Stupid World

[Viking01]

1. Soccer World Cup 2018

Seems that Russia has risen to the occasion well, and has so far delivered a very
successful Soccer World Cup. Even though my team (Denmark) lost in the second
round against Croatia yesterday in a penalty shoot-out (3-2).

https://www.rt.com/sport/431540-russ...lle-world-cup/

Hopefully, the tournament will continue and conclude without any unfortunate
incidents (involving safety of players, tourists, Russian citizens etc).

Like other major sporting events, this is an opportunity for Russia to be able
to not only showcase itself, but also counter some of the negative western
press content of more recent months.

https://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/0...ry-over-spain/

http://thesaker.is/why-do-we-need-th...slan-ostashko/

to be followed by:

2. Putin - Trump Summit Meeting

While bear baiting has been a popular activity of recent years:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2015/12/ho...ethodology-of/

Trump now wants to meet with Putin - with a formal summit scheduled for July 16
(the day immediately after the closing of the Soccer World Cup). Putin will likely
attend the closing ceremony and then catch a flight directly to Helsinki, Finland.


But why meet at all ? And why meet now ?

Is this an opportunity for Trump to further demonstrate peace making credentials
(after his North Korea foray), as well as help put an end to the ongoing Mueller
investigation ? In good time for US mid-term elections in November 2018.

Assuming that the 2018 Soccer World Cup has been successful for Russia, and
given (say) recent US statements:

- Companies participating in Nord2 gas pipeline may not be subject to US sanction
- Takfiris in southern Syria will potentially lose US support during a Syrian army
offensive near Daraa and Golan Heights

will Putin be in a "good mood", and be willing to make plenty of concessions ?

https://russia-insider.com/en/politi...-tv-news-video

What might be some topics of Summit discussion ?

- Syria ? Russian support to promote exit of Hezbollah and Iran ?
- Palestinians ? Russian support for US "Deal of the Century" ?
- Golan Heights ? Russian support for Israeli oil exploration ?
- Iran ? Russian support for sanctions on Iran ? Oil ?
- Europe ? Countries seeking NATO membership ? The Black Sea ?
- Weapons Race ? Possible US willingness to sit around the table again ?

As well as the Russian position re :

- China (and/or North Korea) ?
- Turkey (and/or the Kurds) ?
- Saudi Arabia ?
- Ukraine ?
- Venezuela ?

Interesting to contemplate:
- Who might in a position to, and be willing to offer what ?
- Who would benefit ?
- Conditions and trade-offs ?

Meanwhile, Russian FM Sergei Lavrov continues to deal patiently with the Western press :

https://southfront.org/russian-forei...trump-meeting/

[oldrider]

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images...b4e3ef7ae6.jpg

[Voltaire]

I would have thought Russia would win giving they supposedly helped Mango Mullet win.

[mashman]

Just watching Simon Bridges, yes National Party Leader, state live in Wanganui that he is pro-Israel, because they have a thousand year right to it. Shilly boy.

[mashman]

Espionage bill could make some protests criminal acts, GetUp says

[Viking01]

On my own part, it has been interesting to recently read more about Chinese
and Indian history (last 200 years). Not only to aid general understanding,
but also to try and provide some background to recent political events.

My interests have been ones focusing on their politics / economics / military /
religion of both countries, but at the end of the day, people need to be able
to eat and drink.

As the two countries are home to a sizeable portion of the world's population
(37%), food production and distribution is important to their individual futures.

Given the proportion of the Indian population involved in small plot agriculture,
and bearing in mind factors such as climate change and introduction of GMO
seeds, then articles like the following:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/07/a...in-washington/

prompt questions like:

- what does the future look like for the small farmer (and city dweller), and
- whose interests are currently being served ?

[oldrider]

On my own part, it has been interesting to recently read more about Chinese
and Indian history (last 200 years). Not only to aid general understanding,
but also to try and provide some background to recent political events.

My interests have been ones focusing on their politics / economics / military /
religion of both countries, but at the end of the day, people need to be able
to eat and drink.

As the two countries are home to a sizeable portion of the world's population
(37%), food production and distribution is important to their individual futures.

Given the proportion of the Indian population involved in small plot agriculture,
and bearing in mind factors such as climate change and introduction of GMO
seeds, then articles like the following:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/07/a...in-washington/

prompt questions like:

- what does the future look like for the small farmer (and city dweller), and
- whose interests are currently being served ?

As always someone is thinking of the "other people" who populate the world and need "controlling"! - https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-India...ulation-growth

[Viking01]

I've been reading the news over the last year regarding NZ - China trading
relationship, looking to see how trade has progressed following the 2008
NZ - China FTA.

