Make no mistake. The Ukraine war is United States driven.

American “news”…

Silly stuff

Really silly.

China “acting” like a Global Power. Say what?

Chinese credit system

The social credit system in China is premised on an assumption that everyone starts equally … at zero.

From then on, it is the decisions that they make that increase or decrease their social credit scores, and consequences follow in the form of rewards, incentives, disincentives or punishments.

The system exists in China in the way it does because it presumes everyone from the President down has an equal interest in the social, financial and economic stability and security it aims to provide.

It has nothing to do with whatever physical attributes they are born with, and physical attributes are not a good criterion on which to base economic, social or legal equality, or access to goods and services whether public or private.

You’d deny a child the right to an education because that child is smaller than other children of the same age?

Equal opportunity is premised on the notion that people should have equal legal access to resources.

Access is not incumbent on their physical appearance or attributes (or lack of particular attributes) or on past social, economic or legal background or decision-making, depending on the context.

Hoobastank – The Reason (Official Music Video)

Baked Spaghetti Pie

Ingredients

• 2 pounds spaghetti
• 2 pounds ricotta cheese
• 1/2 cup whole milk
• 3 large eggs
• 1 pound ground beef
• 1 pound spicy Italian sausage
• 1/2 cup spaghetti sauce
• 1 pound Provolone cheese, sliced thin
• 1/2 cup Romano cheese, grated

Instructions

1. Heat oven to 475 degrees F.
2. In a large pan, boil spaghetti for 20 minutes; drain and set aside.
3. Mix ricotta, milk and eggs together in a small bowl; add to spaghetti and stir together.
4. Press into a 13 x 9-inch baking pan until compact and even.
5. Cook ground beef and sausage in a large skillet.
6. Drain fat, removing as much as possible.
7. Stir in spaghetti sauce. Spread evenly over spaghetti base in pan.
8. Layer slices of Provolone over meat mixture, then add the grated Romano on top of that.
9. Bake for 20 minutes.

Yellen Remarks for Banks Today . . .

Nation Hal Turner 21 March 2023

 

In remarks prepared for the American Bankers Association, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says the U.S. banking system is “sound” but more rescue arrangements “could be warranted” if new failures at smaller institutions pose a risk to financial stability.  here’s the “rub” . . .

Yellen’s small bank comments were released under embargo at 7am. Treasury wanted them out before markets opened, as Yellen speech isn’t until 10am.

That tells everyone that Yellen and company still see the ongoing Banking “crisis” as dangerous, and they are deliberately trying to calm markets.

Trouble is, Jerome Powell over at the Federal Reserve has a meeting this week about raiding interest rates again.  His choice is now stark:

Tucker: Zelenskyy is demanding you send your kids to war

Send Graham to the front lines in Ukraine immediately.

Today is my 61st Birthday (Hal Turner)

World Hal Turner 15 March 2023 

 

I am 61 years old today.  Wow! Seems so weird even writing that.   I don’t perceive myself to be 61; it’s like . . . . how did this happen?  Where did all the years go?  And how the heck did they go so fast?????

It’s like . . . . it all lasts only . . . . 5 minutes.

Yet here I am.

My son came up here to the Pennsylvania house last night.  Arrived a little after 8:00.

He’s going to his job from here and will return here tonight after work.

I got a new Behringer MDX-2600 Audio expander/gate/compressor/peak limiter as a Birthday present from him and my wife, to replace the one that I’ve used since setting this house up as a backup broadcast facility after my mom died in November 2021.

The audio gear that I’ve been using seems to have suffered a strange but now recurring audio failure, causing audio levels to randomly change.  Weird.

My son will install the new gear after work tonight.

It a little frustrating to be getting up in my years.   There’s physical changes that I don’t like . . . at all.

For certain, the heart attack I suffered in April 2019, which forced me to get open heart surgery and quadruple bypasses for clogged heart arteries, was a big deal.  But it was small compared to the SECOND heart attack I suffered seventeen months later, in October, 2020 after two of the four cardiac bypasses clogged with blood clots.

That second heart attack was very much worse than the first, and it was during that incident that I went into heart failure on the cardiac catheterization lab operating table, and felt myself dying.

I have told this story a number of times; I had never experienced “dying” before, yet the feeling is so utterly distinct, you KNOW IT when it’s happening.   It’s not painful, or scary . . . it just . . . happens.

Thankfully, the Doc was able to fit a stent under my clogged left circumflex artery opening and restore blood flow.   That  artery had been bypassed but its bypass was one of the ones’ which had clogged with blood clots.  So if he wasn’t able to get a stent to move arterial plaque away from the opening and restore blood flow, I would have been dead.

Fast forward to about a month ago, I felt the same types of “twinges” in my chest that I had felt before my first heart attack.  I told the Doc, he scheduled me to go in for another cardiac catheterization and when they were in there, they saw that the walls of my left anterior descending artery were wilting inward and restricting blood flow.  So they did angioplasty to open the artery, but when they removed the inflatable balloon, the artery walls just wilted closed again.  So Doc said he had to Stent that, too.

So here I am, now having had two heart attacks, open heart surgery, and now two stents.  WOW!

