing Britain to remain in the European Union and avoid a so-called Brexit” sounds so nice, but in the end, there is still a referendum and because too many European players were sitting on their thumbs creating ‘ease and inaction’, maximising their gravy train. The people have caught on and they are not playing nice anymore. Just 9 days ago in my article ‘Intimidating the Euro‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/02/04/intimidating-the-euro/), I mentioned the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35122710), which was claiming that “Now the experts are predicting once again that the economy will return to growth in 2016, unless something else gets in the way“, so how ‘lame’ are these experts? Only a weak later we see in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/12/eurozone-recovery-falters-greece-recession), giving us “Greece fell back into recession“, oh really Captain Urban Funding? So cheap oil and the ECB stimulus was kind of pointless, was it not? So when we get these aggregated levels of bad news, explain to me how a united economic Europe is anything other than a really bad idea? One the UK should seriously consider getting out of and that will drive the immediate departure of France and Germany. The scenario I predicted all along. And for 2 years experts, the media and political players remained in denial.

Now we see added ‘news’ on how Brexit works for Putin, which clearly reads like an American, ‘communist fear’ as pressure for keeping the UK right where it is now. That does make sense, because the collapse would have an impact on US economy. The Dow Jones Index would be hit a lot harder than it was in 2004 or 2008. In my view, the EEC has no future because it will not correctly deal with the legislation to prevent the non-accountable acts of some, which was the direct reason of this mess in the first place. Greece was never held to account the way it should have. The news on ‘new’ Grexit fears as we see that there is no solution where we see that the Greek government and European creditors have come up with a credible plan to make the country’s debt sustainable. Yet the established situation that Greece cannot be evicted gives rise to additional worries, which fuels both Brexit and Frexit. The Financial Times (at http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/08/brussels-briefing-back-to-turkey/), gives more on Frexit. Yes, all parties agree that this will only happen after a referendum, yet what is not given directly is that this would be the first act by Marine Le Pen if she gets elected. Both the Hollande and Sarkozy fronts are scared there, because Marine might only get elected with a clear majority, when that happens, neither party will have any options to stop Frexit from becoming a reality. Which gets us back to that ‘Greek news’. I believe that the parties have all come to an arrangement with the fears that Brexit brought. Because the EEC exit cannot be made enforced under current EEC legislation (discussed in previous blog articles), the article, in my personal view implies that Greece will volunteer to opt out of the Euro on the concession of debt relief, with total debt forgiveness being a possibility (my speculation). What will remain unspoken is that those parties who would, if successful to keep the EEC alive, will only do so when the price is right. That implies taxation not relief on several fronts (for non-Greece nations), realistically it will be a tax that will last generations. Did the people of Europe sign up for that? A Europe that is even less accountable to a chosen few (who forgave debt)? That path basically spells out that these ‘providers’ will get their money’s worth in the form of grants and non-taxability, but at the expense of all the other European citizens. So how is Brexit anything else but a really good idea? In addition, the Financial Times reports, or better Christian Oliver alerts us to the fact that Greece took a fall for Schengen (at http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/12/greece-takes-a-fall-for-schengen/). The quote “Athens has received a list of 50 measures that it should undertake to improve its handling of the tide of refugees“, which sounds great, but it is extremely short sighted. The quote “The EU insists that Greece needs to take the 50 steps, citing “serious deficiencies” in the management of the country’s external borders” is even more hilarious. You see, that risk has forever been there, there used to be some level of control, but now we have a bankrupt nation, its requirement to cut staff by almost 66% and the need to build a collapsed infrastructure. There are mere matters of fact. Greece has thousands of miles of borders that are a nightmare to watch. With the inability to get the Syrian matters under control people are running like crazy, they either run through Turkey or the swim from island to island (either way they have a 50% chance to make it). So, how are these requirements anything but a joke, anything but a hollow requirement from the Greek government? The mere logic (and any cheap world map) shows us that those refugees had to get around Cyprus and get either via Turkey, or take the waterway directly, which is well over an 800 Km trip, taking them past Turkey most of the way. So when we consider speeds, on smaller loaded ships, it would be a 3-5 day trip past the Turkish navy, so why is the Schengen council not having this discussion with associate EEC member Turkey? You see, we can blame Greece for many things (actually, just their politicians), but the refugee wave is something Greece got overwhelmed with, even with a functioning economy it would have overwhelmed Greece. More important, how are the refugees getting to the Greek islands? This can only be done with Turkey either ignoring refugee transgressions on their territory (which is weird as they shot down a Russian jet after it allegedly invaded their airspace for 14 seconds), yet refugees that have travel past Turkish waters for days are casually ignored.

It seems to me that we are watching a new game, one that is burdening Greece on many sides, only to allow Greece to cast themselves out of the EEC/Euro for a price. A price the other taxpayers must pay for and they still hope that Brexit will be averted? Good luck with that notion!

So as the Brits and the French are looking at the exit signs to get off the plane, they are still confronted that the pilot of that plane has been massively irresponsible. Its maintenance crew has maintained the plane on the foundation of their ego and as such certain best practices, practices that a real engineer would have taken were ignored. This has led to today’s predicaments. The Brits are of mind that even in flight, getting off is more likely to lead to a survivable situation that silently staying on the plane will. When the Brits get off, the planes integrity will be permanently compromised, which leads to the events I predicted.

So now the media is giving us more and more articles on the crew giving us horror stories on what happens when someone opens that door. Yet, some of them are exaggerated. In the end the opening of the door could just force the plane down to the nearest airport where the passengers who no longer trusts the pilot could disembark. We do not deny the risks, but the current pilot is taking the plane to places the fuel reserves cannot reach.

Yet in addition to what I already claimed, the British City A.M. (at http://www.cityam.com/234438/ignore-eu-scaremongers-why-britain-would-thrive-post-brexit) gives us ‘Ignore EU scaremongers: Why Britain would thrive post-Brexit‘, which is partially the view I have. Ruth Lea, economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group gives us “a timely reminder that we are a crucial market for EU exporters – £89bn of the total £125bn goods deficit for 2015 was with the EU, £31.6bn with Germany alone. For every £3-worth of exports to the EU, Britain imported £5-worth from the EU. It is quite simply inconceivable that any German car exporter or French wine exporter would wish to see any impediments to their trade with Britain“, which I see to be a partial truth. You see, that is what it is and in the future it is what it was, but for a time, we will see European resentment and anger. Several European nations will take part of the £3-worth of exports and they will find another place in Europe to get between £1 and £2 of that export and find another source. That element is equally ignored. It will be up to that current UK government to make quick and lasting agreements that would diminish the losses, but it will again be in the hands of the UK, not squandered by EEC inaction. Should you think that my view is exaggerated, then consider recent news! How the economy grew 0.3% yet billions were pushed into it for the ‘reasoning’ of stimulus. Now consider that stimulus refers to attempts to use monetary or fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. Stimulus can also refer to monetary policies like lowering interest rates and quantitative easing. So, how was the economy stimulated? If we consider the Wall Street Journal (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/ecb-announces-stimulus-plan-1421931011), we see ‘European Central Bank to Purchase €60 Billion Each Month Starting in March‘ that amounts to over 400 billion for 2015 (6 months, Mar-Sep). The quote “the ECB will buy a total of €60 billion a month in assets including government bonds, debt securities issued by European institutions and private-sector bonds“, so how did this benefit the UK or people in general? Now to get back to stimulus, where we saw the inclusion of quantitative easing. Let’s take a look there too: “A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply“. with ‘references’ in play, in my view, the Stimulus by ECB President Mario Draghi is nothing more than a catch and refund net for bad investments, buying back a paper tiger that was not worth the paper it was printed on, allowing governments to spend again. How does that benefit the people?

These elements are all in play, because as people realise that this economy is so that the large corporations go on not being tax accountable, governments spend money on so many things that benefit everyone except the people in general. Consider how many actual problems 400 billion could solve, not some joke called ‘the EEC economy’ but broken things we could actually fix!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as AFP, Arbuthnot Banking Group, Athens, BBC, Brexit, Christian Oliver, City A.M., DNB, ECB, EEC, Enrico Letta, France, Frexit, Germany, Greece, Hollande, Italy, Marine Le Pen, Mario Draghi, Netherlands, refugees, Russia, Ruth Lea, Sarkozy, Schengen, the Financial Times, the Guardian, Turkey, UK, Wall Street Journal

January 31, 2016 · 16:59

Not allowed to refuse

Yesterday the Guardian showed us a side that has avoided visibility to some extent. Part of the title is ‘recognise Palestinian state if new peace effort fails‘, the missing part is ‘France says it will‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/30/france-recognise-palestinian-state-if-peace-effort-fails-ultimatum). So what is going on? You see, the Guardian gives us many of the goods, but not all of them, which will lead to speculations (even, or is that especially by me?).

Let’s look at the parts the Guardian does give us, which is “France has issued an ultimatum to Israel, saying it will recognise a Palestinian state if a renewed push for a two-state solution fails“, it is not an unseen strategy that the larger player (sometimes called ‘the bully’) will resort to the ‘do this or else approach’, which we are used to see through American politicians, not to mention those large American corporation. So when France resorts to such a tactic we might be taken aback a little. You see, when we hear the growl from a Staffordshire terrier we look nervous and wonder what happens next, but do we have that same feeling when a Poodle growls at us? I would say no, but there we have part of the conceptual problem, because France is no Poodle, the time of Brigit Bardot with Poodles looking young, sexy and helpless was an illusion that was never the real France to begin with. If we look at the economic power of France, we should regard France to be nothing less than a Dogue de Bordeaux, it seems large and silent, but it is powerful and deadly to its opponents. To give an indication of size: Banque Martin Maurel, Société Générale, Natixis and Crédit Agricole. These are just four financial institutions, but they have the cloud to underwrite the total American public debt of 18 trillion. So you better believe that France has massive cloud here, even as America no longer has it.

Perhaps just like France gave the US Lady Liberty, perhaps the US should give France a statue honouring Monsieur Souscripteur? I am digressing!

You see, the quote “The Palestinians have welcomed France’s renewed efforts to negotiate a two-state solution at talks that are expected to include leaders from the US, Europe and Arab nations“. That quote sounds nice, but it is not in the heart of the matter, for the longest of times Palestine has done nothing to contribute to any peace solution. Part of the information that is missing is shown in the Jerusalem Post. At http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Analysis-Is-Abbas-losing-control-443117 we see: “Abbas has been facing increasing criticism in the past weeks from senior Fatah officials in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It seems that they have tired of his autocratic-style rule. Some of them, including Jibril Rajoub and Tawfik Tirawi, have even come out in public against the PA president, demanding that he share power enough at least to appoint a deputy president“. What would be a better solution for what is ‘regarded’ as Palestine authority to push other players in trying to push Israel in budging. America (at present) is no longer seriously considered a player in the Middle East.

Reasoning here is that it cannot deal with Russian events and in addition, there is a ‘minor’ in our midst called Turkey who is making new claims regarding ‘air violations’ on Turkish airspace, hoping someone holds their hands (just me guessing).

‘My airspace has been invaded!’

