Tag Archives: Russia

iRan is not an Apple product

There is a larger setting in the world (predominantly the middle east). We are given by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3yqzx72zno) ‘Iran’s supreme leader says enemies will receive ‘crushing response’’. I left it to the left at first (three days ago) for the reason that the entire Iran debacle is like hauling water to the sea. Where the text starts with “The US and Israel “will definitely receive a crushing response”, Iran’s supreme leader has said, following an Israeli attack on Iran a week ago.” It sounds nice, but Iran is limited to deliver attacks through terrorist fractions. It is too scared to attack directly. In the beginning it was about deniability, but that is gone now and Iran is on the verge of be labelled “a terrorist nation” by pretty much all nations. And it is scared of that as such it is trying to kiss up to Antonio Guterres. Yet Israel decided on October 13th “Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz reinforced on Sunday his decision to declare U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres persona non grata over what he described as a failure to condemn Iran’s missile attack and antisemitic and anti-Israel conduct.” There are other nations thinking that Guterres has outlived its usefulness as a UN tool (I speculate that Ukraine is one of them). So when we see the BBC give us “The threat comes as Iran assesses whether and how to respond to Israel’s attack last month, that Iran said killed four soldiers, which was in retaliation for an Iranian missile attack against Israel earlier in October.” There is only so much Iran can get away with and whilst the US is begging to leave the oil fields alone (they get a slice of that revenue I reckon). Iran is now losing whatever options they had. As I see it Robert F. Worth said it best “‘The Iranian Period Is Finished’. Hezbollah’s losses have led some in Lebanon to imagine a future without it.” You see Hamas might seen shelter behind civilian bodies there, but Hezbollah is merely a small part of the 5.5 million population and Israel has had enough. 

Now that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been called a persona non grata, the options for the UN will diminish a lot more and Hezbollah has none left. Their only option is for Iran to engage in a full scale war and Iran is hesitant to do so. With the attacks on Saudi Arabia (via Houthi proxy) they only stand the smallest of chances if other Arabian nations support them and those nations are not willing to do that (as I personally see it). And the issue continues (and worsens). The BBC also reported “Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” is an alliance of Tehran-backed groups that include Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and well-armed groups in Iraq and Syria. Most have been designated as terrorist entities by some Western states.” Let me be clear, they merely voiced the words of Iran and there is the problem. Do you think that the BBC would have given Germany the ‘respect’ by calling it the third kingdom? (1933 – 1945) And the larger option becomes that ‘their’ axis of resistance is in shambles. The Hamas terrorists are hiding behind the population they claim to protect. Hezbollah terrorists are relying on exploding pagers and the rest of Hezbollah has no clue what to do and Houthi terrorists are in a dangerous position. Lloyds reported yesterday “Houthis’ reported to be earning an estimated $180m a month from illegal safe-transit fees paid by unnamed shipping agents to secure safe passage through the Red Sea” as well as a report from ynet news that ‘Houthis turn to social media to raise funds for war’, this tells me that they are now cash strapped and here the UN is close to useless. They might talk a nice talk but it seems to be finally falling on deaf ears. In the meantime a report a mere 15 hours ago gives us that Houthi forces are trying to align themselves with Al-Qaeda forces. This happened whilst one source gives us “the two terrorist groups agreed to put aside their differences and focus on weakening the Yemeni government” the beginning of all kinds of escalations. And that is the setting for Iran, or as the American voices state “Become Al-Qaeda’s bitch or fall alone”, I cannot vouch for that, but Iran depended on deniability and now that this is gone Iran faces the reality of going to war. So how long until that goes wrong? In all these settings the United Nations might be out of options as well (until a new CEO is elected). You see on October 24th we got to hear “UN Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday that his country’s on-going invasion of Ukraine violates the United Nations Charter and international law.” ‘Reiterated’? This has been going on for 10 years and now we see ‘reiterated’? I reckon that the insertion of North Korean troops is making this a larger stage. Basically it is now a world war. You see, there is no real definition, one that aligns with todays setting of “In order to qualify as a world war, at least one of three criteria must be met: the conflict takes place between multiple nations across the globe, battles are fought in many different locations, and the war must be fought against great powers with significantly advanced technology.” It now involves Russia, Ukraine and North Korea. At this point I believe that the setting of a World War is reached. You see one criteria was met and this reflects back unto Iran too. Because in this setting, Iran might be getting cozy with Russia, but Russia has its own brand of troubles and that is setting the grind in another direction. As such Iran loses whatever friends they thought they had. As such we are given “Saudi Arabia, Jordan and United Arab Emirates unite against Iran, with support from the United States.” A statement that is presumptuous, but lacks clear evidence (as I see it). It is likely to be true, but I have not seen that evidence. And in this setting Iran has two options, the first is to engage is all out war, the other is to drop the terrorist organisations Hezbollah and Houthi, leaving them to fend for themselves. 

I could be wrong but this is as I see it the political chessboard where we have three players. I would personally see a different stage where the board is used with the chess pieces of Chinese chess. It would be a decent challenge to get any player to actually win whilst the other two are hacking on the pieces and that applies to all sides in this equation. If we get a ‘dopey to dollars’ equation I reckon that Israel has a lead because Iran is about to lose two thirds of its ‘axis’ and that results in less pieces to move around and more exposure of its own pieces. And the number one weakness for Iran is that they cannot move their oil fields or oil infrastructure. That is the bottleneck for Iran, and they have less and less options for securing that financial option.