The leg from which they took veins to use for my bypass surgery, swells-up from time to time.  Docs said the blood had to find a new way to get back to my heart after they took the vein, but for some reason, the leg swelled a little for a long time after the open heart surgery.

Then, my right knee (same leg) and right hip started deteriorating.  It felt like the connective tissue that hold my muscles and ligaments to my bones, was just falling apart.  So the right knee swells a lot almost every day now, and it makes it very uncomfortable to walk – especially if I have to do stairs.  The hip hurts when I lay down.  I don’t need this shit.

I’ve also noticed lately, I seem to be getting a bit forgetful.  I’m having trouble instantly recalling proper nouns.   I know the word I want to say, I just stop mid sentence to have to recall it.  Weird.

Yes, I take vitamins, Co-enzyme Q-10, and Straus Heart Drops.  No, I didn’t take the COVID Vax . . . and I won’t.  Those so-called “vaccines” are clearly dangerous and worse, they don’t work.  No one is putting that shit in me.

So with all that, I’ve attained 61 years on this planet.  Not too shabby, I guess.

My marriage has changed a lot.  After 31 years, it’s not so good anymore.  That’s why I’m up in PA while the Mrs. is in NJ.   I needed time away to figure out how to proceed.

The wife and I talk several times a day, but it’s just not good anymore.

I’m too old to bother coloring my hair to get rid of the gray, hit the gym and go out to stud. Been there, done that.  It’s all “wrote” for me.  Besides, my son tells me that women today, are all “nuts.”

I’ll take his word for it.  The last thing I need is to go out to play the field and find myself with a psycho-slut-from-hell.  Too many of them around nowadays.

Anyway, I just focus on my work and my show.  Pay what few bills I have, and am doing my best to get right with God and enjoy the time I have left.

Given the way things are falling apart in our world, that may be a lot less time than any of us think!

And so it goes, this fifteenth day of March, 2023.

Orange-Rosemary Butter Glazed Pork Tenderloins

Enjoy this lean and delicious premium cut of pork drizzled with a sweet and savory citrus flavored butter. With only a handful of ingredients, it’s an uncomplicated dish that’s quick and simple to prepare and full of aromatic flavor.

Ingredients

Orange-Rosemary Butter

• 1/2 cup (1 stick) Challenge European Style Butter
• 2 tablespoons frozen orange juice concentrate, thawed
• 1 tablespoon fresh rosemary leaves, finely chopped, or 2 teaspoons dried rosemary, crushed
• 1 tablespoon grated orange peel

Tenderloins

• 2 pork tenderloins (approximately 1 pound each)
• 2 cloves garlic, thinly sliced
• 1 tablespoon thin slivers of orange peel
• 1 cup ready to serve chicken broth
• To taste coarse salt
• To taste freshly ground pepper

Instructions

1. Orange-Rosemary Butter: In a small bowl, mix together the orange-rosemary butter ingredients. Use immediately or chill (bring to room temperature before using).
2. Tenderloins: Heat oven to 350 degrees F.
3. With a knife, make slits in tenderloins and alternately insert garlic and orange peel slivers.
4. In a large skillet over medium heat, melt 2 Tablespoons of the butter mixture and brown tenderloins evenly for 5-10 minutes.
5. Place tenderloins on rack in roasting pan. Spread a teaspoon of flavored butter over each tenderloin.
6. Add broth to skillet drippings and stir. Pour broth/drippings into the roasting pan and roast uncovered for 20 minutes.
7. Spread another teaspoon of flavored butter over each tenderloin and roast for an additional 15-20 minutes or until center of tenderloin registers 155 degrees F (use meat thermometer).
8. Transfer pork to serving platter and cover loosely with foil. Temperature of meat should increase to 160 degrees F while standing.
9. Pour liquid from roasting pan back into skillet and bring to a boil, cooking until reduced by half. Whisk remaining flavored butter into liquid and simmer about 3 minutes, stirring constantly. Season with salt and pepper.
10. To serve, slice pork and drizzle with sauce.

10 min Prep time | 50 min Cook time | 6 servings

UBS Seeking to TERMINATE Credit Suisse Deal

World Hal Turner 22 March 2023

.

BREAKING NEWS — UBS is reportedly engaged in meetings right now, SEEKING TO TERMINATE ITS DEAL TO ACQUIRE CREDIT SUISSE!

If UBS Backs out, then Credit Swiss will fail, enter Bankruptcy, and that will mean a Bulge-Bracket-Bank (a.k.a. “too big to fail”) has gone under.

The effects on the Global Financial System are, right now, incalculable.   A Credit Suisse Default would trigger Credit Default Swaps, and would put the bank in DEFAULT on all its Derivative Contracts.

This could be a “Black Swan Event” that sets in motion a Domino effect, taking out  BIG  banks all over the world.

More details on tonight’s Hal Turner Radio Show from 9:00-11:00 PM eastern US time (GMT -0400)

China banned the export of 24 techs to the US. The more USA needs it, the less China will sell it.

The Worst Deal Ever – Australia To Pay U.S. For Nuclear Insecurity

The the last week’s review I mentioned the AUKUS deal. It was first announced in September 2021. Back then I wrote:

Yesterday the U.S., the UK and Australia announced that the latter one will buy nuclear powered submarines to do the U.S.' bidding against China. 
...
This is a huge but short term win for the U.S. with an also-ran booby price for Britain and a strategic loss of sovereignty and budget control for Australia.