Getting back to the Post, we see “Fatah seems to be in even worse shape in the Gaza Strip. Fatah leaders and activists there have accused Abbas of ‘marginalizing’ the faction, and are making unmistakable break-away noises“, which is all about politics, but the fact that Abbas and Hamas are at odds is not a good development, in addition, Hamas ‘pledged’ on January 7^th that they were considering resuming suicide attacks against Israel, so whatever acts France has on its mind, it plays towards Hamas, not the Palestinian people and in addition the continued ISIS action in Gaza are fuel for even more concerns, so ‘recognising’ any part of Palestine is a really bad idea. Let’s not forget that they are at the core of a mess that many parties wanted to solve (or at least seriously try to solve for over 2 decades). Now we get to the good stuff! The quote “Fatah leaders in Gaza are furious with Abbas. They have a substantial list of grievances. First, Abbas has not paid the salaries of thousands of their members there, including policemen and security officers who have been sitting at home since Hamas seized control over the Strip in 2007“, so now we see what Abbas needs, he needs money, stability and a large player at his back and that player better brings money and loads of it. Something America cannot achieve. So now we see the links that France is ‘opted for’ to bring to the table. The Jerusalem Post brings even more issues, which are linked but less direct when regarding the French Connection Abbas seems to hope for (apparently through Laurent Fabius), I could go on that it is a socialist situation, but that seems slightly too petty, because believe it or not he is a good and intelligent politician who was in 1984 the youngest Prime minister of the fifth Republic of France to be elected. In addition, I personally believe that a man like that is about French Interests (the price for being born in the Arrondissement de Passy).

Yet, I feel certain that I am not the only one who sees this for what it is, it is an economic play, yet to what extent? That will remain pure speculation. You see, the quote gave us “talks that are expected to include leaders from the US, Europe and Arab nations“, it is the part ‘Arab nations’. I feel certain that whatever deal is struck that can be ‘presented’ as ‘short changing’ Israel, whomever pulls that off will get loads of leeway in the Middle east. As America dropped the ball more than once, France seems to be going into ‘Mastiff’ mode and is taking the game to a new level. There is additional consideration that this play would take loads of Muslim pressures away from France, which is a tactical consideration. Whether that part is at all in play is not certain, as stated, I am also speculating here. The steps make sense, but the facts are not out in the open. The BBC has hinted in the past months in that direction, but they have not given any specifics in the last two weeks. The Washington Post did confirm in more than one article that Palestinians consider the reign of Abbas an utter failure, which gives us the second side. How can any state be recognised that has been unable to keep its own ducks in a row, it has no real economy to mention and the last numbers that have any reliability have been a decade old. One source (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/palestine/gdp) gives us 6.9 billion in 2013, yet I personally believe that these numbers are inflated. My reasoning? Well, when we consider that they have the following ‘ranks’, Palestine Corruption Index at 26.00 Points, Palestine Food Inflation at 3.72%, and Palestine Unemployment Rate at 27.40%. When we consider (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/palestine/gdp-growth-annual), we see GDP growth, in 2014 per quarter set at 7.1%, 3.9%, -10.1% and -1.1%, that is in my view adjusted overly positive speculation. As per July 2015 it is suddenly set at +9.6% for Q3 2015. Is no one catching on here? The numbers do not add up, it is (as I personally see it) an interaction of overly positively weighted expectations with a massive downdraft when inspected, in addition, with 25% corruption and 27% unemployment GDP can never rise to that extent. The Doghmush clan (now known as Jaysh al-Islām) might be the only growing GDP player. Perhaps the PNA could report whether their economy comes (partially at least) from Jaysh al-Islām?

As I stated, speculation, but if Palestine has no economic footprint, how can any headway be made if the numbers don’t add up? I accept that any nation will forever be more than its economy, yet when we see that too many questions exist on BOTH the political and economic field, how can any agreement be kept or be pushed in any direction? A peace process requires both sides to keep to any agreement and there is too much evidence that any agreement will not be honoured by the next player and Mahmoud Abbas is already on the way out, making the efforts of France a mere waste of time to say the least.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Arrondissement de Passy, Banque Martin Maurel, BBC, Crédit Agricole, Doghmush clan, Dogue de Bordeaux, France, Hamas, ISIS, Israel, Jaysh al-Islām, Jerusalem Post, Jibril Rajoub, Laurent Fabius, Mahmoud Abbas, Natixis, Palestine, Russia, Société Générale, Tawfik Tirawi, the Guardian, Turkey, Washington Post

November 28, 2015 · 20:58

Fuelling a Fire that fools no one

Today we watch again how escalations in the political field are moving in separate directions. It is SBS (at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/11/28/turkeys-erdogan-warns-russia-not-play-fire), that gives us a few items for concern.

At 1:32 we hear that cooperation between Russian and Turkish forces have been suspended. In light that a Russian plane was downed, I kind of think that cooperation was never a big thing here in the first place.
At 1:42 we hear (what I regard to be an outspoken lie) that if the Turkey had known it was a Russian plane, it would have warned it differently.

The title ‘Turkey’s Erdogan warns Russia not to ‘play with fire’’ adds to the entire article. the added quote “Moscow said it would suspend visa-free travel with Turkey” should read like sunshine in Greece, because with all the hardship, whomever from Russia can afford a vacation would usually desire the Mediterranean, which now means that they could end up visiting Greece by the boatload, which would be OK with the Economically stricken Greek population.

All this because some power players did not think things through. Turkey wanted to play games and now they are realising that they woke up an angry bear, all whilst the protection Turkey expects from USA might not come. No one wants to come to the aid of a partner as stupid as Turkey.

No one denies that the Russian flight might have taken it over Turkish soil, yet the response of a transgression of 17 seconds is beyond ridiculous, especially in light of the fact that Turkey or its citizens were not under attack. I will be the first to give way to downing any actual opponent, yet in all this, Turkey was never an objective or target. In all this, the lie (as I see it) shown on French TV gives us another side. As stated in my earlier blog (‘The additional price of War‘, November 25^th at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/11/25/the-additional-price-of-war/), where we got the data from the Guardian that the Russian plane had transgressed over Turkish space for 17 seconds. Now understand that it should take a plane in the vicinity 5 seconds to get into position and fire the kill shot, with an additional 2-3 seconds for the missile to hit the plane. This gives the minimum required time of almost 8 seconds. Which means that in 9 seconds, the planes had to be there, information through the chain of command had to be given for the Russian plane to be shot down, which give us only one option, the planes were send out with a definite kill order from the start. This invalidates what I consider to be a massive public lie by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in addition, it also disposes the ‘thread’ that there was any communication between Turkey and Russia, so that red phone was massively useless. Turkey has been a joke for the longest time. They showed that when they expected a 30 billion pay off in 2003, now we see that the times Turkey became active, we can doubt whether this was against Syria or against Kurdistan. Which now take us to the introduction of the debate on the demons of idiocy that we seem to find behind some of the European charters. The first one was shown a year ago when Greece did not keep any of its promises and weaselled itself away from any agreement. It was only months later, after papers of innuendo and false rattling. I dealt with that part on July 6^th 2015 in ‘The mere legality’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/06/the-mere-legality/), basically the lawmakers as stupid as they were seem to forget the cancellation clause, no matter how bad Greece behaved, Danuta Hübner, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, with the added paper by Phoebus Athanassiou ‘Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU‘ gave clear view that a nation cannot get expulsed from the EEC, no matter how bad they behave. Now we see with Turkey in regards to this overreaction that expelling them from NATO seems to be equally impossible. Which makes me question the stupidity of any politician who was connected to the request. How stupid will people get?

You and I cannot answer that question, we can only watch the fallout and see what happens next.

Yet, this is only the beginning. The NY Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/world/europe/russia-turkey-tensions.html), gives us ““I would like to meet Putin face to face in Paris,” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech on Friday, referring to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. “I would like to bring the issue to a reasonable point. We are disturbed that the issue has been escalated”“, I am not that surprised, you see, the total lunacy of shooting down a Russian plane whilst Turkey was not under attack, or even under any form of threat made the downing of the Jet an act of utter stupidity. It is not unlikely that President Obama told him that he would be on his own against Russia, so Turkey gets the play the submissive joke it should have been regarded as from day one. It is the final ‘statement’ that makes it all hilarious. He stated: “He warned Russia “not to play with fire” in reacting to the downing of the plane, adding, “We really attach a lot of importance to our relations with Russia, and we don’t want our relations to suffer in any way”“. First of all it was Turkey playing with fire, this close before Thanksgiving, now we see the added part “Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said that Ankara would “work with Russia and our allies to calm tensions”“, so what tensions are they Mr Davutoglu? Apart from Turkey, NATO members are not in any dangers, as you started hostilities NATO has no need and no interest in getting involved. In the worst case scenario, Turkey will get a different flag, they will just replace the crescent moon and replace it with a hammer and sickle. The one bright spot could be that Constantinople will get its original name again and it will have its original Cathedral once more (a Coptic version I reckon). None of that should read as disastrously bad news.

Will this become the new flag of Turkey in 2016? That is the question, because no matter how we seem to stand on ego, you don’t just shoot down any plane like that, not in the frame of 17 seconds, not when there is no threat of any kind against that sovereign nation. In addition, there would not be enough time to warn the plane against transgressing on Turkish airspace and then fire on the plane. 17 seconds is not enough time and warning a plane whilst still over Syrian air seems pointless. Yet, like Greece, Turkey might bank on the fact that he can’t get thrown out of NATO, just like Greece could not get thrown out of the EEC. This makes for a much larger issue, because if the smaller players are suddenly resorting to ego based activities whilst they indiscriminately continue to target their own political ‘opponents’ we have to start asking the serious questions no one tends to ask at present.

How could this have been allowed in the first place?

That answer is a little too complex to answer, yet I feel certain that part of this is linked to the fact that not governments but large corporations are in growing command of the nations involved does have something to do with this. The entire financial debacle is at the centre of this, as Turkey would never have don that if the US would have been in a much stronger economic position, but it is not and as I see it, which is part of the problem.

In addition there is an article from April 2015 which was in the Business insider. The title ‘Turkey is ‘making NATO very uncomfortable’’ (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/turkey-is-making-nato-very-uncomfortable-2015-4). the issue here is “Turkey’s push to carve out an independent foreign policy and purchase arms from countries outside of NATO is raising concerns among members of the defensive military alliance, Emre Peker reports for the Wall Street Journal“, so even as there are certain rules to this game, turkey has been ignoring them for well over 7 months, so why should Turkey be regarded as a NATO nation? It’s not like they are connected to the Atlantic Ocean is it? The additional “a military deal with a Chinese company could open NATO’s door to espionage, especially given that the company is on the US proliferation list“, which might not account for much, but China has been regarded as a ready wielder of industrial espionage on many levels and not just by the US, so we have more than one issue with Turkey and as such, the question becomes why allow Turkey in NATO? I wonder if NATO might be better off with Russia and not Turkey in NATO (yes, just allow for the idea for a second, the hidden gem might just pop up). It is not even the worst of the transgressions according more sources than just the Business Insider. There is the sponsoring of Hamas, the support to hunt down Kurds and ignore ISIS altogether. All of these facts bring into question the reasoning of keeping Turkey as a NATO ally. As far as I can tell, should this come to blows, once Turkey loses its EEC and NATO privileges, once it realises that ISIS oil is not reliable and as it realises that other funds mainly came from Moscow, whatever is left will not sustain the Turkish Nation, that part might become food for thought soon enough, even as winter is coming, next summer will show the consequence on irrationally and irresponsibly downing the Russian jet. Consider that the Turkish Deficit is partially contained by tourism, with the 25% of its tourism in danger (Russian tourists) how will Turkey get by in 2016, because that deficit would grow beyond expected percentages. The Russians have always been very nationalistic, which would drive them towards Greek shores with the greatest of ease. So a loss of 3.3 billion is only the beginning. If Russia employs a Turkish border ban and those trucks end up having to go via Iran or Armenia/Azerbaijan, the profit margins will evaporate giving additional blows to the Turkish economy (source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-26/turkey-without-russian-tourists-strikes-economy-where-it-s-weak). In addition we see the speculation that Russian suitcase trade (tourism purchases) exceeds 6 billion, which is 0.8% of their current GDP, which will push debts even further. So as we get to 2017, the Turkish economy might not be close to breaking even. All this for mere ego? That remains the question because there was no tactical reason to down the Russian plane, there was no defence reason for downing the plane, in that light only ego seems to remain. In final addition to this, it is of course only the beginning. As Germany and the US removed their patriot systems from the Turkish borders, those Chinese defence systems will become very essential to the defence of Turkey and they are not that cheap. The Chinese HQ-9 (if that is the one they ordered) has a price tag that is around 3.4 billion for Turkey, which is according to the latest gossip 3 billion for the missiles and hardware and roughly 370 million for an English/Turkish translation of the operating manuals. So even in the world of weapons, knowing additional languages pays off nicely.