As I personally see it Iran is about to become ‘I ran’ and they now have no place to run to.  

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

The setting of coins

The BBC had an interesting article yesterday. I was drawn between two settings. There is nothing wrong with the article. It is a point of view and anyone has that right. My setting was that the dimensionality is wrong. Some see Iran as a wimpy weasel, others as a weaselly wimp. I think they are both at the same time. That is as far as the difference is seen. The BBC in the shape of Jeremy Bowen hands us ‘Iran faces hard choices between risks of escalation or looking weak’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2742rynqgo). I don’t think they look weak, they are weak. When you have to rely on terrorists to bring your message across, you are weak. And the setting that this brings is that a stabilising effect that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia brought was torpedoed (for a lack of a better word) by Iran. Iran is so afraid to be the trivialising party in the middle east that they rely on three terrorist entities. Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthi forces. 

We are given “They must decide on the least bad of a series of difficult choices. At one end of the spectrum is hitting back with another wave of ballistic missiles. Israel has already threatened to retaliate again if that happens” And the options of a bad series of choices is ‘encouraged’ by the west. Politico brought me this month the setting of loopholes that were created to enable other players to sell Russian oil, all legal (which is why we call it a loophole), yet this wasn’t created for Russia. Russia got to exploit the loophole the west made for Iran (my presumptuous thinking). Do you really think that Iran could have played the game this long if they didn’t have that loophole?

We are then given “Iran’s official media in the hours before and after Israel’s attacks carried defiant statements that, at face value, suggest the decision to respond had already been taken. Its language resembles Israel’s, citing its right to defend itself against attack. But the stakes are so high that Iran might decide to walk its threats back” which sounds nice on paper, but the reality is that this weasel was hiding behind three terrorist organisation. Hamas has now been bombed back into the stone age and their leaders are hiding in Doha, Qatar (according to some sources). As far as I see it, Gaza did this to themselves. Hezbollah decided to rely on pagers and the top of Hezbollah basically messaged themselves to death. That is number two down. The assault was so complete that pretty much the entire top of Hezbollah blew themselves up. Who ever didn’t do this will follow soon I reckon. Then there is just the Houthi brach left. I reckon that the next 3-5 years amounts to Iran calling that branch with requests for the good of Shia Islam. Not sure how they will bring that news, but it is likely to take on that form. All the money that Iran invested would now be asked to validate through actions. Hamas has seemingly lost around 50% of its fighting force and the rest is dubious of continuing and finding real solutions for their family. Hezbollah has no top, this means that Iran needs to put advisors on the ground, or lose whatever they had left. And the Houthi’s will go in a new direction. As I personally see it, with the recruitment of child soldiers they are taking on the direction Hamas had and as some drone technology that evolved in the Ukraine, we will see soon a new frontier develop where drones can be sent to a generic location and start auto targeting a scope of realistic issues. There is every consideration that whatever drone abilities the Saudi government has will soon gain serious teeth. 

We are then given “Iran’s foreign ministry invoked its right to self defence “as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter”. A statement said Iran believed it was both entitled and obligated to respond to foreign acts of aggression”, this sounds nice, but Iran played the terrorist card and has done so for years, which makes its statement baseless. We can see America ‘pleading’ with Israel not to hit the oil reserves and the loophole for oil makes it a desired move, but Israel has its own concerns. These terrorist actions are funded by Iran and defund their oil is a tactical move to temporary stop funding, making the tactic valid. As we see “The men in Tehran thought they had a better idea than all-out war. Instead, Iran used the allies and proxies in its so-called “axis of resistance” to attack Israel. The Houthis in Yemen blocked and destroyed shipping in the Red Sea. Hezbollah rocket fire from Lebanon forced at least 60,000 Israelis from their homes.” We are confronted with the harsh reality that Iran is considering extreme options and that is the final straw for Israel. They could bring to bare 125 missiles on Iranian oil fields and with that Iran will have no more options. A setting that was accelerated since 1979 comes to a stop when the oil becomes to tainted to be sold, it will be the oil that glows in the dark. And the world is fearing that moment. Too many stakeholders with their slice of pie that came from the oil loophole will end and there will be a lot of voices trying to delay this point. On the upside it would enable Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to set some solid work to make these two the solidifying hub of international cooperation on the Arabian peninsula. 

The largest question for the world will be what will Iran decide and they could find a way to make hay out of that. Because any escalation will lead to the end of Iran, a path that started 6000 years ago. It is anyones guess if the Iran of today realises that they are out of survivable options. I see three paths and two remain silent because it amounts (without evidence) to fear mongering. And I am not inclined to openly support that view. The play nice card sounds nice, but it would require Iran to disband sections of the IRGC as well as stop supporting terrorism. Will Iran see that light? When people have been on that violent streak for decades, it is hard to stop. I get that, but does Iran have any resolution left? Empty threats will not bring home the veal as they say.

Well, it’s Monday now, so have a great new day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics, Science

What is the real deal?