It is another U.S. slap into the face of France and the European Union. The deal will piss off New Zealand, Indonesia and of course China. It will upset the international nuclear non proliferation regime and may lead to the further military nuclearization of South Korea and Japan.

Australia currently has six conventional submarines. It had ordered new ones from France but scrapped that deal for AUKUS:

The price for the new submarines Australia will have to pay will be much higher that for the French ones. 

Some $3 billion have already been sunk into the French contract. 

France will rightfully demand additional compensation for cancelling it. 

The new contract with the U.S. or UK will cost more than the French one but will only include 8 instead of 12 boats. As three boats are needed to keep one at sea (while the other two are training or in refit), the actual patrolling capacity for Australia's navy will sink from 4 to 2-3 concurrent submarines at sea.

The much higher price of the fewer more complicate boats will upset Australia's defense budget for decades to come.

I further suggested that blackmail may have played a role in the AUKUS deal.

A few day’s after the announcement there were new details publish which suggested that Australia would lease nuclear submarines from the U.S. because the new ones will take many years to build. It would upgrade Perth harbor to be able to handle nuclear propulsion boats:

Perth will thereby be build up into a base that is compatible with the likely permanent stationing of U.S. nuclear submarines. 

These carry nuclear weapons.

The 'leased' boats, or at least their propulsion parts, would of course be still manned by U.S. or British sailors. 

The Australians already have problems retaining crews for their existing submarines. The few that will be available for the 'leased' boats will not be enough to run them. The Australians would pay largely for the privilege of being guests on board of doubtlessly U.S. commanded submarines.

Australia’s overall position did not look well:

Australia's extraction boom fueled by China's rise is coming to an end. The country will have to cut its budget and will need to seek a new economic model.

But why did I call this a "huge but short term win" for the U.S.?

It is a win in that the U.S. has gained a submarine base in Australia and will get paid for using it. This looks well if the intent is to wage a cold war on China. It is doubtful that this is a necessary strategy and it is equally doubtful that it can be successful. The weapons manufacturers will of course still love it.

But it is a only a short term win in the sense that the U.S. will lose many of its current and potential future partners over it. It has degraded its QUAD partner India and Japan to second tier status. It has increased suspicion in Indonesia, Malaysia and even Singapore of eventual nefarious plans against them.

In May 2022 Australia elected a new parliament.

Labor replaced the Liberals in the government. It found that the new submarines and the whole deal was extremely expensive. That was the chance to bury it:

The answers are obvious. Ditch the whole AUKUS deal and buy the German U-boats.

The real reason for the deal might well have been the U.S. wish for a port and base in Australia from where it can send its own nuclear submarines to harass China.

The offer to Australia to buy nuclear submarines was likely only made to remove Australian public resistance to the stationing of nuclear submarines (with nuclear weapons) on the continent.

Australia will be better off without those.

But Anthony Albanese, the new prime minister, did not have the courage to push for ending the deal. Last week the three involved countries announced new details:

Australia’s nuclear submarine program will cost up to [AUS]$368 billion over the next three decades, with confirmation that the federal government will buy at least three American-manufactured nuclear submarines and contribute "significant additional resources" to US shipyards.

The Australian government will take three, potentially second-hand Virginia-class submarines early next decade, pending the approval of the US Congress.

There will also be an option to purchase another two under the landmark AUKUS defence and security pact, announced in San Diego this morning.

In the meantime, design and development work will continue on a brand new submarine, known as the SSN-AUKUS, "leveraging” work the British have already been doing to replace their Astute-class submarines.

That submarine — which will form the AUKUS class — would eventually be operated by both the UK and Australia, using American combat systems.

One submarine will be built every two years from the early 2040s through to the late 2050s, with five SSN-AUKUS boats delivered to the Royal Australian Navy by the middle of the 2050s.

Most curious is the buy of second hand Virgina class boats. A leasing agreement would have been much better. Nuclear driven submarines are extraordinary expensive to scarp. Their 60% enriched Uranium fuel will have to be guarded for a very long time. Australia has no experience with anything nuclear.

The former Australian prime minister Paul Keating has called the agreement the worst deal in history:

Paul Keating has labelled the $368bn Aukus nuclear submarine plan as the “worst deal in all history” and “the worst international decision” by a Labor government since Billy Hughes tried to introduce conscription.

The former Labor prime minister launched an extraordinary broadside against the Albanese government at the National Press Club on Wednesday, blasting the “incompetence” of Labor backing the decision to sign up to Aukus while in opposition and when it had “no mandate” to do so. 
...
The $368bn being spent to acquire as few as eight nuclear submarines – Virginia class and next-generation SSN-Aukus submarines – was the “worst deal in all history”, he said, because it could buy 40 to 50 conventional submarines instead.

Keating also revealed that France, which lost a contract for conventional Attack class submarines in favour of Aukus, had offered “a new deal” for the “newest French nuclear submarines”.