Recall that Winston was busy up in China recently working to update the
NZ - China FTA (signed back in 2008).

So a number of recent articles have left me a little puzzled. Specifically ones
about the purchase of new aircraft for the NZ air force.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Chi...cific-politics
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...tance-on-china
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA180...l-aircraft.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL180...w-aircraft.htm
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Int...urity-concerns
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=11998271
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL180...acing-p-3s.htm

I see that in the last few days, Winston and Mark have gotten out the order
book and ordered some new aircraft (i.e. 4 Boeing Poseidon P8A's to replace
the 6 ageing Orions). Given age of the Orions - and allowing for obsolescence,
replacement is to be expected.

They will apparently be just the base model, and estimated to cost NZ$2.35 bn.
While they might have racks for bombs and missiles, no weapons have apparently
been included in the initial order.

Ok so far.

================================================== ==========================

But then picking out a few comments from the various articles listed above:

“The purchase ensures the Defence Force can continue to deliver the country’s
maritime surveillance, resource protection, humanitarian and disaster response
around New Zealand and across the South Pacific,” says Ron Mark.

And:

"One of the key reasons Mark gave for the purchase was the aircraft's ability
to operate in joint missions with allies such as Australia, the US and Canada."

And:

"Mr Peters told Morning Report that the military capacities of these planes, such
as anti-submarine capabilities, were needed."

"We live in a much more highly stressed area of geopolitical competition because
we have left, some of us, a vacuum there which others would fill."

He would not "point fingers" on where threats were from, as "it doesn't help our
relations internationally, and it doesn't help our chance of being a very significant
influential force in the Pacific."


Then the Government released its updated NZ Defence Strategy paper last Friday.

While the Defence Strategy document highlights the importance of adoption of a
"rules based" approach internationally, it was not quite so clear who actually is
to make the rules.

And the only countries explicitly mentioned as "possible threats" in the Defence
Strategy document are China and Russia (our "new friends").

Then there was an article by a NZ political scientist, highlighting Chinese interest
(with likely intent !!) down in Antarctica. Apparently, they want to rape some of
the resources and steal some penguins (or was it the other way around ? )

Finally, last but not least, there was an article that said the whole Red threat is
not real after all, and that it's just more "fake news". Real "fake news" this time.


All very confusing, and not surprisingly I had a few questions. Perhaps some-one
could clarify for me ?

So, at the risk of being accused of being a "Chinese apologist" (or a "Russian
apologist", or even worse, both), here goes :

1. Intended Usage

Are we buying and fitting out these aircraft so we can meet our NZ maritime
surveillance plus humanitarian and disaster response needs
- or -
so we can hunt submarines and drop bombs with the "big boys on the block"
(our "traditional friends" ) ?

2. Submarines

If we should find a submarine, how do we identify what country it belongs to ?

If it is a Chinese or a Russian submarine (hopefully it is painted red for easy
identification), then what do we do ? What if it's a yellow submarine ?

3. Munitions

If we are to drop bombs on them, do we have to buy them from the local cartel
(at their usually inflated prices) ?

Are their bombs really "smarter", or is that just marketing hype ?

Can we buy Chinese or Russian bombs instead, or is that against "the rules" ?

If we do not spend enough on munitions, will we then get a visit from the agent
insisting that we buy more ? [ Say up to 2% of GDP, as for NATO ]

Is it possible to buy a few less bombs, and say more nurses (as I much prefer
nurses).

4. Possible Mitigation

To protect against the risk of Chinese "political chills", should I just wear
an extra layer of clothes ?

With all the recent talk about suspicious poisonings, should I forego Chinese
takeaways ?


I look forward to your helpful replies. Thanks in advance.

[husaberg]

I see that in the last few days, Winston and Mark have gotten out the order
book and ordered some new aircraft (i.e. 4 Boeing Poseidon P8A's to replace
the 6 ageing Orions). Given age of the Orions - and allowing for obsolescence,
replacement is to be expected.

They will apparently be just the base model, and estimated to cost NZ$2.35 bn.
While they might have racks for bombs and missiles, no weapons have apparently
been included in the initial order.

Ok so far.

================================================== ==========================

But then picking out a few comments from the various articles listed above:

“The purchase ensures the Defence Force can continue to deliver the country’s
maritime surveillance, resource protection, humanitarian and disaster response
around New Zealand and across the South Pacific,” says Ron Mark.

And:

"One of the key reasons Mark gave for the purchase was the aircraft's ability
to operate in joint missions with allies such as Australia, the US and Canada."

And:

"Mr Peters told Morning Report that the military capacities of these planes, such
as anti-submarine capabilities, were needed."