So how are we fuelling events? That question becomes a lot more pressing when we consider the original ‘The North Atlantic Treaty (1949)‘. Here we see in article 4 “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened” and article 5 “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area” (at http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf). Now consider article 5, no armed attack occurred, at no point was Turkey even under attack or under the impression of attack, a 17 second border transgression is not an attack. That remains in the core of this. This means that if Russia retaliates now, Turkey might stand alone, which is not what they hoped for and gives rise to the question “How could Turkey have been this stupid?”

That is for you the reader to ponder on, so enjoy your thanksgiving as the Russian are. They are apparently having Turkey, both deep fried and roasted!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Ahmet Davutoglu, Business Insider, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, China, Chinese missile, Danuta Hübner, EEC, European Parliament, HQ-9, Industrial Espionage, Kurdistan, NATO, NY Times, Phoebus Athanassiou, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia, SBS, Syria, The additional price of War, The mere legality, The North Atlantic Treaty (1949), Turkish prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin, Wall Street Journal, Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU

November 25, 2015 · 21:45

The additional price of War

War has a price, this has always been a given, but have people realised that the currency involved is not always the currency we are expected to pay? When Bernie Sanders states that a New NATO was required, one that includes Russia, I was not that surprised. What was surprising is that this reverberated in many Russian outlets, but only there. Nothing in Reuters, is that not weird too?

So what should we trust? No matter how we felt, as per today the game has changed. Turkey, a NATO ally decided to shoot a Russian Sukhoi Su-24. Let’s take a look at the facts for as far as they are known. The BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34907983) reported the following two sides: “Turkish military officials said Turkish F-16s had shot down the plane after repeatedly warning its pilots they were violating Turkish airspace” and “The Russian defence ministry confirmed on Tuesday morning that a Russian Su-24 had “crashed on Syrian territory, having been hit from the ground” while it was flying at an altitude of 6,000m (19,685ft)“. So now we have an issue. We cannot yet decide whether the Russian plane did or did not transgress on Turkish ground. Let’s be clear that this part of Turkey is the middle of freakin’ nowhere. It is also interesting how Turkey has shown more than once to be void of honour and reliability. Let me explain that reasoning.

On February 2003, whilst the Americans were dealing with their Iraqi front, Turkey demanded, as price for aiding a NATO ally, some $10 billion in grants and up to $20 billion in long-term loans. 30 billion for aiding an ally. So why would we want to have anything to do with an ally that makes such demands?

In addition there is news from Al-Jazeera, which I was unable to verify. The news is “Human Rights Watch says Syrian refugees trying to enter Turkey are being pushed back as they try to cross the border. In a report released on Monday, the New York-based rights group said Turkey has now closed all its borders to Syrian refugees and is pushing them back to Syria“, the news comes across reliable enough, but in fair defence towards Turkey, they are already dealing with well over 2.2 million refugees. The more that are getting through, the bigger the danger that members of ISIS are amongst them, an issue that cannot efficiently be dealt with at present.

Now, whilst the war in Syria goes on, one Russian jet might have passed over the smallest part of Turkey, now, there is no doubt that Turkey is entitled to defend its borders. Yet what happens when they knowingly and willingly shoot down a jet that is not active in hostilities against Turkey, what then?

In this my impression of Turkey is like a teenage boy that got ‘laid’ for the first time. Suddenly he thinks he is a man, no, he remains merely a boy who is able to have an erection, now that he shot his load into a Russian fighter jet the game changes, because like the little weasel he is, he cries that it was just merely a prostitute, she had no value, so why pay? But in this world not all women are prostitutes and not all boys will become man. The question becomes: what will Russia do next and more important, how will the other NATO members react to something that might be regarded as massively irresponsible. Recep Tayyip Erdogan might not have too many options here, it is not unlikely that he will have to make massive concessions in the very near future.

The question remains, were the actions of Turkey wrong? To be honest there are a few sides involved where I remain clueless on how the law falls, so that part I need to skip for now. Yet, when we see the IB Times (at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-turkey-shoots-down-warplane-violating-air-space-1530203), where we see the quote “Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has ordered the foreign ministry to hold consultations with NATO, the UN, and related countries on Syrian border developments“, which sounds nice, but would it not have been a great idea to do that months, if not years ago? Let’s not forget that the war in Syria started on March 15^th 2011, so this is not a new development. The additional quote: “Turkey had warned Russia that it must stop bombing “civilian Turkmen villages” in Syria close to the Turkish border“, which is another development. You see, where was Turkey in all that? Turkey made no effort to invade Syria and annex those ‘Turkmen’ villages (for reasons of protection of course), did they? When the Turkmen population of Syria got involved in military actions against Syrian government forces, where was Turkey? Oh yes, they decided to bomb the Kurds, with the main reason of fear that the Kurds would one day request (or demand) independence. So how sanctimonious can a Turk get?

When we consider in addition, the report from Metin Gurcan that there had been reports of Islamic State massacres in Syrian Turkmen villages since August 2014 that went unreported by the international media (at http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/turkey-isis-syrian-turkmen-forgotten-ally.html), how many Turkish troops went into Syria?

In all this, whilst the war in Syria goes on, there is the regrettable danger that borders could be crossed, any pilot flying close to Mach 1 can make that mistake, consider that this is a speed of close to 300 meters a second, so that distance could be crossed within 30 seconds, so , if the plane was in debatable space for some time, how come we see the statement “The planes in question have been warned 10 times during a period of five minutes via ‘emergency’ channels and asked to change their headings south immediately“, the added information “violated Turkish airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles for 17 seconds” (source: the Guardian), so how supportive must we be for a trigger happy Turk, whilst we all know that Turkey was never for a moment in any danger of getting attacked, whilst the Jet was possibly flying in and out of border area of Turkey? In that regard the news that follows with the two parts “U.S. President Barack Obama and Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed on the need to de-escalate tensions and prevent further incidents” as well as “The statement also reiterated U.S. support for Turkey’s right to defend its airspace“. My question becomes ‘Why?’ Turkey wanted to play the big virile man, so running to the US, whilst they wanted close to 30 billion for an airstrip in 2003. My question becomes: ‘What is this protection worth to you Erdogan?‘

So as we see France act against ISIS, as we see Russia possibly against ISIS, we see that Turkey remains at the sidelines hoping for some settlement and America is almost nowhere to be seen (consequence of being close to bankrupt). That financial status gives more questions regarding the NY Times title ‘U.S. Steps Up Its Attacks on ISIS-Controlled Oil Fields in Syria‘, which comes with the quote “For months, the United States has been frustrated by the Islamic State’s ability to keep producing and exporting oil — what Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter recently called “a critical pillar of the financial infrastructure” of the group — which generates about $40 million a month, or nearly $500 million a year, according to Treasury Department estimates“. Which gives me the food for thought, why not actually attack and bomb ISIS strongholds? You see, revenue that cannot be collected by a cadaver is money that becomes useless to that dead person (the age old you can’t take it with you where you’re going to go premise). Leave it to a democrat to fear civilian casualties. President Obama should ask France how that feels, they have a first-hand experience with that. Oh, wait, they did decide to attack Syrian Islamic State positions, so how flaccid do the Americans need to become before we realise that they are no longer a superpower? You see, the tough guy on the corner will only remain tough when he does something, not while he continues posing!

I think it is not impossible that I could be trained to be a Tiger pilot and active in Syria before America gets its act together and I don’t even have a pilot’s license (how sad is that), so am I posing or are some of the NATO allies? That is the question!

You see, we all have a point of view, mine is based upon facts, yet how reliable are these facts? As I illustrated, we see different claims, we see certain sides making certain claims, yet can we rely on them? I have questioned certain facts for a long time, should I suddenly believe any news that seems to strengthen my view? That should be equally debatable, which is why I check for more than one source. Yet in this there is also my side of speculation, which even though is founded on facts remains speculation. There we have additional issues. What was the true reasoning for Turkey to shoot down a Russian Jet over an alleged area of transgression that encompasses less than 50Km², which, considering the total area of Turkey which is 783,560 Km² to be 0.000638% of Turkey, with no tactical foundations and whilst there was no danger towards Turkey or its citizens. The act has now placed Turkey in possible reprisal dangers whilst if that happens NATO might not have any valid reason to get involved, so how brilliant was that move? Can we state that Syrian Turkmen villages are not in danger? No, there is not enough evidence to do that, yet when Turkey got involved, the first thing they did was to attack not Syria, Islamic State or the forces of Assad, no they attacked the Syrian Kurds, so there is plenty of blame and none of the players have any foundation of true innocence.

So who is actually attacking Islamic State?

You can be sure that France is, but are the others?

Well according to ABC (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-21/syrian-civil-war-dozens-killed-in-heavy-bombardment-by-russia/6961296) about 4 days ago Russia clearly was. They are both motivated as they both have skin in the game, yet when we consider two sources regarding the actions by America we see: “US air strike ‘hits 238 IS oil trucks’ in Syria” (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34906011), with the additional by-line “It was proceeded with a leaflet drop to warn drivers out of their trucks as well as a show of force“, yes that is always a good way to instil fear! In addition we see “The oil lorry strikes are part of Operation Tidal Wave II, a change in tactics on the part of the coalition. Previously, petrol supplies were largely avoided because of the impact on civilian populations“, which sounds nice in theory, yet there is the premise that the innocent population of Syria are refugees with over 2 million in Jordan, hundreds of thousands all on the roads between Syria and London and another 2.2 million of them in Turkey. So what is left in Syria to be regarded as innocent civilians? Anyone still around there is either involved or knows to steer clear of Islamic state. By the way, the second bit of news regarding US actions came from the Washington Examiner and is so funny I will have to tell you twice! That news was: “U.S. ran out of ammo in attack on ISIS trucks“. What? Yes, the news “U.S. ran out of ammo in attack on ISIS trucks” (at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/u.s.-ran-out-of-ammo-in-attack-on-isis-trucks/article/2576958) gives us that the US ran out of ammunition with the following quote “Frankly, the aircraft expended 24 500-pound bombs, and all of their ammunition,” Warren answered. “So they — they shot everything they had and then they had to go home“, this just doesn’t get to be any funnier. Basically, this implies that I could have achieved more in a fully loaded Airbus Helicopters Tiger, than their air wing with 24 500-pound bombs? In addition there is this jewel, which actually sounds valid. That is “If American forces won’t hit any target if there is any fear that any non-ISIS person might be harmed, might that not prolong the time it takes to destroy the Islamic State, which is killing civilians right and left?“, which sounds fair on one side, on the other side, ask a Parisian regarding the need to show consideration, I wonder how much support the USA gets. By now people, all people realise that standing close to an ISIS member is massively hazardous to one’s health.