That is the question I have. I am not saying that I have ‘evidence’ but you can judge the information I will hand you now. Early yesterday morning I stumbled upon ‘Saudi Arabia ‘comfortable’ venue for talks to end Ukraine war: Vladimir Putin’ where we are given (at https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/saudi-arabia-comfortable-venue-for-talks-to-end-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin/article68773948.ece) “Saudi Arabia will be a ‘comfortable’ venue for talks to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, said Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the BRICS summit on Saturday (October 19, 2024).” With the ‘supporting’ text ““I repeat once again: we are ready to return. We didn’t interrupt the negotiations. I want to remind you: it was the Ukrainian side that said that it would not continue negotiations with Russia. First. Second. A decree of the President of Ukraine has been issued prohibiting negotiations with us,” said President Putin accusing Ukraine of preventing a solution from emerging.” To be honest, I do not put much faith in the words of Vladimir Putin, as I see it, he is nothing more than a mass murderer of Women, children, aid workers and more. The bombing of the Ukraine might be one of the most disgusting acts against a people since long before the Crusades. An act that makes the acts of Genghis Khan sound like a simple sniffle. 

Then we get the Kyiv Independent (at https://kyivindependent.com/general-staff-russia-has-lost-672-850-troops-since-feb-24-2022/) handing us ‘General Staff: Russia has lost 672,850 troops since Feb. 24, 2022’, we knew that the Russians were losing a lot of people and we see this below

Apart from the 678,520 soldiers who went the way of the dodo, they also lost 26987 vehicles, 9047 tanks, 369 aircrafts, 329 helicopters, 17,050 drones and a submarine and a few other items. Beside this Russia seems to be toting North Korean hardware and troops. The once mighty Russia is now relying on North Korean troops and weapons. As I personally see it Russia is on the threshold of defeat. The once mighty country that had the west shaking in its boots is now relying on a nation Russia once looked down on is sending troops and hardware. Yes, President Putin is looking for a comfortable place to talk about any solution that sees Russia in an alternative route towards non-defeat. The latter part is not really an option, but he might want to keep the hope up. I personally see that there is another side. China sees the war as a hindrance and they like Saudi Arabia as a winner in any political solution at present. But that is merely my view on the matter. 

Russia needs a scapegoat in all matters and as President Putin made sure all his adversaries have  committed suicide out of windows. He is now left massively out of options and the Saudi setting is now his (presumably) only way out. At this point he might get away with a working military in about a decade as it will take time to replenish 9000 tanks, 369 aircrafts, 329 helicopters and a submarine, preferably in a 21st century setting. As such the Russian steel mills will need to be repurposed and it can afford nothing more until at least 2030. And that is all presuming that Russia wants a working solution at this point, it will cost them dearly as well as the Russian ‘blemish’ that they lost to a global army in 20th position, that is the defeat and larger political loss they face. With the setting in Saudi Arabia he could possibly avert an expulsion from BRICS. At present China and India are considering the gains they make on the global stage if Russia becomes isolated. China gains defence contracts all over the world, India will get several boons all over the commercial field and that is the premise that Russia is now looking at. 

As such the Saudi premise works for Russia, but only if they play nice. Any act that is seen negatively by the Ukraine will be taken harshly and if the Ukraine walks out of these talks Russia’s goose will be cooked, peppered and marinated. As such I have the question. What is the real deal here? I have faith that Saudi Arabia sees this as an opportunity, as does China. But in this instance it depends on what game President Putin will be playing. Not only does he know that he is with his back to the wall, will he embrace the small options of a massively greater loss is heading his way? I cannot tell, because that requires an insight of a mass murdering mind I do not have.

Have a great day wherever you are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Kettle, pot and colouring

Yup, that is the setting for today. I saw the news yesterday or the day before and it angered me. The article (at https://cpj.org/2024/10/saudi-arabia-sentences-cartoonist-mohammed-al-ghamdi-to-23-years/) from the CPJ (committee to protect journalists) is as misguided as it is hypocritical. In the first instance I do not know Mohammed al-Ghamdi, I never saw his cartoons or red anything from him. As far as I am concerned as long as the CPJ does not hold its western journalists and editors up to any kind of standard, it needs to shut up. Yesterday I touched on the Politico article regarding Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud and it opened up some issues for me. There is more, the media neglects the interesting ‘good’ Saudi Arabia does and trivialises the harm that Saudi Arabia gets from Houthi terrorists. As such I say that the CPJ needs to shut up.

We are given that “a Saudi cartoonist for the Qatar-based Lusail newspaper, who was sentenced on an undisclosed date in 2024 to 23 years in prison on charges that his cartoons were sympathetic to Qatar and insulted the Saudi government” Saudi Arabia has laws, they might not be the laws the west heralds, but this is a Saudi event. I might not agree, but if I am in Saudi Arabia I would have to adhere to Saudi Laws and there is the chance that my articles fall in bad waters with Saudi Arabia. I do not know as I am not privy to those laws. As far as I know I never known and intentionally insulted anyone in the Saudi government (I might be wrong in this).

Countries have laws, the west (Commonwealth and Europe) for the most on the issue of freedom of speech and as such I tend to use that freedom of speech, yet in that instance I try to maintain a civil tongue. And when Charlie Hedbo was killed, I also supported France, I stood at a vigil in Sydney. I was not aware to the stage that drove someone to kill Charlie Hedbo, but I was in agreement that we had to protest this because Charlie Hedbo was not anti-Muslim. He drew on several occasions images that would have offended the church (the Vatican), as such he was equally ‘diplomatic’ on all faiths. 

Yet this is not about Charlie Hedbo, this is about the double standard the CPJ uses and until they hold western media to a serious level of account, they need to put up or shut up. 