"We live in a much more highly stressed area of geopolitical competition because
we have left, some of us, a vacuum there which others would fill."

He would not "point fingers" on where threats were from, as "it doesn't help our
relations internationally, and it doesn't help our chance of being a very significant
influential force in the Pacific."

1. Intended Usage

Are we buying and fitting out these aircraft so we can meet our NZ maritime
surveillance plus humanitarian and disaster response needs
- or -
so we can hunt submarines and drop bombs with the "big boys on the block"
(our "traditional friends" ) ?

It a Shame the US went with the P8 leaving us little choice but to do the same
If the US had have gone with the other contender we would have had a updated familar platform ready for another 50 years rather than 20.
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/orion%2021.htm
The P8 is based on the 737
prior to the P8 there was a programe to do one from boing based on the newer 757 platform
that was sidelined on cost.
THe P3 has been in service for 50 years with the US as has the C130 and B52
the P3 are anti submarine capable they have bomb bays and NZ has even practiced bombing with them previously
Also depending on who you intend fighting against decide whose weapons you should use
for instance during the falklands conflict when it was clear they were going to be used against the British the french showed the poms how to electronically stop the Excoets from exploding on impact saving many lives.

[Viking01]

Well, the big day has arrived. Yes, it was a big day for the
French with the World Cup Soccer final, but I am referring to
the Trump - Putin summit.

1. Trump - Putin

https://sputniknews.com/europe/20180...lsinki-summit/

I see that the format for the meeting has changed slightly within
the last few days, in that:

- There will be no meeting beforehand between Pompeo and Lavrov
- The meeting between the two leaders will be just that (apart
from interpreters)

You could almost be excused for thinking that Trump did not want
his "own home team" interfering with the lead-up to and execution
of the leaders meeting. Not that that would happen ....

- This will be followed by a working lunch which may include
both foreign ministers
- There will then be a brief post meeting Q&A session

Apparently there were to be no meeting minutes issued, but a
brief joint communique of "points agreed" may be issued later.

2. NATO
Meanwhile, the "official minutes" from the recent NATO summit
meeting have just been released:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/o...xts_156624.htm

It's over 20 pages of A4 text, so it's a long read. And it's
full of "positive and aspirational" statements. The first 10
(of the 79) points were sufficient to get the general drift.
The short story is that the Russians were (or will be held)
responsible. That's all you really need to know.

3. Why Don't the Russians Trust NATO ?

Personally, I can't see why the Russians don't trust the West
when it talks about NATO and its intentions.

A Pocket Summary of NATO History

https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12...on-since-1949/

Not Once Inch to the East ("how many ways or times do we
have to say it?")

https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...rly-1990s.html

[Voltaire]

Its hot over there at the moment, Putin and Trump should chill out with a nice ice cream.



and have a read of a new book about great leaders and ponder why they are not on the cover....

[Viking01]

Well, Trump has now shaken hands with "the devil", and the sky has not fallen in
(well, not here in Wellington at least)

https://sputniknews.com/world/201807...ng-highlights/

No doubt there will be more "information" to follow.

Guess that we just have to wait and watch the actions of both parties.

Meanwhile:

Certain members of the US "home team" have been busy informing us what he
must and mustn't do:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201807...treason-putin/
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2...ranian-menace/

And a coincidence: 100 years ago today

https://russia-insider.com/en/histor...s-and-servants

A few little tidbits of history included in the article, about US banks and
Czarist gold. Some things never change, so it seems.

[Viking01]

Must have missed reading about this in the local news recently.
Understandable after all the political excitement overseas this
last week.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/433612-aust...china-pacific/

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/au...acific-nations

It seems that we will soon have to worry about Russians and Indians
(as well as the Chinese) appearing in our backyard.

So, if you happen to see increased presence of Chinese takeaways,
Indian dairies or Russian liquor outlets in your area, then please do
mention it to the appropriate authorities ... we can't be too careful.

I know that Obama visited earlier this year ( "for a round of golf" ),
but I'm sure that Donald will soon pay a visit our way to check out
that the local NZ missile launch sites are still fully operational.

What ? You didn't think those golf course bunkers were actually ...
you just keep reading your motorcycle magazines.

Wonder if we are going to order some drones as well as some maritime
surveillance aircraft ? Winston didn't say anything in his last speech.

Or will NZ simply spend any aid monies allocated to Pacific nations
on the provision of actual aid itself ?

[Viking01]

New trade tariffs have now been in force for about a couple of weeks.

Governing bodies "on both sides of the fence" will be reluctant to discuss
the true impact of trade tariffs on their economy. It's certainly the case in
China, where discussion of the trade war appears to be being suppressed to
some degree.