This now reflects back to the Turkish situation, because I am not convinced on the issues behind those events. You see, several sources reported that Turkey’s involvement is not against ISIS, but against the PKK as Erdogan is losing support, if there is enough supporting evidence that Erdogan is in it for regaining power, than the voiced support by the high command of NATO is a massive tactical failure. when we consider the events in Suruc, where the BBC reported “it was reported to have carried out numerous attacks on Turkey’s pro-Kurdish Party, HDP, during the run-up to the Turkish parliamentary elections, but IS never said it was responsible“, in addition to several claims that Turkey is using the Syrian war to deal blows to the Kurdish population gives another consideration regarding the Russian downed Jet, which gives food for the upcoming article how the western world failed twice through stupidity and I’ll let you, the reader ponder on that one.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as ABC, Airbus Helicopters Tiger, Al Jazeera, Ashton B. Carter, BBC, Col. Steve Warren, France, IB Times, Islamic State, Metin Gurcan, NATO, Operation Tidal Wave II, PKK, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia, Su-24, Sukhoi Su-24, Suruc, Syrian Kurds, the Guardian, Turkey, U.S. President Barack Obama, Washington Examiner

October 31, 2015 · 22:56

United we classify others

Two articles hit me a few days ago. One of them was an article describing a survey by the Reputation Institute. The news article titled ‘Tel Aviv ranked among least reputable cities‘. The article was found at http://www.timesofisrael.com/tel-aviv-ranked-among-least-reputable-cities/. This was an issue for me, because I have been to Tel Aviv. Why would it not be reputable, or at least one of the more reputable cities. In all that I wonder, because the top 600 cities (by population) are larger than Tel Aviv with its 425,000 people. So coming in at 92 whilst 600 are larger is still a good achievement. What puzzles me in all this is the part ‘least reputable cities‘. What makes a city reputable? I did not see the research or the questionnaire, but when we see “the Reputation Institute, asked 19,000 residents of France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Japan, the US, Canada and Russia to rank the world’s top 101 cities based on their levels of trust, esteem, admiration and respect“.

Trust, “In a social context, trust has several connotations“, which is nice yet did the interviewees realise that? The paper (at http://misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/1996/9604_040100.pdf) gives a nice view on how trust is not an easy thing to tackle. at Page 43 we read “one can develop a good relationship with another person by gradually increasing Trusting behaviour, while at the same time decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person. Decreasing controls includes less ‘checking up’ on the other person. It also includes moving from a formal relationship to a more personal, informal relationship”

Which is nice when we consider that Russia, land of GRU and FSB gives way to ‘decreasing any minor control measures directed at the other person’, so do the interviewees from Russia consider trust the way a person from Sweden, the Netherlands or even Uruguay does? I can go on for the other nations, but in all, many have a feeling towards Israel, their view is biased from day one. Plenty with an anti-Israeli view, some with an anti-Jewish view, the probability of a mean will not apply here.

Then we get ‘esteem’, are they looking upon Tel Aviv in a particular way? Are they confusing esteem with ‘self-esteem’? All questions that go through my mind. We could state that Bagdad in last position is validly there, but over what level of reasoning? Because it is in a warzone?

Yet, do my thoughts invalidate the results? The paper as shown does give a solid foundation, the methodology sounds sound. In that I state ‘sounding sound’ is not entirely on the ball. You see, the heart of the respondent, how does that come in? The study overview states “G8 general public (only people who were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ familiar)” Yet what makes you somewhat or very familiar? How many Non-Jewish people who have been to Tel Aviv answered this? How many know this place. I was there, and I felt safer there than in Budapest (and Budapest is a decent and safe city). Tel Aviv scored less than Johannesburg, Hanoi, even Cape Town, known for its high crime ended up with a score better than Tel Aviv.

So what gives value to this report? This is not the setting of my view, it is a question. The question exists in my mind because if we give reputation and value to a place we must know and agree to the standards given here. That is the question that should be on your mind too. Now, you might not care about Tel Aviv for many reasons. The bulk of us will never visit the city, visit the country or end up anywhere near it. So how do we give value to a place, even when we are somewhat familiar? Yet there is more than just the result as given in the Times of Israel. Slide 22 when you get the 2015 reputation report (at http://www.reputationinstitute.com/), shows a very interesting part. Familiarity versus Reputation. So how about the places with low familiarity? How come their reputation is so high? Is it the media, because there again we see that Tel Aviv gets in the news when there are rocket attacks and terrorist issues towards Israel, so how can we consider reliability in this report? Beware my words, I am not stating that the methodology is in question, I am wondering how the validity of vision from the interviewee is correct. In a similar way, we can understand that Baghdad is graded poorly, but why is Tehran graded so bad, it is because of our impression of Iran? In that same context we might understand why Sydney, Stockholm and Melbourne are graded so high, yet in all this, what makes Zurich more reputable than Amsterdam or Oslo, perhaps because FIFA is placed there? With the FIFA news Zurich got a lot of visibility, but is that visibility correctly graded in the mind of the beholder? The issue here is the colouring by the media, that influence cannot be countered, which is why I think that Tel Aviv got placed so badly (in this 101 list). Behind all this is a bigger issue. It is the one reason why I object to some of these studies.

In my personal view this list caters to presentations and to some who need to see a national interest, it also places my own view in debate (as it should), not because my view is too shallow, but as we go through the iterations of reasoning behind this as we see in slide 24. The Advanced Economy gives view to the question ‘why is an advanced economy part of reputation or familiarity?‘ This connect on more than one level, which got me to ‘The Economics of Developing Countries‘, what makes for an Advanced Economy? In that view Peru, Chile and Uruguay are not amongst them, so with close to 1/3 of the measurement absent, in that case, how come Montevideo scored so high in that list? If it is the state of peace, we see something a lot more linking, Tel Aviv, Karachi and Abu Dhabi together, a pattern seems to emerge. In that view we must wonder as Tel Aviv is not in war, but under near constant attack. Now when we add Rio to all this, we see another pattern emerge, those not relying on ‘stability of peace’ we see the need for positive reinforced publications, Rio is certainly getting that. In all this we do not question the reputation institute or their methodology, it is all about the people giving their vote. It is that view which gives voice to my worry. Slide 24 is descriptive in all this. ‘Appealing environment’ is one, which give the view to ‘non war torn places’, Effective government is the second one. Yet, why is ‘effective’ government part of all this? You see, in my view, the most effective government is a corrupt one, a humane based government (like Norway and Sweden) tends to be expensive and not that effective. Perhaps effective government and humane government are terms that are interchangeable? I am just asking. In all this we see the four earlier words at the core of this. ‘Trust’, ‘Admire’, ‘Esteem’ and ‘Feeling’, so how does this all link?

Slide 25 gives us ‘Social, Economic & Environmental Policies’ in regard to ‘Effective Government’, are they for real? Environmental policies can be made more effective, but they do not, I say again absolutely not make for an effective government. In addition when an Advanced Economy relies on ‘Financially Stable & Future Growth’ we can state that Wall Street took care of that not happening in the last decade and in addition not for many more years to come, so when we acknowledge that the elements of attributes are an issue, does that not add question marks to the stated foundation of this report? In all this the summary from page 28 onwards makes sense. I do not disagree, I do not oppose it, but in all this, it is a view brought to us on the premise of a flawed view, the influenced view of the interviewee, that part is missing, which gives the question mark within me. This gets me to slide 34, a good reputation might influx tourism, yet in all this, the tainting influence of media becomes a colouring issue, discriminatory and revoking as we ignore or forget that perception is tainting and the press factor seems to be uncorrected for. So how is that not an issue in all this, or at least a non-correcting influence? This all gets me to the final part “living or working in the city, or deciding to invest in the city” might be deciding factors for anyone when the reputation is an issue, but on what foundation? Still overall the report remains an interesting piece of work, the supportive behaviour slide gives fuel to that.

My views do come to fruition in slide 40 where we see the two quotes “Communication is required to capitalize on good reality and overcome poor perceptions” and “Change is required to alter ‘reality’ and minimize reputational risk“. In my mind, this states that opportunity and risk are influential factors that can be pressed on by the media, the media sets perception and alters reality in a hundred ways, so does this paper show true reputation, or does this show how the media is too large a factor to ignore and in all this a place like Tel Aviv got introduced to the less reputable score than they should have gotten? The question is how we see a true score on reputation and perhaps that list is not completely incorrect, but in my personal view, the idea that Bangkok is more reputable than Tel Aviv remains an issue, one of perception and I have actually been to both places.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Budapest, FSB, GRU, Israel, Russia, Sweden, Tehran, Tel Aviv, the Media, the Netherlands, the Reputation Institute, Times of Israel

July 8, 2015 · 10:37

In the lull of news

As people brace themselves for the outcome of another Greek deadline, the US army will find itself cut by 40,000 troops and there seems to be ongoing talks between Iran and interested parties. The last one is the one that feels like it is largely ignored. There is nothing sexy on nuclear talks and unless you are Israel, most people do not care. Yet, is that the clear truth?

This is what the BBC gives us (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33424502), “The so-called P5+1 – the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany – want Iran to scale back its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon“, which sounds of course really nice on paper (and in theory). Yet, when we look at the quote “The sticking points are said to include the duration of limits on Iranian nuclear research and development, guidelines for international inspections and how sanctions will be lifted. Tehran is also demanding that the UN ban on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles be lifted as part of any deal”

We have to wonder for how long this ‘agreement’ will last and why we see ‘export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles‘, why is that? Perhaps certain Middle Eastern parties have been waiting on a Misagh-2 delivery? It might just be another model, so as we might understand that Iran would want to open options for import, the reasons for export are a little fuzzier as well as who would buy them? Russia? They have excellent missiles themselves and they supply them to nations all over the world too. So the question becomes, why allow for export? Especially when a captured stockpile of IS showed “26 of the recovered shells were made in Iran, an ally of Assad’s, and 18 were made in Syria itself, the report states” (at http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/06/where-does-the-islamic-state-get-its-weapons/). So certain parties are already getting arms somehow under an embargo, when the floodgate opens, the balance of power will shift in the Middle East, especially as certain parties are getting funded somehow (reference to Hamas). So even as we might not like, but could not openly object to Iran improving its defences (from Russian Stockpiles) there should remain a strong vigilant approach to not letting them export weapons of any kind.

In the Jerusalem Post we see the headline ‘Iranian official: US will remain our enemy despite emerging nuclear deal’, which is fair enough, and the quote “”Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations’ freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains” he explained further” is fair enough, we can’t all be friends, yet the problem is that its military commander stated ““This is the duty of the Muslim world to obey the order of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Khamenei) and arm the Palestinian people so that a powerful response will be given to the Zionist regime,” said Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, commander of the Army Ground Force” not too long ago (august 2014), which beckons the dangers of letting Iran export weapons. Consider that a mere lieutenant or a master sergeant can lose certain items in his depot at times, so how much can get ‘lost’ in a depot when a General is calling the shots?

Is that so far-fetched?

This is at the core if the issue, the heart of the matter is quite a different thing here.