These would require only “5% enriched uranium, not 95%, weapons grade” and came with a “firm delivery date” of 2034 at “fixed prices”, he said. The French received “no response”, Keating claimed.

James Acton, an expert a nuclear defense policy, commented on the deal:

(((James Acton))) @james_acton32 - 20:16 UTC · Mar 13, 2023

As @POTUS, @RishiSunak, and @AlboMP announce AUKUS submarine plan, here’s my assessment of the technical and proliferation risks.

BLUF: They’ve made serious efforts to mitigate those risks, but those that remain are real and significant.

Link to video of announcement
(1/n)

Here’s the plan (in brief):
1. 🇬🇧 & 🇺🇸 deploy SSNs* in🇦🇺(from 2027)
2. 🇦🇺deploys Virginia-class SSNs purchased from 🇺🇸 (from ~2032)
3. 🇦🇺deploys AUKUS SSNs, designed and produced with UK (starting in early 2040s)
*SSN=nuclear-powered attack sub.
(2/n) 
...

Acton details the risks of the deal. They are huge.

Next to financial, technological and timing risks there are also the proliferation issues.

The deal is defying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and should Australia get an exception for the deal from the IAEA others will make similar requests.

I responded Acton’s second tweet:

Moon of Alabama @MoonofA - 20:24 UTC · Mar 13, 2023

1. is what the U.S. wanted from AUKUS.
2. will be with mostly U.S. crew and under only nominal AUS command.
3. is way too costly for AUS and will never happen.

Australia will spend billions to upgrade naval base HMAS Stirling in Western Australia so the U.S. and UK can use it for their rotational stationing there. It will ‘invest’ more billions in nuclear shipyards in the U.S. and UK. It will pay billions for the Virginia class boats over which it will have little sovereignty.

Submarine designs are long complicate programs. It took 35 million labor hours design the first batch of Virginia-class boats and it took nine million labor hours to build the first one. The new SSN-AUKUS will have similar costs and issues. I for one expect that none will ever be build. Neither Australia nor the UK have the money for them.

Still – the political fallout will come from all sides.

With this deal Australia is essentially paying the U.S. an exorbitant price to confront Australia’s biggest customer, China. Its neighbors are unhappy. Indonesia is making noise about the proliferation risk as is Malaysia. Europe is miffed that Australia scrapped the deal with France and rejected the new French offer. The deal does not increase Australia’s security.

Labor party members, who saw the interview with Keating (vid), will come to understand that their party leaders made the wrong decision.

What will it take to revers it?

Posted by b on March 15, 2023 at 16:50 UTC | Permalink

Brine Cured Pork Roast

Ingredients

• 2/3 cup granulated sugar
• 1/3 cup kosher salt or sea salt
• 1 tablespoon black peppercorns
• 2 tablespoons fennel seeds
• 2 teaspoons dried thyme
• 1 teaspoon red pepper flakes
• 1 (4 to 6 pound or more) boneless pork loin tied with string

Instructions

1. Combine sugar and salt with 1 quart hot water and stir to dissolve.
2. Crack the peppercorns and fennel seeds in a mortar or on a cutting board, crushing them with the flat bottom of a heavy saucepan (or grind very, very briefly in spice grinder). Add to water along with thyme and red pepper flakes. Add 3 quarts cold water and the pork. Submerge the roast and refrigerate overnight or up to 2 days.
3. Remove from brine and dry off the pork.
4. If you have fresh herbs such as rosemary, tie them onto the top of the pork.
5. Put the meat on a rack in a shallow roasting pan.
6. Heat oven to 500 degrees F.
7. When the oven is hot, place the roast in it and lower the heat to 325 degrees F. Bake for 1 1/4 hours. Check the internal temperature to make sure it is at 160 degrees F. If the pork is cooked, remove it and let it stand 15 minutes before carving. If not, cook a few more minutes.

The U.S. pushing for WW3 using ANYTHING they can find

The US is preparing Australia to fight its war against China

Feb 1, 2023

The United States is not preparing to go to war against China. The United States is preparing Australia to go to war against China.

Thank you for inviting me to address the Salon. I am greatly honoured and somewhat daunted, given the long list of eminent scholars, analysts and writers who have preceded me.

I am not a “writer”, although I have written a lot during my thirty-year diplomatic career, much of it in relation to China. None of it published and most of it buried in government archives. All I can bring to the table is my personal interpretation of current developments regarding US and China, in the light of my past experience.

One of your previous speakers, Patrick Lawrence, advocated putting the main point first. So here goes:

The United States is not preparing to go to war against China.

The United States is preparing Australia to go to war against China.

The ANZUS Treaty

A look at the ANZUS Treaty and the way it has been manipulated over time will explain why I have come to this conclusion.

Originally defensive in concept, the ANZUS Treaty was seen by Australia from its very beginning as a means to “achieve the acceptance by the USA of responsibility in SE Asia” (Percy Spender) to shield Australia from perceived antagonistic forces in its region. It has, however, developed into an instrument for the furtherance of US ability to prosecute war globally – previously in Iraq and Afghanistan, currently against Russia and potentially against China.