Because of timing, the latest US quarterly GDP figures just published show
very little evidence of the effect of tariffs on US sales.

It's unlikely the first tranche of tariffs (say $50 bln) is going to cause any
significant damage to any of the major economies (US, China or Europe).
But there is another (much larger) tranche of tariffs "parked up" by the US
awaiting triggering.


1. US - China

It's still early days yet, but some early results are able to be seen. While the
US chose to target electronics, China chose to target certain food products
(i.e. those produced within key US states that were strong Trump supporters).

Just to pick on a few products e.g. Meat; soybeans (used for cattle food and
cooking oil); motor vehicles; chips for mobile phones.

a. Meat has started to pile up within US export warehouses:

https://www.rt.com/business/434032-u...-slow-exports/

b. US soybeans sales have fallen significantly, and the US government has already
resorted to granting $12 bln of financial assistance to soybean farmers:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1KE1YE

Chinese soybean importers are starting to suffer as well, with one large Chinese
importer (of US soybeans) already indicating possible financial failure. How China
chooses to react will be interesting:

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...8;utm_medium=4

Other suppliers (like Brazil) will "make hay" in the interim. It would be interesting
to know whether soybean supply and pricing was discussed between China and
Brazil during the BRICS summit in South Africa just concluded:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...hina-trade-war

c. Several US car manufacturers have just declared lower earnings, mentioning
some impact by US tariffs on steel and aluminium:

https://wolfstreet.com/2018/07/26/gm...lash-guidance/

d. Qualcomm, a major US chip maker used by Chinese phone manufacturers,
is already starting to feel the pain. Interesting not only because of reduced
chip sales, but mention of the Chinese using alternative methods to retaliate
(i.e. rejection of pending US corporate take-overs by Chinese regulators).

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Bus...ar-intensifies

One regular long-term Asian commentator (David Goldman, alias "Spengler")
offered some advice to the US Trade representative Kudlow:

http://www.atimes.com/article/open-l...hina-strategy/

Two key points in his article were worth noting:

"The first is that you do not negotiate with China by trying to make its
leader lose face."

-and -

"China’s export dependence on the United States is shrinking, not growing.
Most of China’s exports are directed towards Asia. Moreover, Asia provided
the biggest growth margin in China’s exports."

Guess we will have to wait and see just how effective the US tariffs are
upon China, and "who blinks first".

2. US - Europe

Trump and Juncker met within the last few days to discuss EU - US trade,
and on the EU part specifically to secure a deferral of US tariffs on European
motor vehicles. However, general consensus appears it was mostly "all show"
on the part of both parties:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201...e-Mostly-Show/

While Juncker pledged that the EU would "seek to increase" purchases of soybeans
and natural gas from the US, it's worth noting that (i) soybeans are only in small
demand within Europe, and (ii) shale natural gas sourced from the US is still not
competively priced vs Russian gas (plus the additional EU cost for re-gasification
equipment on top).

Another important point is that European agricultural sectors are still very heavily
protected. Not only would any proposed reduction in EU tariffs incur some strong
push-back from EU agricultural concerns, but such changes would require approval
by multiple EU member states (e.g. the French):

https://www.dw.com/en/eus-juncker-sa...nds/a-44859952

However, it is the link below that was the most interesting.

https://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/0...e-us-congress/

Not only has the EU effectively backed itself into a corner (apparently having
rejected a Chinese invitation to co-operate and to jointly resist US tariffs),
but soon after the US - EU trade summit, both the US House of Reps and the
Senate then defied Trump by passing the "Miscellaneous Tariffs Bill".

The importance of this Bill is that it would allow the US to now reduce or to
eliminate US tariffs on various products (still to be specified). This would help
protect certain US manufacturers operating in China, as well as certain local
US importers (parties that would otherwise be adversely affected by Trump's
tariffs).

Does this mean that US representatives (i) don't believe Trump that "tariffs
will have only minimal impact upon US companies" (ii) have been instructed to
resist Trump (iii) believe that their own political interests could be severely
harmed in the upcoming November mid-terms ? You decide.

The Bill still requires Presidential signature ( but will Trump dare veto it ? )

But forgetting US interests for a minute, you do have to wonder exactly "who
is in control" within the European economic bloc (and "just whose economic
interests are being threatened") when the EU agrees to such arrangements
with the US and allows itself to be "boxed in".

Perhaps their main politicians have already been (found to be) compromised to
an extent they dare not fight back in the interests of their own populations.
Who knows ?

Interesting times ahead.

[Viking01]

It's nice to know that when you're down and need a "friend" .....

https://www.rt.com/usa/434646-john-o...cebook-parody/