Ukraine War is cheap compares to the Afghan war...and very profitable

“U.S. has sent $2.6 billion in military aid to Ukraine since Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion, with DoD weapons reaching the battlefield within 48 to 72 hours: senior U.S. defense official”

What’s interesting about that is, the U.S. spent 3 billions on funding the Taliban in the 80’s, over the course of an entire decade.

So this was the “longest and most expensive” CIA operation in history, and ended up at $3 billion in 10 years. But the Ukraine has already gotten $3 billion in a single month. Imagine how much they’re going to pump into it by the end of this year? This goes to show what I’ve said before that this is likely now the single costliest program of this sort in history. And that’s only counting the U.S. aid, NATO/EU are pouring in billions more.    Anonymous said

The 20 year Afghan War costs the Americans nearly US$3 trillion and is looking like the most expensive war that the Americans had fought. It is more costly than the US$1 trillion Iraq War and US$890 billion Vietnam War. Actually the Iraq War is cheap as the cost had all been paid back by robbing Iraq's treasury and banks and oil. Vietnam War is also expensive as the loser South Vietnamese had nothing to pay back.

The Afghan War is unchallenged as the most costly war as the US was defeated and could not impose painful compensation on the Afghan govt. The saving grace, to recover some losses, is to seize the US$7 billion deposits in American banks. This is the most despicable act of the Americans, robbing a very poor country that they invaded under false charges of being involved in the 911 attack, destroyed their country and now stealing the little money they had.

But then war has been and is still a very profitable business to the Americans especially to the MIC.  The above numbers thrown at the Ukrainians are peanuts. The Americans would throw in more, and in double quick time, and very happily to do so. And no, it is not a cost to the Americans. They are expecting the Ukrainian govt to pay back every cent, plus whatever mark ups as the Ukrainians would just have to accept the bill sent to them by the Americans and also by the Europeans. Everyone of them, the Americans and Europeans are happily and furiously sending in all their obsolete and expired weapons to Ukraine, as good as selling to Ukraine and at a price they determined, not to be objected by the Ukrainian govt. And comedian Zelensky is asking for more, he is not paying but the Ukrianians would have to pay.

The Ukraine war is looking to be highly profitable as Russia is not looking to conquer and take over Ukraine.  So the Ukrainian govt would still be there and to pay for these so called, 'military aids' sent to them by the Americans and Europeans. The Americans would be laughing all the way to the banks, and so would be the Europeans.

Let's forget about the daft and willing Ukrainians that are willing to die for the Americans to exert their hegemony and to pay for it. Let's see whether there are any stupid govts that would follow the path of the Ukrainians, to start another war for the American Empire, let their country be destroyed, their people killed, and ended up with a mountain of debt from receiving American military aid.

The South Koreans are looking like an eager beaver. Taiwan is also a possible candidate. We shall watch to see who would be the first to jump in.

Solomon Islands - Racism behind how Australia views South Pacific and China

Its 25.7 million population is even less than Shanghai's 28.5 million

Australia is aghast at the news that China has signed a bilateral security agreement with Solomon Islands. Despite both Canberra and Washington having sent scores of officials to the archipelago nation in a bid to try and coerce them to change course, the agreement was confirmed several days ago.

The pact provoked a tidal wave of vitriol in the Australian press, with several commentaries and articles going as far as demanding outright regime change, or even invasion against the country.

Canberra makes it abundantly clear that it deems Solomon Islands to be its own "backyard" and connects its new tilt toward China with the repulsive "Yellow Peril" paranoia that has become endemic in recent years.

But this only illustrates the hypocrisy, vulgarity and thinly veiled elitism which dominates the Aussie mind, even as it calls for Russia to have no such "rights" regarding Ukraine.

Australia is an Anglophone colonial nation that has unwelcomely based itself in the proximity of Asia, placing itself on the boundaries of cultures and civilizations.

Built on the genocide of Australasia indigenous population, such circumstances have historically conditioned a highly elitist identity in the country that has been prone to sporadic racism in relationship to its northern neighbors.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Australia grew to perceive the influx of Asian peoples into its territory as a threat to its English-speaking identity, espousing the politics of "Yellow Peril" and soon the "White Australia policy" which actively sought to prohibit the migration of non-whites into the country.

That now defunct policy still shapes the current underlying of the country's prejudiced discourse toward China, masking fears of racially led "infiltration" and "subversion" under the guise of anti-communism.