The ANZUS Treaty, usually referred to in reverential tones as “The Alliance”, has been elevated to an almost religious article of faith, against which any demur is treated as heresy amounting to treachery. Out of anxiety to cement the US into protection of Australia, the Alliance has been invoked as justification for Australia’s participation in almost every American military adventure – or misadventure – since WW II.

Unlike NATO or the Defence Treaty with Japan, the ANZUS treaty actually provides no guarantee of protection, merely assurances to consult on appropriated means of support in the event that Australia should come under attack.

On the other hand, the Alliance has facilitated the steady growth of American presence in Australia, to the point that it pervades every aspect of Australian political, economic, financial, social and cultural life. Australians fret about China “buying up the country”, but American investment is ten times the size.

They are unaware or uncaring that almost every major Australian company across the resources, food, retail, mass media, entertainment, banking and finance sectors has majority American ownership. Right now US corporations eclipse everyone else in their ability to influence our politics through their investment in Australian stocks.

The transfer of Australian assets to American ownership has continued unabated: In the second half of 2021 then Treasurer Josh Frydenberg approved the transfer of $130 billion of Australian assets to foreign private equity funds, benefiting Goldman Sachs who facilitated the transactions, by multimillions of dollars. Josh Frydenberg now is employed by Goldman Sachs:

• Sydney Airport – Macquarie Bank led by a NY investment banker
• AusNet (electricity infrastructure) $18 billion takeover by Brookfield – NY via Canada
• SparkInfrastructure (electricity) $5.2 billion takeover by American interests
• AfterPay financial transaction system $39 billion takeover
• Healthscope, second-biggest private hospitals group (72 Hospitals) taken over by Brookfield and now controlled in the Cayman Islands.

The USA and the UK between them represent nearly half of all foreign investment. China plus Hong Kong represents 4.2%. The 4 big “Aussie” banks are dependent on foreign capital which dictate local banks’ policies and operations.

Defence and military weapons manufacturing industries in Australia are now largely owned by US weapons corporations – Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Thales, NorthropGrumman. The deep integration of Australia’s defence industries and economy into the US military-industrial complex greatly influences Australia’s foreign/defence policies.

That, plus US capture of Australia’s intelligence and policy apparatus through the “Five Eyes” network and ASPI (which has lobbyists from American arms manufacturers on a Board headed by an operative trained by the CIA) means that the US is able to swing Australian policy to support America in almost all its endeavours.

Despite the fact that it contains no guarantee of US protection of Australia, the Treaty and further arrangements under its auspices, such as the 2014 Force Posture Agreement and now AUKUS, have greatly facilitated US war preparation in Australia. This has accelerated exponentially in the past few years. The US now describes Australia as the most important base for the projection of US power in the Indo-Pacific.

Indicators of war preparations

* 2,500 US marines stationed in Darwin practicing for war with the Australian Defence Forces, soon to include the Japanese Defence Forces

* Establishment of a regional HQ for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in Darwin

* Lengthening the RAAF aircraft runways in Northern Territory at our expense for servicing US fighters and bombers

* Proposed stationing of 6 nuclear weapons-capable B52 Bombers at RAAF Tindal in NT

* Construction of massive fuel and maintenance facilities in Darwin NT for US aircraft

* Proposed acquisition of eight nuclear-propelled submarines at the cost of $170 billion for hunter-killer operations in the Taiwan Strait

* Construction, at the cost of $10 billion, of a deep water port on Australia’s east coast for US and UK nuclear powered and nuclear missile-carrying submarines

* The long-established satellite communications station known as Pine Gap in central Australia has recently, and is still being, expanded and upgraded. It is key to the command and control of US forces in the Indo-Pacific (and even as far afield as Ukraine)

The Government and right wing anti-China analysts and commentators, whose opinions dominate main stream media, accept the Defence Minister’s contention that this militarisation enhances Australia’s sovereignty by strengthening the range and lethality of Australia’s high-end war-fighting capability to provide a credible deterrent to a potential aggressor.

Many analysts and commentators outside the governing elite, including myself, argue that these arrangements effectively cede Australian sovereignty to America. This is especially because of the provisions of the Force Posture Agreement of 2014, entered into under the auspices of ANZUS.

I understand that a paper has been circulated to the Committee, expounding the details of the FPA, so in summary, it gives unimpeded access, exclusive control and use of agreed facilities and areas to US personnel, aircraft, ships and vehicles and gives Australia absolutely no say at all in how, when where and why they are to be used.

All Australian analysts, whether sympathetic or antipathetic to China, agree on one point. That is, that if the US goes to war against China over the status of Taiwan, or any other issue of contention, Australia will inevitably be involved.

The Threat

All these preparations are justified by the false premise that China presents a military threat. China has not invaded anywhere. It has never proposed use of force against other countries. It has enshrined in its Constitution the ‘Three No’s – No military alliances; No military bases; No use, or threat to use, military force. China has, however, reserved the right to use force to prevent secession by Taiwan.

It has recently rapidly increased its defence capability in response to the fearsome US naval presence and war-fighting exercises just off its coastline. Its defence budget is one third that of the US and the bases that it has constructed in the South China Sea pale into insignificance compared to the hundreds of bases that the US has ranged all around China.