This is pretty much it. I did not check some of the claims made and I am not saying these claims weren’t true. We get “It is time to break this longstanding pattern of imprisoning journalists. Saudi authorities must release al-Ghamdi and drop all charges against him” and I am not opposing this, but I find it interesting that numbers and reasons for imprisonment aren’t given. It this is about less then 5 journalists, it seems a trivial matter (compared to Turkey and a few other places). And lets not forget these Saudi Laws are all documented and as such these ‘journalists’ (optionally a mere one cartoonist) might have decided to leave the country, was that done? 

The CPJ gives us that 50 Journalists were killed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2024. So, where is the stink on these 50 journalists? Oh, and why is it “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and why do we not see the segregation between “West Bank and the Gaza Strip” and “Israel”? It was a simple setting, but the CPJ seems to use a simplistic brush for that. And between 2018 and 2024 we see merely one seemingly killed and I raised plenty of articles between 2018 and 2024 shedding doubt on that setting. Another article gives us that 10 people were imprisoned all whilst the 2023 numbers have a top 10 (Saudi Arabia wasn’t there) and the top is China with 44 imprisoned, Russia with 22, Iran with 17, and Turkey with 13 imprisoned. Yet in all of these cases, we see an absence of reasons and there is the issue. The (western) press has in the last 10 years lost pretty much all credibility, as such a reason for imprisonment is required. I have an issue with the CPJ because a population with less credibility than a drug pusher in a school yard has several issues and I do not think the CPJ is in a position to demand any kind of charge drop until the status quo of journalists is re-established with a level of credibility that most of us find acceptable. The chase for digital dollars in the last decade pretty much diminished their right for a ‘protected’ status. 

People might not like my view on the matter, but that is my preview on the matter. Perhaps the CPJ would like to rewrite the article in something more palatable?

Have a great Saturday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

The afterthought

It is Reuters that gave us ‘Exclusive: Stop Israel from bombing Iran’s oil sites, Gulf states urge US’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/stop-israel-bombing-irans-oil-sites-gulf-states-urge-us-2024-10-11/) Now normally this doesn’t bother or alert me, but after the 6th when I wrote ‘Is it merely political?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/10/06/is-it-merely-political/) where we got to see “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” Now we see Gulf states all ‘worried’ about Iran, or are they perhaps worried about the cheap deal they have from Iran counting in the billions? A setting that most of us ignored as we were unaware of the loophole. But now, even after Iran threatens Israel, we are given “Gulf states are lobbying Washington to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s oil sites because they are concerned their own oil facilities could come under fire from Tehran’s proxies if the conflict escalates, three Gulf sources told Reuters” and in the article we aren’t given any names are we? Which Gulf sources? I think that we are entitled those answers, are we not? Isn’t it interesting that Reuters missed that beat, but then the media is becoming less and less reliable. And it makes sense that the first thing Israel goes after is the money, hence the oil. And in all of this Gulf states are urging the US to stop Israel from bombing oil sites? Who are the stake holders, what Gulf nations are involved and how is that money flowing? More important how can we track that money. How can we expose these exploiters? 

These are all questions that are derived from the article on the 6th of October that Politico gave us. If they rebranded 2 billion of Russian oil, there is nothing to stop us thinking that Iran gave others a lot more and from the gulf states there is plenty of players around to do whatever it takes to get a share of a mere 50 million and this has been going on for a while (a speculative thought). The Russia story came out relatively fast, but the Iran dilemma has been going on for decades and now with the Hezbollah eradication as well as the pounding of Hamas, these stake holders are worried that their well dries up and now they are speculatively crying like little bitches that their free ride is drying up. OK, that might have been a little over the top but the sentiment comes across, does it not? Now, I could be wrong, one sides does not prove the other. To put it simplistically every cube is a orthotope, not every orthotope is a cube. As such what is happening in Russia might not happen in Iran. On the other hand, what was set in motion to be applied to Iran was pretty much a setting for Russia as well. And the media isn’t asking questions, why not?

Until recently when Politico showed us the loophole no one asked questions and now they should have asked a few questions, yet they still are not. How weird is that?

Apply that to the fact that we are merely give “three Gulf sources told Reuters” and no one wakes up? Why is that?Journalists are not that dim, as such, I suspect that at least one stakeholders has a larger finger in the journalism pie of Reuters. Just a thought to consider.

Have a great weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Is it merely political?

That was the thought I had. It came from Politico, as such I would believe that it was political. Yet the larger premise is on the setting of circumstance. This sounds weirdly spooky, but it is the best I can offer. The story (at https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-economy-pain-saudi-arabia-sink-global-oil-prices-energy-russia-opec/) starts with ‘Putin’s war economy faces pain if Saudis sink global oil prices’ which is a partial truth, but it goes further then that. We are given “A Saudi move to grab market share will squeeze the Kremlin’s finances, experts argue” which is only a partial truth. The entire part is followed by “Riyadh is increasingly frustrated with other petrostates’ failure to coordinate on cutting supply to raise oil prices to about $100 per barrel — up from the current $70. Oil traders say Saudi Arabia is now set to respond by flexing its muscles and turning the tables on smaller producers, exporting more oil itself to grab market share and profits, even as prices fall.” We are also given “The Financial Times reported last week that Saudi Arabia could abandon its long-held ambitions to limit the crude supply to push prices to around $100 a barrel. Oil market experts have little doubt that Saudi Arabia has the enormous production and export capacity to change tactics and gun for market domination through volume instead.” In this view I need to align a few positions. What is missing is that America (the United Kingdom also) are depending in keeping oil cheap. So that is missing. Hanging it on the Russian needs is a bit dorky. Yes, they both matter, but the US an EU need for cheap oil missing as a pre-made need, is just dorky (I can’t find a better word for this). You see when there is a lack of a commodity prices go up and now this fails? The world requires (at present) that 2.4 million barrels per day pumped more than now and that is not done. I actually speculated this a year ago when I stated that we can pump 4 barrels at $3, or 3 barrels at $4. The amount gained is still the same but at 25% less oil. It is a simple equation (and an incorrect version) but the the premise remains. I went through to the next stage that Saudi Arabia could pump 2 barrels as the price goes up to $6, still the same revenue but now at half the oil delivered. This is how commerce works on commodities. I still doubt the statement that the $100 per barrel cannot be reached, I merely believe that certain stakeholders want the premise to keep their pockets lined. How? I cannot tell, I am not an oil person, I merely use it through various means. So what gives? 