You see, the core is about the enrichment. LiveScience had an interesting quote “Separating that type of uranium from the more common variety requires a great deal of engineering skill, despite the fact that the technology needed to do it is decades old. The challenge lies not in figuring out how to separate uranium, but in constructing and running the equipment needed for the task“, so if we accept “The key to their separation is that atoms of uranium-235 weigh slightly less than atoms of uranium-238” so if the approach of a centrifuge gives us “Each centrifuge pulls out a little bit of uranium-238, and then passes the slightly refined gas mixture onto the next tube, and so on, until many hundreds of thousands of spins later, the gas remaining in the tube is almost entirely composed of uranium-235” a clear explanation by Jeff Binder, the isotope production program manager at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Yet is that the only way? Stanford University has a course called Physics 241, where we see Uranium Enrichment by Misam Jaffer, who also gives us “Laser separation: The use of laser separation for uranium enrichment is based on the principle of differential photoexicitation of isotopes of uranium by the use of monochromatic radiation. One such process is the Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) in which the laser light used photo ionizes a particular isotope while not affecting the others and changes its physical or chemical properties which are then utilized to separate the desired isotope, which in uranium enrichment is U-235. In doing so, the U-235 ions are positively charged and hence are attracted to a negatively charged plate and collected“, we will get all kinds of ‘experts’ telling us how this is not as efficient, or other words added into telling us on how this is not good enough. Yet, with Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan in charge in Iran, ‘good enough’ is not the issue, the issue becomes, is it good enough to make a dirty bomb?

That is the fear Israel has been dealing with, because when missiles start flying from around Rafah, they will not need a hit, it just needs to get close enough to Beer Shiva, Ashkelon and Tel Aviv to make the issue evolve into something truly terrifying for the middle east, because at that point the US has absolutely no chance of getting a hold of the situation. the fact that some of the negotiating players have no clue (or do not care) regarding that danger is seen in the quote “Foreign ministers of the other powers started to return to Vienna on Sunday to help push for a swift deal“, please give me one example where a nuclear ‘swift deal‘ was ever a good idea, and in light of the glow in the dark consequences, should the word ‘swift’ be allowed to be used?

You see, the end quote “US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that reaching an agreement is possible this week if Iran makes the ‘hard choices’ necessary, but if not, the United States stands ready to walk away from the negotiations” sounds nice, yet the reality is, is that the US has not had any clear defining diplomatic victories for a long time, in that light, the word ‘swift’ is not that reassuring and I feel 99.53324% certain (roughly) that it leaves Israel with not such a good feeling either, especially that any lifting of the embargo means that their Iron Domes might have to work overtime soon thereafter.

The last part is not just an assumption, with many newsreels on missile attacks on Israel in 2015 alone.

So how did we get from Iran to Israel? Simple, Iran is an open supporter of Hamas. In addition, the top leaders of the Iranian military are eager to carve their names in history in anti-Israel acts and Hamas is eager to oblige. The fact that ISIS is all over Gaza and the Sinai only makes matters worse. So as some might strip away parts of any embargo on Iran, they should also keep a keen eye on what they give away, because it seems that the issue is not just ‘what could aid Iran’, but these people are also contemplating (on a daily basis) ‘what could hurt the US and its ally Israel’, there is not too much on that side of the equation, which makes any ‘swift deal’ a worry for several players (read victims) involved.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, Ashkelon, Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation, BBC, Beer Shiva, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, China, conventional arms, France, Gaza, Germany, Hamas, Iran, ISIS, Israel, Jeff Binder, Jerusalem Post, John Kerry, Misam Jaffer, nuclear weapon, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Physics 241, Russia, Sinai, Stanford University, Tel Aviv, UN, Uranium Enrichment, US, US Secretary of State John Kerry

July 1, 2015 · 19:06

Dress rehearsal (part 1)

That is the question in my mind, are we in the final preparations of a new theatre play that will change everything? In the Green Room we have the people in preparation of the new mess they are about to bestow on the people of the EEC. A game that changes everything, yet the people behind all of this have a short term solution, because soon they will move out of the seats of power with a golden parachute, a golden umbrella, a golden handshake and a gold watch. They will get the most luxurious life imaginable, only by prolonging the power players. That is the very first thoughts going through my mind when I was looking at the article ‘Greek debt crisis: day of decision for Alexis Tsipras‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jun/30/greek-debt-crisis-day-of-decision-for-tsipras)

When we look at this production in the limelight, we get a few parts, the introduction is all about comedy with the quick comedy play ‘It’s Greece’s problem, says Kremlin‘, yes, as Russia distances himself from that lefty organisation called Syriza that has elements of Marxist–Leninist, Trotskyist and Euro-communist. Must feel really nice for Alexis Tsipras to be the debutante at a Kremlin ball, only to realise he gave away his cherry for naught and got left out in the cold afterwards. Which means that one option he thought he had just left the exit on the left.

The intro act comes from Mariano Rajoy, our Spanish player. The quote ““What would happen if Greece came out of the euro? There would be a negative message that euro membership is reversible,” Rajoy said in a radio interview. “People may think that if one country can leave the euro, others could do so in the future. I think that is the most serious problem that could arise (from a Greek exit).”“, reflects not on Greece, but emphasizes on the danger France is about to pose. The players are comprehending the dangers, the news on Greece is coming from a few direction, but right from the bat, the others are now starting to manage the news any way they can. My reasoning?

Reuters reports: “Greece has not yet made any movement in response to a last-minute bid by creditors to broker a deal to end a deadlock over the Greek debt crisis, the European Commission said on Tuesday. Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday night and Juncker, after speaking to the chair of euro zone finance ministers Jeroen Dijsselbloem, explained what a last-minute deal could look like, Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas told reporters. “This would require a move from the Greek government which President Juncker asked (for) before midnight last night. As we speak, this move has not yet been received, registered, and time is now narrowing,” Schinas said“.

In addition we see from Reuters:

30-Jun-2015 11:19:20 – EUROPEAN COMMISSION SAYS DOOR OPEN FOR GREEK DEAL, BUT TIME RUNNING OUT QUICKLY
30-Jun-2015 11:20:27 – EUROPEAN COMMISSION SAYS NO MOVE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM GREECE
30-Jun-2015 11:21:05 – EUROPEAN COMMISSION SAYS GREEK GOVERMENT WOULD NEED TO ACCEPT PUBLISHED PROPOSAL

In addition we see in the Guardian: “Danuta Huebner, chair of the committee on constitutional affairs at the European Parliament, has tweeted about the legality of Grexit“, she gives the following Tweets “A member state’s exit from #EMU without a parallel withdrawal from the EU, would be legally inconceivable #Greece”

The link refers to a PDF (at the end of the article), where we see in the abstract “that a Member State’s exit from EMU, without a parallel withdrawal from the EU, would be legally inconceivable; and that, while perhaps feasible through indirect means, a Member State’s expulsion from the EU or EMU, would be legally next to impossible. This paper concludes with a reminder that while, institutionally, a Member State’s membership of the euro area would not survive the discontinuation of its membership of the EU, the same need not be true of the former Member State’s use of the euro”

So, if the abstract holds any level of water, have we, the audience been played? Are we the people now being misdirected by missing legislation because politicians could not do their job properly? That is the question, because one EU paper, does not policy make. The introduction gives us “Until recently, to talk of ‘secession’ from the European Union (EU) would have been next to absurd“, really? Did you policy makers remember a man named Adolf Hitler in one corner and Arthur Neville Chamberlain with the Munich agreement in the other corner?

A paper linked to all this by Karolina Boronska-Hryniewiecka called ‘The Risky Game of EMU Withdrawal‘, which is implied to come from the Polish institute of international affairs gives us: “The EC’s statement about the legal “impossibility” of EMU withdrawal stems from the fact that no European treaty has included a provision for how a Member State could leave the single currency area. While Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty provides that any Member State may withdraw from the EU on the basis of a negotiated agreement with the EU institutions, it does not mention anything about the possibility of exiting EMU itself. At the same time, Art. 140 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that the rate at which the former national currencies are substituted by the “euro” for EMU members has been “irrevocably” fixed. What also follows from the EU treaties is that while membership is voluntary, participation in the EMU, apart from certain exceptions, is a legal, if eventual obligation of every EU Member State.”

The links come from Danuta Hübner, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament. So why did no one properly look into this, or even report on this? I personally expected that the European members of constitutional affairs had their affairs in order, which means that if one local yokel (Alexis Tsipras) cannot get his act in order, there are decent steps that can be taken to either get that person in line, or expel his nation. Now we seem to get introduced that expulsion is not really an option. So in all the theatre plays we watched, it seems that the part, ‘expulsion is impossible‘ was never ever mentioned, was it?

And in addition we get “Reports are mounting that the Greek prime minister has not only accepted a deal but will travel to Brussels, possibly as early as this evening, to discuss it with senior EU officials. The deal, based on reforms proposed by EU commission president Jean-Claude Juncker late last night, is believed to have been rubber stamped at a meeting of senior government official held at the prime minister’s office, the Megaron Maximou, this morning. The German daily, Bild, is also backing up the reports, saying Tsipras has had contact with high ranking EU officials whom he will meet imminently. “The prime minister’s plane is at the ready,” the paper said.”

This all comes from Helena Smith from the Guardian reporting. So, I feel comfortable trusting the source here. So now we have ourselves a fifth act. You see, in my view this is all about opening 7.2 billion if the 1.6 billion get paid. It must be really comfortable for any banker to underwrite a 7 days loan, with a nice percentage knowing that this payment is the first payment out of 7.2 billion. At 1% that banker ends up with a 16 million euro bonus, that is, if it is only one percent.

Yet, is it not me? Am I trivialising things, perhaps even over-dramatizing it?

Consider the next news “Here’s Bloomberg on Schaeuble’s comments: German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told lawmakers in Berlin that Greece would stay in the euro for the time being if Greek voters reject austerity in a referendum scheduled this week, according to three people present. Schaeuble also said the European Central Bank would do what’s needed to protect the euro if Greeks voted against the bailout terms in the July 5 referendum, according to the people, all of whom participated in the closed-door meeting on Tuesday. They asked not to be identified, citing the private nature of the discussion. The German Finance Ministry declined to comment.”

Now we have a ballgame. There is also an issue, why do they need to be ‘not identified’? It seems to me that the European Central Bank would need to do what’s needed to protect the euro. Yet, in light of what made the news from Danuta Huebner, chair of the committee on constitutional affairs at the European Parliament, we now need to consider what options are there?

These are important questions to keep in mind. Consider all the news I have brought in the last 6 months through my blog. This is now ‘set’ in the limelight with the Guardian article ‘Alexis Tsipras: Mr Reasonable seizes the initiative from Project Fear’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/30/alexis-tsipras-greece-deal-vote-referendum), how misguided is that title? The quote “Faced with Project Fear, Tsipras wants to be seen as Mr Reasonable“, is as misguided as it can. They have not just changed the game, they have left, what should be regarded as criminal activities open to reactivation. (I will get to that part in part 2).

First two quotes “It little mattered that the new blueprint from Athens had a shelf life of only a couple of hours before Angela Merkel said there could be no fresh negotiations until after Greece’s referendum on Sunday” and “Somehow or other, Greece’s debt burden will be reduced. It can happen through a deal in which Athens gets debt relief for economic reform. Or it can came through a default that would swiftly follow Greek exit from the single currency. Everybody knows this, and it is bizarre that an explicit proposal for debt relief was not formally made to Tsipras in last week’s talks”

You see, the game is changing, yet some elements have been ignored and some were never given clarity. So as Greece wants another extension 2 minutes before midnight, as they want another bailout of 30 billion with better terms, the game is now taking another term, one that the people behind the screens cannot contain, in the end, they are cutting their own veins even deeper than Greece ever did, but let me back that up with some facts, because without facts, this all becomes a rant (which anyone can get whilst reading the Telegraph, or an equally disastrous form of news coverage).