So, if China is not a military threat, why is it designated as the primary systemic threat of the collective West, led by the US? The answer lies in the word “systemic”. China has expressed a determination to revamp the global financial system to make it fairer for developing countries. Kissinger is reputed to have said: “If you control money, you control the world”. The US currently controls world finance and China (with Russia) is out to change that.

The US, which played the leading part in the establishment of the post-World War II institutions, has become a leading revisionist, abandoning the UN for “coalitions of the willing”. The US has declined to join important Conventions like those on the Law of the Sea and on Climate. It has refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, and has exempted itself from the Genocide Convention. It has played a leading part in the weakening of the World Trade Organisation by imposing trade restrictions on other countries, while not agreeing to new appointments to the WTO’s appellate tribunal, so preventing that body from functioning.

China is the second-largest (or by some calculations, the largest) economy in the world. It is the major trading partner of over 100 countries, mainly in the global south, but including Australia and a number of other Western countries. Hence China has the clout to undermine the “international rules-based order” set up by, and for the benefit of, the West.

China has already established an alternative to the Anglo-American international financial transaction system: – the Cross-border Interbank Payments System CIPS, (in which, ironically a number of Western banks are shareholders). In collaboration with Russia and within the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa) China is creating an alternative to the almighty dollar as the preferred currency for trade and for national reserve holdings.

It seems that the US has concluded that, since it can’t constrain China economically, it will have to get it bogged down in a long-drawn-out war to hinder its economic growth and hamper its infrastructure development cooperation with other countries. On 25 March 2021 President Biden vowed to prevent China from overtaking the US as the most powerful country in the world – “not on my watch” he said.

Nevertheless, the latest CSIS computer modelling, like previous modelling by the Rand Corporation, indicates that all involved in a Sino-US war would lose.

Proxy War

All of these analyses overlook one significant point. US determination to pursue the Wolfowitz doctrine of preventing the rise of any power that could challenge US global supremacy (neither Russia, nor Europe, nor China) has not diminished, but has morphed into a strategy of fighting its adversaries by proxy.

This has been clearly demonstrated by the war in Ukraine. A White House press briefing on 25 January 2022, before the Russian intervention, stated that “the US, in concert with its European partners, will weaken Russia to the point where it can exercise no influence on the international stage”.

Political leaders from Biden, through Pelosi and on to Members of Congress have told Ukraine that “your war is our war and we are in it for as long as it takes”. Congressman Adam Schiff put it bluntly that “we support Ukraine… to fight Russia over there, so that we don’t have to fight it over here”.

In the case of China, defined in the NDS as the principal threat to the US, the proxy of choice is clearly Taiwan. The strategy envisages:

• a world-wide media campaign (going on for several years already) to portray China as the aggressor;

• goading China into taking military action to prevent Taiwan’s secession;

• leaving Taiwan to conduct its own defence, with constant resupply of arms and equipment from the US, at great profit to the military/industrial complex;

• sustaining Taiwan sufficiently to keep China ‘bogged down’, thus hampering its economic development and its infrastructure cooperation with other countries;

• avoiding direct military engagement, in order to maintain the full capacity of US forces, while China’s would be significantly depleted; Although Biden has publicly re-affirmed adherence to the ‘One China’ principle, the US has been goading China by;

• stationing the bulk its naval power off the coast of China;

• ‘freedom of navigation’ and combat exercises in the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits;

• visits by senior US officials using US military aircraft;

• creation of a putative ‘Air Defence Identification Zone’ (ADIZ) extending well over mainland territory and then alleging Chinese violation of it;

• secretly providing military training personnel (whilst denying it);

• including Taiwan in the Summit for Democracy (9-10 December 2021), implying it is a separate country;

Many Australian politicians, (although not the present government), joined in goading China, by encouraging Taiwan to consider the possibility of declaring independence, which would trigger military action by China.

If Australia were to make good on its promise to ‘save Taiwan’, it would be devastated:

• The Australian navy would be obliterated, given the disparity between China’s and Australia’s forces;

* command/control centres (and possibly cities) in Australia could be wiped out by Chinese missiles. Australia has no anti-missile defence;

• To preserve its own assets, and to forestall the descent into nuclear conflict, the US would not engage directly in defence of Australia;

• US ‘support’ would be through massive arms sales to replace our losses – just as in Ukraine – at further profit to the US military/industrial complex;

• ASEAN is unlikely to support Australia. It has renewed and up-graded its Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with China. Each member country has infrastructure projects under China’s BRI, which they would not want to jeopardise in a ‘no-win war’;

• Support from India is unlikely, despite its membership of the Quad – which is nothing more than a consultative dialogue. India has security commitments to China under the SCO and gets its arms from Russia, which has a “better than treaty” relationship with China.

• Australia relies heavily on China for many daily necessities. In a war, deliveries from China would be severely disrupted.

Australians generally are more than happy for the material benefits of a trading relationship with China, which constitutes more than one third of Australia’s export earnings. But, any attempt by China to improve Australians’ understanding of China’s historical, social, cultural and scientific achievements, let alone its political systems or foreign policy, are instantly feared as nefarious attempts to infiltrate Australian politics and undermine the ‘Australian way of life’.