When we get to ““The global economy is fairly sluggish and oil demand is not as high as the Saudis would want,” said Ajay Parmar, director of oil markets analytics at commodities intelligence firm ICIS.” I have issues here. You see, this means that the Russia delivers all oil. There is not a lack of demand, some people are playing a high end game to keep their pockets lined. If I had it my way (pretend that I am the new CEO of Aramco, a very fake one) I would stop 5.5 million barrels a day from reaching the US, EU and UK, in the combination 3,2 and .5 it would take less than 90 days for it all to implode. As Tesla is more and more lacking is quality, the other nations will need 2-3 years to overcome their downfall and in that time China is the new superpower with America stumbling over the edge of the abyss. That is clear in my (optionally wrong) point of view. The setting that Politico gives is too partial and slightly too flawed. 

Yes Russia has a problem and they are welcome to the problems they get to harvest now. A second problem is “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent in the first half of this year alone, according to Moscow’s finance ministry, despite Western sanctions imposed over the war in Ukraine.” I don’t doubt these numbers, but who paid for that oil? I doubt is was merely China, North Korea and India. Although these countries were involved. I saw last year that India was buying some of the oil, China is a definite and I guess that North Korea had to pay for their weapons and it seems like a logical choice for them to accept oil as payment. So who more? 

Politico should have stated “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent (from 1M barrels to 1.41M barrels)” but they didn’t if Russia only sold 50,000 barrels it will not be an issue, but that is not the case, is it?

Now if you doubt my reasoning. That is fine. But we have seen plenty of issues where prices go up the moment that commodities has a higher demand. Yet the article does not give us that does it? And who is Ajay Parmar? This article leaves me with plenty of questions and no answers. So in all this, Is Russia in actual trouble? To some degree, but I see this as an alternative way for Saudi Arabia to give in to the west requiring cheap oil. I personally believe that Politico missed their mark and as such loses credibility as such. The one part that I do see is “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” As such that should be the story and the story is that more and more nations are fuelling Russian revenue through refining Russian oil and filling their pockets. As such there is a momentum being built, one that is not addressed and one that is trivialised as such I expect that plenty of newspapers will fuel their revenue by posting this story. The 41% is now shown to be big business, especially when we see Turkey and India and how they are short on cash pretty much all of the time.

So we are seeing a larger stage. In the first on where is Russian oil going to and in the second what countries are fuelling their demands for cheap oil? A nice spreadsheet would have been nice, but that was a part that Politico oversaw (I guess).

Still as we see one part, we also see the part that some want us to see, appointed awareness. A combination of social awareness and the influence of appointing. A formal arrangement to create a designed social awareness. The ability to understand a situation as the offical parties would like others to see them. But as I see it, this will be at the expense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Is that fair all whilst Russia is handed loophole after loophole, as long as the west gets its oil cheap. How is this not exploitation? 

Consider what is being done and at what expense? The question is simple enough. 

Enjoy the Sunday you have left to you.

4 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

A land in fear

That happens, countries like people can be in fear. The stand of a country is usually set by the speakers of that land. That is what I personally believe and behold, we get the Arab News giving us (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2572458/middle-east) with the headline ‘Iraq’s top Shiite cleric calls for end to Israeli ‘aggression’ on Lebanon’, which is fun, because at present the larger collection of western nations are trying to figure out how it was done. I think that the NSA had a direct line to DARPA and I reckon they figured it out. The DGSE, ASIO, MI6 and BND were pretty much in the dark (until they received a call that is). So as we are given “Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Shiite Islam’s highest authority in Iraq, appealed Monday for “every possible effort” to end Israeli “aggression” against Lebanon, where it is targeting the Shiite Hezbollah movement.” With the missing paragraph “On 8 October 2023, Hezbollah started firing guided rockets and artillery shells at Israeli positions in the occupied Shebaa Farms, which it said was in solidarity with Palestinians following the Hamas attack on Israel that took place a day earlier.” They have been attacking for the larger part of 26 weeks and now we get Iraqi clerics about the Israeli “aggression” on Lebanon? I think certain people are getting afraid. Allegedly Israel completed an attack against Hezbollah laid waste against the communications of Hezbollah. And no one really knows why. It happened under the noses of everyone and everyone missed it. 

So when we get to “Sistani called for “the exercise of every possible effort” to end this “barbaric aggression and to protect the Lebanese people.”” How about ending rocket launches on Israel? This has been going on and on (and on) and now people wonder what kind of creativity comes next. I am still in favour of my new solution to ment down the nuclear reactors of Iran and Russia. Then there is my stealth system that could end the use of harbours in several places. These are merely two solutions that are out in the open and I reckon that Iraq feels safe from my second system as they really do not have any naval bases, but for Iran and Russia it is a different matter. 