The quote “Juncker earlier told Tsipras that a last-minute deal was still possible if Athens agreed to sign up to the creditors’ proposals presented last Friday. He also dangled the prospects of debt relief for Greece and a €35bn “new start for jobs and growth” programme” from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/30/greece-brink-financial-collapse-imf-deadline-hours-away) gives us the salutation I made on May 6^th (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/05/06/whats-the-matter), where I stated “when the voters learn that Greece is about to desire up to 30 billion before the end of the year, so that it can pay the outstanding bills“, so not only was I right all along, it is possible that the Greeks delayed because of the fear what it would do to the UKIP numbers and subsequently a first serious move away from the EU. Now, not only is Juncker offering 5 billion in addition, it comes with very little extra hardship for the Greeks, especially the previous Greek politicians.

Yet, now, as I mentioned, the game changes. With the migrant issues in Calais, Marine Le Pen is about to take control of another piece of France, which will soon prove to be really bad news for President Hollande. In addition, the quote “In January she asked French President Francois Hollande to suspend the visa-free Schengen Area in Europe and strip dual nationals of their French citizenship if they carry out “barbaric crimes”“, give us an additional change. It is not a given that the changes to Schengen will happen, but if it does, it is clearly in addition a preparation to move France away from the EU. Her statement a week ago clearly indicates the change she wants to impose.

In all this, Greece now stands alone, because the drive on the shores of Brexit and Frexit are now clearly stated in the news, stated by these politicians, which in case of Marine Le Pen is not a good thing for Europe, because unless her demands are met, she will call for an exit from the EEC, not just the Euro, which changes the game by a massive margin. So when I see the quote “but what Tsipras has done is seize the initiative“, it must be stated that it is an incomplete view, because the response from both the UK and France is about to give the world of finance a massive headache, one that will continue for the next 20 months, especially as Marine Le Pen ends up as the next possible leader of France, for which she is currently in the lead, ahead of Sarkozy and Hollande. The laughing whisper two years ago, is now a realistic threat, interesting how so many journalists missed this escalation.

There are more signals, all indicative of one more act on the floors of the theatre.

And the act starts with a gloomy theatre, men and women in black, handing a folder, from person to person, they all look at it for a few seconds and give it to the next person. This goes on and on. Yes, we get to the article ‘IMF: austerity measures would still leave Greece with unsustainable debt‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/30/greek-debt-troika-analysis-says-significant-concessions-still-needed). The story already starts with questionable statements “Greece would face an unsustainable level of debt by 2030 even if it signs up to the full package of tax and spending reforms demanded of it, according to unpublished documents compiled by its three main creditors“, the reason that I call it questionable, is because Greece is what I call a 3G nation, which means it will take three generations for this debt to become close to manageable. So, with that I imply that the debt is still a massive form of pressure in 2061, there is no escaping it. Even with reforms Greece is no longer able to meet the interest payments and the payments after the payment reduction, unless it makes MASSIVE changes to its laws and its social system. This includes holding politicians accountable for overspending, making them prosecutable for criminal negligence if they cannot meet the budget. It is close to the only change that will start stopping the madness. In addition, tax laws need a massive overhaul, one that should be part of the IMF demand before Greece gets one additional eurocent.

By the way, Greece is not alone, Spain, France and Italy are all 3G nations at present. The UK is not that deep yet, but it will take a generation of hardship to get the debt under control.

That (secret) document also states “that under the baseline scenario “significant concessions” are necessary to improve Greece’s chances of ridding itself permanently of its debt financing woes”, is that even a surprise? I figured that out over a year ago, doing the math of my fingers, an Abacus was not required, this is exactly why I opposed Greece to be allowed back on the market selling another 5 billion in bonds. But the power players wanted their commission and as I see it a 100 million euro bonus is just too good to pass up.

So here in short is part one of this story. Certain elements are in play and have been in play for some time. Greece has done next to nothing to clean up its act, its laws and its massive shortcomings. As we see again the voices of many shouting against Austerity, we have to wonder whether people even realise what they are shouting against. You see, austerity is merely keeping a budget, for close to two decades governments have overspend every year, this is how Greece got into this mess, it had spent money that it never had. It is not alone in this pretty much every EEC nation is guilty of this and whilst some are still afloat, Greece is the first one who cannot even commit to the due interest bill, that is at the foundation of this debacle. So austerity is not a punishment, it is not a right, it is a mere responsibility and it has been forfeited by nearly every EEC nation for much too long.

I will give more answers in part 2 of this article, hopefully the day after tomorrow.

Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as Alexis Tsipras, Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Bild, Brexit, Calais, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Danuta Hübner, European Central Bank, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, European Parliament, France, Frexit, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, German Finance Ministry, Greece, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Grexit, Helena Smith, Italy, Jean-Claude Juncker, Juncker, Karolina Boronska-Hryniewiecka, Kremlin, Lisbon Treaty, Marine Le Pen, Megaron Maximou, Member State, President Hollande, Russia, Spain, SYRIZA, TFEU, the Guardian, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, UK, Wolfgang Schaeuble

June 22, 2015 · 20:01

Upping the ante!

It seems that the play, that I feared for is now becoming the play that the power players seem to relish. This is no longer about Greece or the Greeks, you see, as I have shown and stated on several occasions, this is about the status quo, and the fallout that will follow will be one that shows the end of many ways of life in Europe.

This is in part about the article ‘Creditors offer Greece six-month bailout reprieve as Tsipras weighs response‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/21/greece-crisis-creditors-aim-deal-six-month-rescue-extension), we see the photo with the annotation ‘The Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, arrives at this office in Athens on Saturday. His key demand is that the creditors offer debt relief to Greece‘. Here we see the use of media, as we see another theatrical pose by Alexis Tsipras, we see the caption that is now more an annotation. The illustrative explanation that now makes way for a presentational mark-up.

There is a huge difference and many people are in a place where they can no longer see the difference.

You see, it is no longer about the Greek people, the creditors never cared and the politicians involved for the most did not care either. You give me a clear example where adding debt was for the benefit of the people and I will introduce you to a liar, because the bills must be paid! Whatever forecast the Greeks are offered now, it will be almost certainly be downgraded after a respectable time of misrepresentation and managed bad news, you know after a sudden error or overoptimistic forecast could not be met. That is how I clearly see it!

The quote “extending its bailout by six months and supplying up to €18bn (£12.9bn) in rescue funds” is not about rescue, it is presented as rescue, but it is about paying bills that Greece can no longer pay. It takes care of the bills, the outstanding payments due and less than 6 months of interest payments. In 6 months this starts all over again, whilst the total debt goes up by almost 4%. Added to this is the quote “a breakthrough hinged on a positive response from the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras“, so whilst no concession was made in 6 months, one confirmation, whilst no official plans have been agreed upon will allows the involved players to continue, as they reap the rewards, walk away and leave the next person with an even bigger mess to solve, that is, whilst we see that at present payments are no longer a reality.

You see, in the larger scheme of things, there is a massive upside, the American players involved are not too bright as I see it, they think ‘short term’, with their focus often on personal gain (read: bonus) and personal options (read: their next career step) as they leave the legacy to whomever comes next. It is not the same as the 2004 events, but the consequence will be a lot higher.

As I see it, this act is now enabling UKIP and National Front at the centre stage to illuminate how these short term vultures are totally irresponsible and the rest of the EEC will have to pay in six months’ time (if the reprieve goes through). The run to these two parties is likely to grow almost exponentially. If the UK will call the referendum sooner, the call for breaking with the EU might become overwhelming. The push in France will grow a lot stronger at this point too. That part I had illuminated before, now consider the BBC article ‘France polls: A step closer to power for the National Front?‘ from March 21^st. “Polls suggest that the party’s leader Marine Le Pen is likely to reach the second round of presidential elections here in two years’ time. She’s not predicted to win, but even so, it is a striking result for a party that currently controls just 11 towns in France“, that danger, makes the involvement of President Hollande from the quote “Negotiations were continuing on Sunday night, hours ahead of crucial gatherings of Eurozone finance ministers and leaders in Brussels, which Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, François Hollande, the French president, and Tsipras are expected to attend“, his support, also means that if Tsipras breaks (or changes) any given word now, whatever ‘change’ is pushed for in 6 months will hit the French unbalanced powerbase even harder.

You see, the pushers for the status quo are outside of these discussion groups, it is clear that someone from the US (likely Jack Law) has voiced concerns in resolving this, the problem is that the US is (as I see it) bankrupt and those behind it will get paid no matter what, especially as these funds will be used to pay those involved, which means an even stronger movement away from regaining balance. In all this, the Greek population will get to live with the consequences, not the power players behind the screens and likely not the political groups involved. So, as we see “The crisis meeting was convened in an attempt to ease Greece’s debt crisis before a critical €1.6bn payment to the International Monetary Fund falls due next Tuesday“, they are now setting to add 10 times that amount, added to the debt, in addition to the added funds pushed, after we saw the bank run fuelling a quicker setting to the Greek nation’s insolvency.

As we look at the subtitle ‘include up to €18bn in rescue funds, and later debt relief‘, yes it is set against concessions, but how are they enforced or monitored? The later debt relief will no doubt be almost twice the initial payment, which gives Greece up to one more year, but that push for status quo whilst there is no true evidence whatsoever that the economy will go strongly positive makes this a rather risky investment and it is not unrealistic that the Greek population will end up paying for it in several ways.

You see, it does not matter what President Hollande thinks now, he will get what he can and retire somewhere else, the problem will be National Front and Marine Le Pen, who can now (if the Greeks go overboard) make a pointed finger to the EEC, to Greece and to Jean-Claude Juncker stating ‘they have spent your money!‘ What do you think will happen next? In addition, this could start a debate in the UK whether the UK referendum ends up getting pushed forward, still likely in 2016, but now a Q2 or even a Q1 date, which is not that unlikely. In this as the Conservatives are contemplating what to do, UKIP can push its visibility, which gives way to the concern that a minor party can now influence a majority leading party. It is not a given, but it is becoming more and more likely. So as we will soon see economic threats from banks and other players stating ‘beware if you leave the EEC‘, they seem to forget that the voters have had enough, many are living on or below the poverty line and they are extremely unhappy to see Greece walk away yet again, not being held accountable for their irresponsible acts, whilst these voters cannot make ends meet. It drives Marine Le Pen forward and it will have an effect in the UK too.

The short term players do not seem to care, as they are focussed on their little needs, but what comes after is not easily stopped, and this 11^th hour half-baked Greek solution will come with a terrible second invoice. How likely is all this?

There is a part that remains an unknown to all involved (including me), the fact on how powerful the status quo players are and on how these issues are brought to light. They will influence the game that is going on, but in all this, one part is in clarity, as I see it, none of the players have the welfare of the Greek people in mind, which I consider the most disturbing part of all.

Now we see the new headline ‘Greek debt crisis: Tsipras concessions welcomed as ‘good basis for progress’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/greek-debt-crisis-tsipras-offer-is-welcomed-as-good-basis-for-progress). The question becomes, what exactly are the concessions. The first indicator is “Negotiators are promising debt relief for Greece, which has seen its economy shrink by one quarter since the crisis began, but officials have stressed that a breakthrough will depend on a positive response from the Greek prime minister“, now, I have no issue with debt relief perse, but who gets this write off? In the end, who gets to pay for the loss of debt? You see if Greece does not have to pay it back (which is fine by me), who has to front the money? As long as this is not reflected on the taxation of the people (read the banks pay for these out of their own profits), than it is all fine by me.

The second issue is the one I discussed earlier. “Greece’s international creditors are looking at a deal that would extend the country’s bailout by six months and supply up to €18bn (£12.9bn) in rescue funds“, again, fine by me, but this additional debt is for a large portion about paying debts and interest, whilst the foundation of the debt rises again, how is this ever a solution?