This attitude in Australia has long conditioned its foreign policy toward perceiving itself as being a vanguard force of civilization and moral exceptionalism to its surroundings, particularly in reference to the Pacific Island nations, of which it seeks to maintain hegemony over under the assumption that they and their Anglosphere allies are the only countries acting in their "true interests."

This is especially the case with the Solomon Islands, which is a former British colonial state and still comes under the British Crown.

As is the same in Britain, countries in the Anglosphere exhibit a distorted rendering of history toward their former colonies. Having never been held to account for their crimes over them, they continue to exhibit an "ownership" mentality over these countries, perceiving their rule as having not been brutal or unwanted, but benevolent and supportive.

Therefore, the choice of these countries to opt for deeper ties with China is seen as an assault on their own identity and an act of aggression.

Canberra continues to assume it has the right to dominate the Solomon Islands as a "benevolent protector" which constitutes its "backyard," presenting its efforts to form relationships with other countries (in this case China) as a political and military threat.

The Aussies cannot detach itself from their exceptionalistic and blinkered view of the world that they cannot do anything but act in the "best interests" of the Islands, and delude themselves their hegemony is only an act of benevolence despite obvious acts to the contrary.

This inability to conceive themselves for who they really are has led their press to brand the Solomon Islands' decision as a huge "diplomatic failure." But if it is a failure, it is a failure of them to be reasonable or realistic regarding the rise of China, and that the world does not revolve around English speaking countries anymore, let alone one with less people than Shanghai.

- Beijing

Anonymous

The American war against the world for ultimate control and hegemony - A do or die effort to dominate the world

 

Desperate US abusing global dominance of dollar to restore its hegemony in world order

A fundamental aspect of modern property rights is that they must be protected against any irregular expropriation by government. Since World War II, modern economies depend hugely on having reliable access to a reserve currency that offers a stable trading regime. There is deep and growing concern that Washington has now begun an assault aimed at the very foundations of this hallowed regime.

There are two primary facets of this ambush: the way in which the US dollar is being openly exploited, and the more direct attack on the core security expectations associated with property rights. In both cases, this recklessness is aimed at securing certain fervently framed political ends.

Over the last several years, Washington has increasingly misused the immense economic power that comes from running the world's established international currency.

After the Russia-Ukraine conflict began, Jim Rogers said the dollar is now being used as an instrument of war, and it is set to die.

As the conflict in Ukraine developed, an intense rash of property confiscations related to very wealthy Russians living in the West have unfolded.

The role of money, as a primary store of wealth, is now consciously being undermined. Consider two recent examples of rash, currency-based political leveraging that shows what Washington thinks is acceptable today, once it "unfriends" certain governments.

In February, Washington commandeered $3.5 billion, or about half of all Afghanistan public reserves held in the US, to help the families of victims of the Sept 11,2001, terror attacks. This astonishing confiscation was legalized by using a White House executive order. The Taliban government in Kabul, meanwhile, is still denied access to the other $3.5 billion, while wretched, mass misery in Afghanistan has reduced families to selling their children in order to secure food.

A large portion of Russia's foreign exchange reserves of over $600 billion were recently largely rendered useless following the imposition of currency-related sanctions by the US and others.

The world's reserve currency is no longer what we thought it was－that is, a neutral store of value－but has been put to work as a weapon of war. The core aspects of property rights, security and transferability－no longer apply without reservation to all owners of US dollars. Certain owners may now abruptly discover that their rights have been gravely compromised because they fall into a denounced category, solely determined by Washington.

Yet the US assumes that the rest of the world will go along with its own currency-based imperial behavior, and will tolerate whatever may follow. Other states have been threatened that similar high-handed sanctions may be applied if they, too, are precipitously downgraded by the White House. Meanwhile, discussion is already underway about draining those Russian reserves to repair Ukraine.

The US, a borrower already burdened by eye-watering, increasing levels of debt, has used the status of the US dollar not just to borrow cheaply but also to borrow massively increased amounts.

The US is progressively confirming that it's an untrustworthy steward of the world's reserve currency. For now, though, there's no choice but to live with the dominant international standing of the US dollar. The incentive to work on substitutes has, however, been hugely amplified. Various experiments are already afoot, including: potential direct currency swaps, and the further development of sovereign-backed digital currencies. People are also studying the creation of new ratings agencies.

The renminbi, as the currency of the world's largest trading economy, is almost certain to play some role in this coming transition, especially once it becomes fully convertible. One primary lesson to be learned from this alarming, politicized use of the US dollar is that any future replacement needs to be robustly managed as a neutral global currency.