So when we get to “Sistani called for “the exercise of every possible effort” to end tensions” I wonder when he called Hezbollah to tone it down, but I feel fairly certain that this didn’t happen and in the mean time Hezbollah and the enemies of Israel will face a next wave of their creativity. As such we see Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Shiite Islam’s highest authority in Iraq speak his mind and subsequently his fear to Arab News. Yes, this has every chance of escalating in the near future. 

Why does this happen?
My issue isn’t Iraq, it is Iran and I reckon that they wanted someone else to speak their Shiite state of mind. I thinks it is too hypocritical (even) for Iran to ship weapons to Hezbollah whilst asking (read: demanding) for Israel to sit back and await the impact of the weapons. And in this it amounts to the fact that everyone (and I mean everyone) didn’t see coming what Israel had up its sleeve. I reckon that plenty of terrorist providers are shaking in their boots. They idea that pagers explode makes the entire communication realm they rely on, a little shaken. But that is merely my point of view. And the fact that they now optionally rely on foreign clerics on the one sided message is a much larger problem as I see it. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is merely the first but I doubt he s alone in this. If this is an Iranian move (as I speculate) there is every chance that Shiite clerics have an increasing problem in the nearby future. This is not a given, but other countries would possibly be taking a firmer stance on Shiite clerics. Am I right? I honestly do not know, but there are definitely markers that could imply this. 

It is a worry and a larger upcoming stage towards destabilisation. A setting Iran likes (Russia too), the rest of the country is not on board with this and I speculate that the Sunni clerics are not happy either. They have enough of an issue in foreign nations to get the Islamic message across, I doubt they want this, but that is merely my non-Islamic point of view.

Lets try to enjoy the day before we consider the hassles of tomorrow.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Religion

What is the colour of cowardice?

That is seemingly the question. We are given by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3y79llndo) where the headline gives us ‘TikTok to begin appeal against being sold or banned in US’ with the added text “TikTok will start making its case on Monday against a law that will see it banned in the US unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells it within nine months.” I don’t really have a voice in this. I do not use TikTok, I don’t have the app. I use YouTube and YouTube shorts and that fits me just fine. There is only so much procrastinating a person can do until the battery of his mobile/tablet gives out. I have nothing against TikTok, but YouTube got here first and it does more than I ever needed. 

And for the text “The measure – signed into law by President Biden in April – has been prompted by concerns that US users’ data is vulnerable to exploitation by China’s government.” It gives me the question, what evidence is presented? What evidence has been verified? You see America has seen its OWN influencers hand over data (or make available) to Russia, after 8 years we FINALLY see action and more nations are following. As such I am weary of anything anti China appearing after the BS stage America did regarding Huawei and for that part we still haven’t seen clear evidence. A mere mention of ‘could’ and ‘possible’ were given, but no hard evidence. A mere case that was settled and 10 years old. Even as we are given “advocates of America’s powerful free speech rights, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, say upholding the divest-or-ban law would be a gift to authoritarian regimes everywhere.” I need to agree that these first amendment rights were never ready for the digital revolution we are seeing and we see that in relationship to the Russian paid influencers. I find it weird that they can call themselves ‘victims’ all whilst they got a million dollar deals. Influencers need to be addressed and cut short. If this is not done then you hand a victory to ByteDance and its TikTok. Then we see the accusation “Mr Wang also criticised lawmakers for being vague about the specific national security threats that they say TikTok poses”, really? So where were they (US intelligence) when social media influencers decided to invade national security for Russia. We have yet to see results from that and that is the setting stage for TikTok to be held accountable (if there is any accountability). We see too many anti-China rhetoric, all whilst America is merely trying to keep issues in America and still they cannot tax the minimum part of this, so what is it about? Another claim was seen in another BBC article. We are given “They fear the Chinese government could force ByteDance to hand over data about TikTok’s 170 million US users. TikTok insists it would not provide foreign user data to the Chinese government.” So how is this on ByteDance? As far as I can see it, Facebook already took care of that (via Cambridge Analytica), that is seen as we were given “Facebook later confirmed that it actually had data on potentially over 87 million users, most of them in the USA” (source: the Guardian, NBC, CNET) oh, and that is not all. Politicians Ted Cruz and convicted politician Donald Trump were accused of using this tactic. From there we see the quote “It has not been proven, because the difficult thing about proving a situation like that is that you need to do a forensic analysis of the database”this gets us to the next session. What forensic analyses was used to prove the TikTok matter? It does not because as far as I can see, it is a revenue tactic using the accusation of data. So how often is a firm forced to sell on the accusation? In that case, what cases of forced sales exist for Microsoft? 

That is one of the pillars we need to see and investigate. In March 2024 we got from the BBC “a similar test carried out by Citizen Lab concluded “in comparison to other popular social media platforms, TikTok collects similar types of data to track user behaviour”” does this not imply that similar settings need to exist to the other social media channels? America is a mere 325 million, Europe has over 742 people, the middle east 381 million people and Asia is near 5 billion people, America is a shoddy minority, but these settings are not tested against Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Whatever Elon Musk has and a few other players. This is as one-sided as it gets. And that is not even considering Russia and its poor poor influencer victims in all this. So how is that going? It frustrates me that Huawei had such scruffy treatment whilst NO evidence has ever been produced. 