So as we see the quotes: “In Athens itself, more than 7,000 people took to the streets for the second time this week to protest austerity with banners reading “A different Europe with Tsipras” and “You can’t blackmail the people, the country is not for sale”“, the question becomes, why do the Greeks not realise that their own politicians sold Greece from under their feet? The debts had been spend by Greece and arranged by Greek politicians.

And the final quote proves that I was right all along: “Louka Katseli, the chief of the National Bank of Greece, told BBC radio: “To enter into such uncharted waters and take up all the risk both for the Eurozone and for Greece for two or three billion [euros] difference, I think it’s insane.””

You see, they were not playing ball because they knew that the predicament for France and Italy would be almost unbearable, and here we also see, what I would call a clear lie by the National Bank of Greece, Louka Katseli. He states ‘the risk both for the Eurozone and for Greece for two or three billion [euros] difference‘, no Louka! It is not for two or three billion, it will be for the additional thirty billion that Greece needs, the raising of the debt ceiling (again), the €7.2 billion, the €10.9bn, which got classified (and booked) as recapitalisation, and this will not last past December, it could even be harder. You see, Ekathimerini reports (at http://ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite2_1_28/12/2014_545761) states a holiday bookings drop of 50%, which is massive! Now, even I have some debate on how correct those numbers are, so do not just rely on this, yet eturbonews (Global Travel Industry News) reported that Russian tourists could drop by 40%. Now, make sure you notice the word ‘could’, because that makes it a prediction and even though this last article is only a week old, the overall tourism for Greece is a lot larger than just the Russians. A more reliable Dutch source gives us (at http://www.nrcq.nl/2015/06/02/toch-maar-welniet-met-vakantie-naar-kos) gives us that the numbers to Greece are down, but not by a large extend, and so far, the pull to Greek vacations is better than 2013, which would be a good thing for the population. One agent has seen rebooking of Greek vacations, yet these changes were from Kos to Corfu, not to a non-Greek destination, so the Dutch drop is not that large, yet it is there, so this also implies less money into the state coffers than already voiced loudly last week.

I must pause and take notice of facts. Is it just me? I must doubt my own view, when I am the only one having it, that is logical, yet the view of this system of pretending a fake status quo whilst the Greek government is not fixing its flaws and demanding more money is extremely unhealthy. Those enabling all of this seem to remain behind the curtains of the press, which is even more discerning.

So as Louka Katseli states “sanity will prevail”, we should wonder, for who it will prevail, because adding €18bn (£12.9bn) onto a nation that cannot pay its bills is not sanity, especially as the governors of that nation refused to take any action, any move of good faith towards the people who had lend them the previous amounts in the first place. If I would go to the bank tomorrow asking for a loan of 25 million, there would be no way that I would get it, so why did Greece successfully end with close to half a trillion is equally puzzling, especially as the same measurements for me would not hold water, how does it for Greece?

In the end, Greece not acting is the plain reason for Greece possibly facing the ‘Grexit’. I use the word possibly, because as we see in the news today, all the players are all about adding water to the wine, whilst Greece is not drinking at all. So there is no real answer what will happen next. And in the end it is twofold. The first is the deal that needs to be made, the second will be how to tell Europe all this because President Hollande knows very well that Marine Le Pen is waiting to voice his words and let them spike into the heads of frustrated and angered French citizens all over France. over 10% is unemployed and almost 13% lives in poverty, which overall is not that bad compared to other places, in the UK it is now stated to be a third, which is massive (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/20/income-poverty-third-uk-population).

This is at the heart of several issues as I have been stating for a long time. Am I correct? Well, most facts came to pass, the fact the Greece has not been exited makes my prediction flawed, yet we must not underestimate the extent of time shifts that have been done just to facilitate these events. That view is only reinforced 10 minutes ago, as new talks start. A theatre routing partially in Greek, partially not, with a mock slap this talk starts. All to feed the press, but the issues are of a deadly serious nature for the Greek population, so as they lighten the mood, we must wonder, where the puppeteers are. So is this a plain Punch and Judy show, or is this a Jeff Dunham spectacle, because the voices behind the screen are those that have been twisted to sound like, this conclusion comes as Christine Lagarde stated 2 days ago that there would be no grace period for Greece, now suddenly there are concessions, yet we are not yet informed on the concessions and certain parties are now willing to open the purse for 6 months of leeway. So if that does happen, no leeway was given (theoretically), it would be classified as a partial agreement, hence the ‘concessions’, which ones? We will know soon enough!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alexis Tsipras, Angela Merkel, BBC, Christine Lagarde, Corfu, debt relief, Dutch, Eurozone finance ministers, François Hollande, France, Greece, Greek prime minister, Grexit, IMF, Jeff Dunham, Kos, Louka Katseli, Marine Le Pen, National Front, Nigel Farage, President Hollande, Punch and Judy show, Russia, the Guardian, Tourism, UK, UKIP

June 8, 2015 · 20:30

More FIFA shit?

That was the very first thought I had when I found the article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/07/russia-qatar-lose-world-cups-if-bribery-found-fifa). The article ‘Russia and Qatar may lose World Cups if evidence of bribery is found‘. Domenico Scala, the independent chairman of FIFA’s audit and compliance committee decided to open his mouth. Which sounds rude, but that is what it adds up to. You see, in all this, as I see it, nearly EVERY MEMBER of FIFA seems to ignore, or sidestep the report by Michael J. Garcia. Is it not interesting that the report called for far trivialised by FIFA and now it has been silenced? Is it remotely possible that Michael J Garcia was the only uncorrupted voice?

It seems like a hard verdict and it seems crass to say so, but I have an issue with an interim manage with massive big business ties. Many of them none too pleased with either Russia or Qatar winning the ballot. With the quote “The new evidence, obtained by the BBC, appears to show how the 2008 payments from Fifa – ostensibly for a Diaspora Legacy Programme promised by South African World Cup organisers” we do take notice, especially as BBC had been on the case of Jack Warner for a long time, but how does this connect to Russia or Qatar?

The article then shows more with the quote “‘after talking with everybody … Whose votes went where? We’re all colleagues, you know. And then we found out that actually Morocco won by two votes,’ the Sunday Times reported Bhamjee as saying“, which seems to be another worry, as I see it, one of the next world cups should then be allotted to Morocco by default, which one is hard to say, 2026 perhaps?

But the article seems to go off to the side, you see the one small quote “had also alleged bribery during the 2018-22 race” is not enough. In a river of papers, documents and evidence the issue of Russia and Qatar are now set in 9 words.

So why is the Michael J. Garcia report held back, why is Michael J. Garcia not talking? It seems with Fat Cat Sepp and loads of others gone, Garcia might become untouchable, depending on that report, so why is that kept behind closed doors? That is part of the reason why I am not willing to give Domenico Scala any leeway or trust, especially with his biopharmaceutical links and his past in Nestle and Roche. These are global players with their claws all over the place. As I stated in my earlier blog regarding FIFA, ‘is it more likely than not’ that large corporations want Qatar to go because of the hundreds of millions in advertisement that are lost because of the Qatarian situation? Having the investigator who basically sleeps in the bed of these large corporations is not a mindset put at ease. The fact that Michael Garcia has vanished in a cloud of non-publications for almost 6 months does not help matter either. The fact that the press is not all over this is even more unsettling.

Then the last sentence, which is actually quite the firecracker. You see the sentence “The Sunday Times says that it supplied the evidence to Fifa five years ago but that it had not acted on it“. Of course, the fact that it is directly linked to Rupert Murdoch does not help the case. But the issue that does play is whether this interaction is in Michael Garcia’s report does matter. You see, if Garcia has it, what were his findings? If he did not have it, the question becomes, who has been regulating the mailboxes of the FIFA members. At this point it is likely to be more than just a reference to people like Jack Warden, because whoever did that (if it was done) must have been a person who is very high up the ladder of FIFA.

The one thing that puts the people (especially the Soccer lovers) at ease is the one step that FIFA is not making, now we get a new one in ‘charge’ and we see more headlines with the mention ‘if evidence of bribery is found‘. So, is my lack of trust that hard to grasp? Overall is there any faith in FIFA at present? Not by me, I do not matter, but those who are truly passionate about soccer, those who felt the reality, which they have expected so long, it still hit them like a kick in the nuts!

They are the people Domenico Scala needs to connect to, especially if FIFA is to have any future, because the news now is just news, but son we will see day after day the issues of extradition that is being fought by those allegedly corrupt, who are in fear of future for their sphincter as they enter the US courts. Then the actual courts that will take more months and more news again and again on FIFA and corruption. If Domenico Scala wants the trust of the people, the true soccer fans, than as I see it, he has no choice but to publish the report, preferably with Michael J Garcia standing next to him vocal about every part of his report. It is not the view Hans-Joachim Eckert would like, but there are questions, questions that also include the ethics committee. So as we see the quote that BBC had on December 17th 2014 “Fifa president Sepp Blatter said: “I am surprised by Mr Garcia’s decision. The work of the ethics committee will nonetheless continue”“, in light of all the arrested and one person who resigned, how did the ethics committee continue, and did it actually continue at all?

Having someone on the ethics committee does not mean that there is an ethics committee, for that reality, one need not look any further than the UK and its view on ‘justice’ via Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. The amount of my peers that have loudly voiced their view on what the Lord Chancellor regards as legal aid, which by the way is what you usually hear when a truck drives starts shouting after a traffic jam of 18 hours, it is not healthy on the ears!

In all this, many articles and several decision only seem to fuel uncertainty, especially regarding trust of FIFA that is now getting louder. Uncertainty will lead to a more grim view on what will happen to FIFA. You see in the end, the power of soccer is Europe, which means that if enough uncertainty is voiced, someone in power will voice to secede FIFA and make UEFA the one power in Europe. FIFA might laugh now, but the large soccer nations include UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and Spain. If three of these, agree on that action, they can pull a host of other european nations across. Let’s not forget that 70% of the power of soccer is Europe, it is not America, Asia or Africa. So whatever is left for the world cup will diminish the ‘world cup’ into a trophy of a few nations that will soon thereafter see that all the funds of soccer remains in Europe, at that point large corporations will pull out and the 6 billion Euro dream that was will be a devaluated nightmare. That nightmare will continue with every court iteration the US goes through on corruption.

That view only polarises further when we consider the quote “He has threatened to release an “avalanche” of secrets about FIFA and its embattled president Sepp Blatter, who last week announced his intended resignation“, which was in the New York Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/sports/soccer/at-center-of-fifa-scandal-a-divisive-politician-in-jack-warner.html. This ‘threat’ is not entirely impossible as Jack Warner was previously a minister of national security and transportation. So we will soon see the ‘spook’ stories in the Telegraph I reckon.

In all this, the media will become the hyena that needs feeding, if Domenico Scala is to get any handle on this, releasing the full report of Michael Garcia would be a first step. It will not matter what that report states, you see, if it is useless, it will only reflect on Michael Garcia, if it was dynamite, it will hit resigned president Sepp Blatter, but it could also have repercussions for Justice Hans-Joachim Eckert, but that would depend on the report itself. If it does show that there were issues with both Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022, well, as I stated before, let the chips fall where they may!