The increasing size of China’s economic (and, by extension military) strength, to which Australia contributes important resources and from which it derives so much benefit, is portrayed as a threat to Australia’s security. This has Australia trapped in the absurd policy paradox of preparing to go to war against China to protect Australia’s trade with China.

Recent developments in Taiwan, particularly the county and municipal elections, which caused the President, Tsai Ingwen, to resign her leadership of the pro-Independence Party, suggest that Taiwan prefers the status quo and is unwilling to be the proxy of the US in a war with Beijing.

Australia thus becomes the potential proxy.

In the name of the Alliance, American service personnel (active and retired) are now embedded in Australian defence policy making institutions and in command and control positions within the ADF. All of the American military assets installed in Australia under the Alliance and the AUKUS deal, are now “interchangeable” with the ADF, making it possible to use them as putative Australian forces against China, while the US stands aside and maintains the same pretence of “no engagement”, as it is doing in Ukraine.

This is why I said at the beginning that the US is preparing to send Australia to war against China.

Whilst these are the dangers that the ANZUS Alliance poses for Australia if the US instigates a war against China, there are risks for the US also.

1. There would be crippling expense that further exacerbates the US wealth divide and related domestic political breakdown. Supplying the weaponry and everything else required for a proxy war with China would be a bigger drain on the US budget than the Ukraine conflict. The expenditure would flow back to the military industrial complex, constituting a further massive transfer of wealth from the ordinary taxpayer to the plutocrat billionaires. It would blow out the already unsustainable national debt, and either take away from expenditure on essential services and infrastructure, or, if they print money, further blow out inflation. The political and social breakdown that the US is already suffering as a consequence of its real economic decline and widening wealth gap could only intensify to breaking point.

2. The slide into a direct war would probably be inevitable. Planning a proxy war is all very well as an academic exercise, but sticking with those plans when the fighting starts will be very difficult. There are already lunatic politicians and “experts” in the US who think American can win a direct war, so when China starts bombing Australia, and good old Aussie “mates” are dying in massive numbers, the voices of those in the US advocating direct engagement will be amplified. Combined with the already extreme polarisation of US politics in which ONLY war is bipartisan, the risk that extremists will take the US into direct conflict, and a nuclear showdown with China, is very serious.

3. The folding in of Japan into the AUKUS arrangements will increase the risk that Japan would be obliged to assist Australia in any military conflict with China. The US, because of its Defence Treaty with Japan, would then be obliged to join in the fighting, vitiating its plan to avoid direct military engagement.

A point of historical irony:

I’ll wind up with a bit of historical irony, in which I was personally involved:

In the early 70’s, we had been kept completely in the dark about the secret Kissinger visits to China, until the plan for Nixon to visit was announced. Feeling blindsided by a momentous change in US policy towards China, we produced Policy Planning Paper QP11/71 of 21 July 1971.

It recognised.. “political disadvantage resulting from the manner in which the United States conducts its global policies” and argued that this would mean that. “The American alliance, in a changing power balance, will mean less to us than it has in the past.”

It went on:

“If anything, this argument has been strengthened by recent United States actions and America’s failure to consult us on issues of primary importance to Australia. Accordingly, we shall need, now more than ever, to formulate independent policies, based on Australian national interests and those of our near neighbours…”

This is even more true today than it was in the 1970’s. For example, Australia was not consulted in the precipitate US withdrawal from Afghanistan, despite our role as ‘loyal’ supporter of the US in that ill-advised conflict. Our indignant protestations were met with Biden’s statement that “America acts only in its own interests”.

Our present predicament is due largely to the failure of a succession of Australian Governments to take this analysis to heart and act upon it. Prime Minister Fraser, who replaced Whitlam, ironically came to a very similar view towards the end of his life, which he set forth in detail in his book ‘Dangerous Allies’, but too late to do anything about it. He identified the paradox that Australia needs the US for its defence, but it only needs defending because of the US.

A couple of pertinent quotes, first from the late Jim Molan:

“Our forces were not designed to have any significant independent strategic impact. They were purely designed to provide niche components of larger American missions.”

We were, in his view, abdicating our own defence and cultivating complete dependence on the Americans.

And from Chris Hedges:

“Finally, the neo-cons who have led the U.S. into the serial debacles of Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Ukraine, costing the country tens of trillions of dollars and even greater amounts of destroyed reputational capital, will claim their customary immunity from any accountability for their savage failures and cheerily move on to their next calamity. We need to be on the lookout for their next gambit to pillage the treasury and advance their own private interests above those of the nation. It will surely come.”

An (incomplete) list of some of the commentators from whom I have drawn:

John Menadue – former secretary PM&C

Richard Tanter – military analyst, Nautilus Foundation

Brian Toohey – author (political and historical analysis)

Mike Scrafton was a senior Defence executive, and ministerial adviser to the minister for defence

Paul Keating was the prime minister of Australia from 1991 to 1996.

Geoff Raby AO was Australia’s ambassador to China (2007–11); He was awarded the Order of Australia for services to Australia–China relations and to international trade.

Gregory Clark began his diplomatic career with postings to Hong Kong and Moscow. He is emeritus president of Tama University in Tokyo and vice-president of the pioneering Akita International University.