Anonymous 

Climate change - Fear not, Singapore can afford to have 20m people on this piece of rock

As temperatures rise, Singapore races to find solutions to secure its food supply.

How can Singapore bridge the gap between climate change awareness and sustainable actions?

The above two headlines appeared in the CNA referring to the challenges of climate change, food supply and sustainable actions. The first headline gives a sense of urgency that food supply can become a problem if not addressed now.  The second headline is about raising awareness and the need to be considered in Singapore's strategy towards the future and a timely reminder that whatever Singapore does, it must be sustainable. This sounds reasonable as a little reminder to those with megalomaniac ambition like wanting to put 15m or 20m heads into this piece of rock.

When the 15m or 20m population numbers are touched, it is very clear that Singapore would face a lot of very serious problems just to feed and sustain such numbers. Food, energy, living space, water and a whole lot of social and environmental issues would only multiply and compete for attention and resources. These are self inflicted problems that Singapore can do without.

Finding solutions for food supply for 6m population against 15/20m population is a wide gap to handle. Is Singapore finding solutions for 6m heads or 15/20m heads? The scale of the problems in the two parameters cannot be underestimated. Must Singapore ask to have 15/20m problem when it could be more manageable to deal with 6m problem?

15/20m heads in this island prompts the question, is it sustainable? Some quarters are very optimistic to claim that it is sustainable, just on increasing the usage of land alone. What about food, water, energy and the social and political costs? Another camp would say, hold your horses and don't take a bite too big that you can't swallow. Once committed to a reckless population increase, it is very difficult to turn back the clock. The problems of sustainability are no joke. A small crisis could multiply several folds. Do we have the super talents, I mean real super talents, not measured in the salary they are paid, to deal with such gargantuan issues?

Why would Singapore want to go down that road, and who should be making the decision to go down that road? Should this be left to a few politicians with a 4 year tenure to make such decisions for the whole population and the future generations to come? The path to 15m or 20m population is for the good of who? Is it necessary? Is it an existential issue that not going down this road would be the end of the good life in Singapore? Going down this road is certain to be hazardous and very critical and likely to be very precarious. 

The for and against towards a 15/20m population can argue until the cow comes home, just like the issue of mRNA vaccines. The one holding the power would have the final say, right or wrong, but would not be around to answer or take responsibility when the dam collapses.

What do you think?

Russia and China launching financial war against the Americans

 It's not just a military confrontation; Russia & China are about to launch the financial war to take down the USD:

'Russia, China and the members, associates and dialog partners of the Shanghai Cooperation organisation appear to understand the dangers to them from a currency collapse of the dollar, other Western currencies and of associated financial assets. There are three pieces of evidence that this may be so. Firstly, China responded to the Fed reducing its funds rate to zero and the introduction of monthly QE of $120bn in March 2020 by stockpiling commodities, raw materials, and grains. Clearly, China understood the implications for the dollar’s purchasing power. By backing its economy with commodity stocks she was taking steps to protect her own currency from the dollar’s debasement.

Secondly, sanctions against Russia rendered the dollar, euro, yen, and pounds valueless in its national reserves. At the same time, sanctions have pushed up commodity prices measured in those currencies. Russia has responded by insisting on payments for energy from “unfriendly nations” in roubles, while the central bank has resumed buying gold from domestic producers. Again, the currency is reflecting its commodity features. And lastly, the Eurasia Economic Union, which combines Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, has proposed a new currency in conjunction with China.

Details are sketchy, but we have been told that the new currency will combine the national currencies of the nations involved and twenty exchange-traded commodities. It sounds like it will be a statist version of earlier gold standards, with perhaps 40-50% commodity backing, presumably to be fixed against national currencies daily. Like the SDR, it will be supplemental to national currencies, but used for cross-border trade settlement. The involvement of both China and Russia suggests that it might be adopted more widely by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, representing 40% of the world’s population and freeing them from the dollar’s hegemony.

The original motivation was to remove a weaponised dollar from pan-Asian trade, but recent developments have imparted a new urgency. Rapidly rising prices, in other words an accelerating loss of the dollar’s purchasing power, amounts to a transfer of wealth from dollar balances in Asian hands to the US Government. That is undesirable for the EAEU members. Furthermore, the flaws in the yen and the euro have become obvious as well. All Western currencies will almost certainly be undermined by their central banks’ resistance to rising bond yields as the John Law experience Mark 2 plays out.

It might prove impractical for westerners to access this new currency to escape the collapse of their own national currencies. Anyway, a new currency must become established before it can be trusted as a medium of exchange.'

https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/value-destruction

Anonymous