And in this a report that was given in 2023 where we see “Similarly, a report by the Georgia Institute of Technology last year stated: “The key fact here is that most other social media and mobile apps do the same things.”” So where is the banding of ties to these American social media settings because I do not believe that the NSA isn’t on that same page of collecting non-American  data points. And then we get the largest issues “Although it irks privacy experts, most of us accept that handing over swathes of private data is the deal we make with social networks” it is the price of these free mobile networks. So what is this stage? It is fuelled by the item “Article seven of China’s National Intelligence Law states that all Chinese organisations and citizens should “support, assist and co-operate” with the country’s intelligence efforts. This sentence is often cited by people suspicious not just of TikTok, but all Chinese companies.” If people have an issue with that, that’s fair. However be warned that America let data go to Russia without so much as a threat for 14 years, in the end (2022) we get “Facebook owner Meta has agreed to pay $725m (£600m)” and as far as I know a mere £500,000 was the part for the UK, I think that America has a lot more issues than China. It had to overhaul its data policies at least a decade ago. So how many apps via Twitter, Apple apps, google apps (mostly games) and Facebook has been collecting data? This is seen with “Data was collected on at least 30 million users while only 270,000 people downloaded the app”, so where was the anguish there? I personally see this TokTok issue as a governmental money grab and a consolidation of data in America (away from China). If it becomes a side whether I want my data abused by America versus China is entirely up to the elections as I do not now, not ever trust Trump and I feel that China is the safer place for data and I know I am not alone in this. To be honest, I don’t want either to have it. Perhaps it is an option for Evroc to expand its governance from cloud to include social media data to be placed in Sweden (GDPR) or perhaps Saudi Arabia. It seems that bank violations are harshly dealt with there. If data transgressions are dealt with equally harshly it might be an option. 

Just some food for thought, time for a sandwich for me, yummy. Enjoy your day this Monday, knowing it is almost Monday in Vancouver.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

The change of a name

That is on my mind. What set it off was a response (not by me) to a story on Twitter. It amounted to something that would optionally happen under the upcoming wannabe Trump regime. The story went that a settlement would be struck with Russia that Ukraine would hand over a slice of their land to Russia, something I find utterly unacceptable. It would trigger me to change atlases and maps changing all references from USA (United States of America) to FBP (Federated Bitches of Putin). My reasoning? 

Look at the losses that they so far have under Putin, 631 thousand soldiers, 17,000 AFV (troop carriers), 18000 artillery systems, 28 warships, a submarine and 24500 vehicles and fuel tanks, 368 airplanes, 945 anti aircraft systems, over 300 helicopters and more than 8600 tanks. They lost this to the 20th size army in the world. So when Trump negotiates this ‘settlement’ America loses the right to call themselves some united sort of stated, they become Putin’s bitches. Plain and simple. 

The other side
There is another side to this. As America hands lands to the loser there is every indication that several nations in Europe, optionally in Australia and oceania as well will turn to China to become a more close friend than America will be. We already heard (lacking evidence) that Huawei was a danger, something that has met with large opposition, particularly in Germany and the world has had enough of a collection of Karen’s and their joker (Donald Trump). The larger setting could be that they would agree to enter BRICS under condition that Russia is evicted from that group which could coincide with alignments to Beijing. And this would only be opposed to Russia, not much of an opposition after 2025. In one strike the new world order would have taken Russia And America out of the equation. Is it a real chance? I am not sure, but the powers that currently are have a setting to obliterate any view that takes Wall Street out of this equation. At present the largest danger that America faces is that the age of McCarthyism went south on May 2, 1957. The day Joseph McCarthy died. We all thought he was no good, but all those who had that opinion (me included) can now see that Joseph McCarthy might not have been wrong at all, ask any Ukrainian for a first opinion. 

Is there any good to report on this setting? It is an election year and as such there is a larger stage where neither side will give the goods on the Ukraine. This is partially seen in “Russian restraint in the expectation of a potential Trump victory in November is also matched by caution on the part of the Biden administration for similar reasons. The overriding priority of the US and its allies in their support for Ukraine has always been guided by the desire to avoid the conflict between Ukraine and Russia escalating into a wider war with Nato” There is also the second threat, which a see as a primary threat to Russia. When Europe and allies side with China. Russia and America will both be out of the race. All whilst they think that they are both ‘semi-courageous’ (read: cowardly hyena’s) the setting that comes is economic betterment and as Europe and others side with China, the two who need the recovery the most are abandoned at the drop of any conical hat.

Could I be wrong?
Yes, but this is (as I see it) the very tactic that Beijing would employ. To be certain of their economic rise over the next 10 years. Together with Saudi Arabia and the UAE they could even employ larger stages including introducing of free language skills and get the voice of the people by handing them a voice to employ in a non English way. Don’t think this will not happen, Saudi Arabia is already doing this for other reasons as well. It will not be long until universities will employ those stages to students. As I need to see the stage that I could be wrong. I have been correct too many times as well as the stage that certain greed driven policies are abundantly strong in Europe. That takes America with their $35,300,000,000,000 debt is forcing them to consider. As that pile of debt comes crashing down on America, all with connected debts will choose a safer path for themselves. As I see it France and Germany are the first to switch. Germany now has the AfD to deal with and they will see the debts they have and easily switch to China, no matter what the media states. The Media is too linked to American ‘values’ and there the larger stage is thrown over, especially as their influencers (read: stakeholders) will be trying to find a safer harbour to keep whatever they had. As I personally see it, with that large debt it would only take one third of the 760 billionaires in America for the walls of the American economy come tumbling down and I reckon that it will be the first half of the 253 billionaires to switch another country for the American administration to throw out the ‘freedom’ that these people had to shore up the banks and financial institutions. As such the ‘wealthy’ will secure whatever they can via Monaco (optionally), Nassau and the United Arab Emirates. They will merely take small portions on a monthly basis (until a few panic) and they will suddenly leave with whatever they can and live somewhere else for no less than two decades. And that is the second marker Beijing needs. When it is shown to be not on the premise of national security China will buy it all for approximately 16.55 cents on the dollar. That is how I speculate the hardship for America starts and they did it themselves by electing a greed driven idiot (read: Donald John Trump). A stage that I at present speculative, in part presumption. But in this greed driven tactics are a lot more easy to foresee. So how is that peace stage with Russia going now? 