So as we will get more FIFA shot for a long time to come, which has a hidden treasure (if Swiss Law helps me out here). You see, life in Switzerland is not cheap, even though he has millions, now all that money going to him will be mapped, anyone ‘helping’ him out will soon fall under the investigative scope of the US as well, due to possibility of being an accomplice. I am not stating that those people are that, but a criminal investigation is taking place. Now he is in a land where bank secrets will not help him as he is under scrutiny of extradition, in addition, Scotland Yard (who must feel humiliated as this all happened under their noses) are now looking at him 24/7 as well (a presumption on my side). Jack Warner is under a microscope whilst his sons are talking to the FBI, naming their father as a joined co-conspirator. The fun never ends, with every claim he does not pursue (the avalanche of secrets) his position becomes weaker, whatever he reveals implies his connection and it weakens him further as his former ‘friends’ will want to stay away from that toxic environment. He still gets hit, no matter what. I would think that as a former National Security minister, he would have planned his tactics a little better, but that could just be my wrongly skewed vision. Now this comes to blows with the press, I wonder what Brigadier General Alfonso will do. Now that his former colleague is accused, will the General start an investigation into the bank accounts of the agency? I am not stating that Jack Warner stole anything, but what if he used the accounts to syphon money in more than one direction, not just to receive, but to make payment. Now we have a ballgame that is more entertaining than soccer, because if that is so, than Trinidad could be touched by the FIFA scourge. If so, Jack Warner might stop fighting extradition, just to escape the wrath of Brigadier General Alfonso.

In all this, never forget the parts that matter here, there is no evidence that Jack Warner had nothing but the highest love for his Trinidad, his need for … ‘susceptibility to gifts’ does not diminish his national love or in his view his national pride, but how is it viewed by his peers and other around him? That question touches on the quote “The prime minister of this Caribbean republic walked out of a session of Parliament on Friday, angrily chastising a fellow politician and former ally, Jack Warner, who finds himself and his two sons at the center of soccer’s widespread corruption scandal” which the NY Times article started with. You see, overall corruption is not a new thing, it happens in many places, it is just a clear fact that when it gets out in the open, those persons are usually not liked anymore. The same danger he faces all over the field, which is why some of the aspects seem so funny to me. He might throw a few parties now in Switzerland, but soon he will face the reality of legal fees and cost of living, because whatever he wants to pay with will be under none stop scrutiny.

So, we will see plenty more FIFA ‘shit’, the question I have is how UEFA will act and react, because faith in FIFA could soon be at an all-time low, more important, what is Electronic Arts (EA Sports) not willing to pay for?

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Belgium, Bhamjee, Brigadier General Alfonso, Chris Grayling, Diaspora Legacy Programme, Domenico Scala, EA Sports, Electronic Arts, ethics committee, FBI, FIFA, France, Germany, Hans-Joachim Eckert, Italy, Jack Warden, Jack Warner, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, Lord Chancellor, Michael Garcia, Michael J. Garcia, Morocco, Nestlé, New York Times, Qatar, Roche, Rupert Murdoch, Russia, Scotland Yard, Sepp Blatter, South African World Cup organisers, Spain, Sunday Times, Switzerland, the Netherlands, The Telegraph, Trinidad, UEFA, UK

May 29, 2015 · 23:09

Condoning corruption!

There is no escaping the news, FIFA is currently getting smeared all over the place, but before we start painting the roses red, the question we must ask is who are we trying to appease?

Our own sense of morality perhaps?

My first writing on all this started on March 19^th 2014 in ‘Any sport implies corruption!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/03/19/any-sport-implies-corruption/), There I looked at the first allegations against Qatar. The evidence presented was highly debatable. It took me to a response Lord Denning gave in the trial Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372. The statement was “more probable than not”. In the end, I had reservations on whether Qatar was guilty of bribes. I finalised my view with “it is more likely than not that three people were falsely set in an illegal light so that several unnamed persons could walk away with many hundreds of millions of Euros“. My view was apparently a lot more optimistic!

Now we get to the news of the last few days.

On May 27^th FIFA officials get arrested on corruption charges. (06:00)
On May 27^th Criminal investigation into 2018 and 2022 World Cup awards opened (09:30)
On May 27^th FIFA presidential election to go ahead, no 2018 and 2022 World Cup revotes (10:30) (source: http://www.espnfc.com.au/)

At 14:30 4 members, Chuck Blazer, Jose Hawilla, Daryan Warner and Daryll Warner plead guilty. So, even as daddy Warner proclaims his innocence, it seems that he was able to instil values of corruption in his boys. However just now in the Wall Street Journal (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/three-men-with-ties-to-former-fifa-official-aided-probe-1432859617) gives us the quote “businessmen who have been involved in ventures…including ventures involving their father”, which gives way to daddy Warner being in water a lot warmer than he might find comfortable. But in all this, the disturbing part is not the fact that FIFA seems to be corrupt through and through, it is odd in my view that this has been going on under the watchful eye of police forces all over Europe, as well as Interpol. These events were all brought to light by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (of FBI for short). Is that not puzzling? I was not the only one thinking this. A similar thought came from Chris Bryant MP (at http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-32925653)

When we consider certain facts.

From USA Today we get “Blazer was a member of the FIFA Executive Committee from 1996 to 2013, when he was replaced by Sunil Gulati. That same year Blazer was accused of taking over $15 million in payments from FIFA over the course of his tenure and was suspended“, so now suddenly he is regarded as a ‘Report: Former FIFA executive-turned-informant‘ and he had a $6000 apartment for his cats! So, basically he had a pussy place for that cash? Yet the part that is linked here is “CONCACAF’s offices took up the entire 17th floor, but Blazer often worked from two apartments where he lived on the 49th floor“. It seems to me that there is a lot more going on here. Is it perhaps (mere speculation) that certain meetings were to be taken in a deniable setting? More important, I get it that the FBI caught on, but why did the Police forces all over Europe remain blind to all this? In addition, this also brings the entire Michael Garcia debacle again into focus. The fact that this level of corruption had been going on, and as far as we can tell, it happened under the nose of Michael Garcia. When we consider he had been digging into the entire corruption issues for both 2018 and 2022, it seems odd that no flags were raised when we consider the lavish lifestyle of some members. The fact that his appeal to publish the entire document he worked on was overthrown, now these people will get to explain a lot as the corruption scandal spins out of control and anyone now trying to withhold information could end up painted black by the ‘corruption brush’!

It is Attorney General Loretta Lynch who says it best: “It spans at least two generations of soccer officials who, as alleged, have abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks”, so over two generations, decades in activities and the President Sep Blatter remains blind to it all? I am not stating whether he was involved, that is up to the FBI and they did not find anything, the fact that he should have been aware something was wrong is ample evidence that Sep Blatter is nowhere near fit to preside over FIFA. Not when something like this goes on for decades under his presidency.

If we accept the view from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/28/fifa-expose-british-press-andrew-jennings-sunday-times-corruption-fa), where we see: “Andrew Jennings, 71, who has traced Sepp Blatter’s footsteps for more than a decade. Jennings worked for the Sunday Times and BBC’s Panorama. His BBC film about FIFA corruption, The Beautiful Bung, appeared as long ago as 2006“, so as we consider these facts and the fact that this happened, for a large extent under the eyes of Sep Blatter, as we see that he had made no moves since the 2006 film, which should have been an eye opener for him, Scotland Yard and Interpol, but it was the FBI in 2015 who got it done!

Is there no blame? With this level of negligence? I hardly think that is the case and as I see the presidency of Sep Blatter should be cut immediately. In addition, if FIFA wants to regain any level of credibility, it has in my view, no other option but to publish the full report by Michael Garcia. You see, what is in there will be revealing, but I feel certain that what is not in there might be worth even more. Because all this happened, because certain steps were not done and even the tail coat of Michael Garcia is very likely to get smudged. Now let me be clear, I do not believe that Michael Garcia did anything wrong, yet as he started his role in July 2012, he must have had a few thoughts on how he can remain so isolated from the entire pack, as it was devouring the better part of 150 million. Red flags should have been raised in the corner of his eyes, but that might be just me speculating!

The other part hit me when I read the article “Chuck Blazer: FIFA ‘supergrass’” (at http://www.bbc.com/news/32913599), when we consider the quote “it was at this time that Blazer signed a contract with Concacaf that entitled him to 10% commissions on all sponsorship and TV rights deals through his company Sportvertising, giving rise to his nickname of ‘Mr Ten Percent’“, so he gets 10% and still he gets on the Trans Corruption Express? In 2011 he gets the option to become the inside man, the informer. It seems to me that this person has been given a way to lavish life, with 2 repayments. The first one of 1.9 million and another one still to come. I reckon his attorney will use the ‘colon cancer card’ for maximum effect.

I reckon, the FBI did in light of the inaction by so many others, a great job!

The question on everyone’s mind will be regarding the future of FIFA, because without a complete overhaul and without a complete rewriting of the rules, there is every chance that FIFA might not be tolerated any further. There is one more matter, which was set at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/28/australian-police-asked-to-investigate-500000-payment-to-fifas-jack-warner. Here we see ‘Australian police asked to investigate $500,000 payment to FIFA’s Jack Warner‘. So this is another ball game. My question is in the first degree, what was the payment for? Was there a receipt? The Sydney Morning Herald had an interesting part: “The $500,000 payment by the FFA to a football association bank account controlled by Warner – a payment ostensibly made to redevelop a stadium in Trinidad and Tobago“, so why was the Football Federation Australia paying to redevelop a stadium there? The second quote “The FFA on Thursday defended its failure to report the matter to Australian or US police on the basis that FIFA – the organisation now at the centre of an international corruption storm – asked them not to” is even further troubling. Basically, FIFA officials seem to get away with it, the moment the word ‘FIFA’ and ‘request’ are mentioned together, the simple application of Common Sense went straight out of the window.

Even though there will be no resetting of 2018 and 2022, issues still need to be addressed. There is now an additional side to all this. Editors seem to forget at times what they do, but let me remind you regarding the article I wrote on November 14^th 2014 called ‘Sacking the editor?‘, in there Martin Ivens is quoted by Reuters: “Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported that some of the “millions of documents” it had seen linked payments by former FIFA executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam to officials to win backing for Qatar’s World Cup bid”, is that not interesting? So, did the police act on any of that? Is it perhaps possible that the allegations from a newspaper actually hindered a criminal investigation? It is hard to say as the direct facts are murky (and my view on UK Criminal law is murky too), but it all gives way to a hidden stream of events under the FIFA tsunami that is now hitting the press. Has the press shouted ‘wolf’ so often that certain officials stopped acting? That is the direct question here, because the indignation that Chris Bryant MP voiced (Labour) is very real. Why did the FBI solve that what should have been squarely in the corner of Scotland Yard and Interpol. Andrew Jennings is only one of many sources that seem to have been ignored by many people and players on numerous levels.

So, are we condoning corruption? Before you say ‘no’ consider how long this issue was unattended and the fact that the FIFA president, who remained oblivious to the entire matter is at this point likely to be re-elected calls for even more questions. The last part was released half an hour ago. We must give option to refer to the Serious Fraud Office with some laughter as it is now assessing the ‘materials’ which give voice to the fact that Barclays, HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank were used to transfer cash. Didn’t we see two of those banks in other ‘issues’ involving cash?

Is anyone else finally waking up?

The Original Indictment: fifa-indictment-webb-etal

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Andrew Jennings, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Barclays, BBC, Chris Bryant MP, Chuck Blazer, Concacaf, corruption, Daryan Warner, Daryll Warner, ESPN, ESPNFC, FBI, FFA, FIFA, FIFA Executive Committee, FIFA president, Football Federation Australia, HSBC, international corruption, Interpol, Jack Warner, Jose Hawilla, Lord Denning, Martin Ivens, Michael Garcia, Miller v. Minister of Pensions, Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, Mohamed Bin Hammam, President Sep Blatter, Qatar, reuters, Russia, Scotland Yard, Sep Blatter, Standard Chartered Bank, Sunil Gulati, Sydney Morning Herald, The Beautiful Bung, the Guardian, Wall Street Journal

Tag Archives: Russia

Recent Posts

Archives