What can be done?
Not a lot, certain stages are seemingly already happening. As I see it the softness (aka anti-McCarthyism) on Russia will be the straw that breaks the camels back. As I see it, the masses that choose Trump are the second marker, his one sided view with both Russia and against China currently complete the picture.

Try to have a good weekend and ‘أتمنى لك عطلة نهاية أسبوع جميلة’

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

The cake is in the oven

That is the setting we face as we see the article on MEMRI (at https://www.memri.org/reports/article-saudi-government-daily-saudi-arabia-has-legitimate-right-develop-nuclear-weapons). I would be in favour of this. The speaker sheikh Muhammad Al-Husseini, (Lebanese in origin) is unknown to me. He also has Saudi citizenship. He wrote “Saudi Arabia has “a legitimate right” to develop and attain nuclear weapons, and in fact has “an urgent need” to do so in light of the growing threats it is facing and Iran’s rapid progress towards nuclear capabilities. Establishing a nuclear balance of deterrence in the region, he says, will enhance regional stability and cause the kingdom’s enemies to think twice before taking aggressive measures against it.” I personally agree with that point of view. Iran has become too unstable and too aggressive against the state of Israel as well as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The second front Iran manages through Houthi forces and there is too big a chance that they will have nuclear potential. It was a setting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad catered to in his presidency (2005-2013), it was then that Saudi Arabia had to cloak itself with a nuclear deterrent. As things go now, it might not have another option. Most of us do not want this and it was clear that Saudi Arabia didn’t want that either, yet Muhammad Al-Husseini makes a strong point. Establishing a nuclear balance of deterrence  might be unavoidable. I want to make this clear. In all matters regarding this path I would happily be proven wrong. I certainly hope it isn’t required, yet in this setting we are all reacting to the acts of Iran and that is a problem. With their approach to the state of Israel, Saudi Arabia might not be left with an option. It is better that Iran clearly knows that any attack to Saudi Arabia will have a nightmare scenario as a response. 

sheikh Muhammad Al-Husseini then gives us “Iran is working to advance its nuclear program, and is apparently approaching its goal. In light of the concerns about developments in the nuclear policy of the region’s, Saudi Arabia, which does not currently possess nuclear weapons, is entitled to discuss this issue.” I agree on this. In this light when the problems act in Iran, Saudi Arabia better have options of any kind. He ends it all with “At the same time, there is a need for prudent management of the potential dangers associated with nuclear capability” he is right again. The problem that I see is that Saudi Arabia does it in reaction to their current enemies. This take the yellow cake in directions we do not like. As I see it, the first danger I see is that the Houthis get their hands on a dirty bomb equivalent and launches it on a tactical target. Iran will state: ‘We know nothing, we never handed them anything’ and then point they finger at any would be additional target that they hope Saudi Arabia will resolve for them. This will massively increase tensions in the middle east. I would hope there would be a way to stop this, but too many weapons deliveries have gotten through to Houthi forces, so I do not think this path will be stopped any day soon. The idea that third parties will use this to set the hammer against Saudi Arabia is not without fear, the point that there are parties who will ‘act’ to get in the good graces of Iran is a real danger and they will see a mere weapon shipment to Houthi forces. That is the real danger. The acts to appease Iranian political players. There are few enemies to pick from and whomever sides with Iran on this better be ready to pay a hefty price here.

There is no need to say who, there are too many options and scenarios. But that setting does plays towards to voice that Muhammad Al-Husseini is raising. The problem here is that this voice and my view could be regarded as fear-mongering. I get that, but does Saudi Arabia have any option to avoid this? The larger problem is not Saudi Arabia, it is Iran. The Gaza tensions as well as the standing against the state of Israel is becoming a worrying setting. Then there are the settings that complicate matters, namely Syria and Hezbollah. Any of them could become a nuclear parts courier. As such there are several ways that these materials could find their way to Houthi hands and that is the real scenario. Iran pretending to have clean hands whilst Saudi Arabia get the damage and the political fallout of any nuclear strike. As such I agree with Muhammad Al-Husseini that there is a essential need for Saudi Arabia to have a nuclear deterrent in place. My original design was not meant against Russia, but against Iran who had Russian equipment. It was meant to get the plant in Sirik to melt down setting nuclear options back for at least 1-2 decades. These things are expensive and a new site would set a lot of markers back as well as the essential need to increase security to almost 5 fold which leaves them largely without troops. Al that from a simple snow globe, how sick was my creativity? 

But overall Muhammad Al-Husseini is right, Saudi Arabia needs a deterrent. Iran thinks it can play with others, but at some point the others need to react and that is where disaster could strike. 

Have a great day preferably not glowing in the dark.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics, Science