Dr Mike Gilligan worked for 20 years in defence policy and evaluating military proposals for development, including time in the Pentagon on military balances in Asia.

Jocelyn Chey AM is Visiting Professor at the University of Sydney and Adjunct Professor at Western Sydney University and UTS. She formerly held diplomatic posts in China and Hong Kong. She is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of International Affairs.

Joseph Camilleri is Emeritus Professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences, and President of Conversation at the Crossroads

David S G Goodman is the Director, China Studies Centre, University of Sydney.

Geoff Miller was Director-General, Office of National Assessments, deputy secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador to Japan and the Republic of Korea, and High Commissioner to New Zealand.

Cavan Hogue was Ambassador to USSR and Russia. He also worked at ANU and Macquarie universities.

Edited transcript of a speech to the Committee for the Republic, Salon, 18 January 2023

World Hal Turner 20 March 2023

.

To average, everyday people, the failure of Credit Suisse is simply some news headline.  They have no clue at all what this means: ALERT – Time’s up.  Why? Because Credit Suisse was a “Bulge Bracket Bank.”  You may know it better as “too big to fail.”  But fail it has.

What is a bulge bracket bank?

A bulge bracket bank refers to a top-tier, multinational investment bank that has a leading role in the global financial markets. The term “bulge bracket” originally referred to the banks listed at the top of the “league tables” for securities underwriting, but it has since come to encompass a wider range of financial services.

Bulge bracket banks typically have a strong presence in both the domestic and international markets, providing a broad range of services such as underwriting, M&A advisory, equity and debt offerings, and sales and trading of securities. They also typically work with large, high-profile clients such as corporations, governments, and institutional investors.

Examples of bulge bracket banks include Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank. These banks are known for their extensive resources, large-scale operations, and high-profile deals.

What banks are considered bulge bracket?

Some of the banks that are considered bulge bracket are:

JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Citigroup, Inc.
Deutsche Bank AG
rclays PLC
Credit Suisse Group AG
In fact, UBS Group AG
Wells Fargo & Co.

These banks are considered bulge bracket because they typically have a leading role in the global financial markets and provide a wide range of financial services to large, high-profile clients such as corporations, governments, and institutional investors. They are also known for their extensive resources, large-scale operations, and high-profile deals.

What would happen if a bulge bracket bank failed?

If a bulge bracket bank were to fail, it could have serious repercussions on the global financial system and the broader economy. This is because these banks are deeply interconnected with other financial institutions and play a significant role in the global financial markets.

If a bulge bracket bank were to fail, it could trigger a domino effect that would lead to other financial institutions experiencing financial distress or failing. This could lead to a credit freeze, where access to credit is severely restricted, making it difficult for businesses and individuals to obtain financing. This, in turn, could lead to a slowdown in economic activity and a recession.

To prevent such a scenario, regulators have put in place various measures to monitor and regulate the activities of bulge bracket banks. For example, these banks are subject to more stringent capital and liquidity requirements, stress tests, and other regulations to ensure their financial stability and resilience. In the event of a failure, regulators may also intervene to stabilize the financial system and protect the broader economy from the fallout of a bank failure.

Credit Suisse Failed

Those measures do NOT seem to have worked.   Reverberations from the Credit Suisse failure, and the utterly vicious zeroing of Credit Suisse “Tier A1” Bonds, is starting to spread.

As this story is written at 4:45 AM on 20 March 2023, Asian Stock Markets have almost completed their trading day.  They’re all in the red:

 

Credit Suisse, $CS, was worth $10 billion a month ago and sold for pennies on the Dollar.

The government said $CS had “serious risk of bankruptcy.”

A shareholder vote was bypassed.

Regulators knew it was a matter of hours for bankruptcy.

This deal was made out of desperation.

In fact, the “rescue” was not a rescue. UBS could only work an equity trade, they themselves lacked the cash for a real buyout!  That deal was total clown world.

Stock Markets know this.  Stock Holders are learning of it now.  The markets will begin to react TODAY.

Europe is opening shortly.  That’s where we will see some of the Credit Suisse fallout.

In the Asian Markets HSBC & Standard Chartered both down 6%…. will be interesting to watch the European markets when they open.

US markets open in about 3.5 hours.  As Europe goes, so will the US.

You see, those “Tier 1A “Bonds that were Zeroed for Credit Suisse . . .  they totaled slightly over seventeen billion dollars.  Somebody has now lost all that money.  Well, a lot of somebody’s, actually.

That loss is going to have an impact.  Maybe an impact on someone big.   And that may take THEM out.

Moreover, the zeroing of Tier 1A Bonds just showed bondholders all over the world, that when it comes to BANKS, their “totally secure” Tier 1A bonds, aren’t nearly as secure as they were lead to believe!  People are going to start dumping those bonds, because clearly, they’re now far riskier than anyone ever thought.

When you factor-in the reality that the Swiss government changed their law in real-time, to prevent Credit Suisse stockholders from having the Statutory 6 weeks to consider a merger or buyout offer, the bondholders (and Stock holders) now know they’re sitting ducks.  They have NO PROTECTION of law. The “rules” went right out the window.

As these Bond holders (and maybe stock holders) run for the exits today – and this week – their selling is going to put the banks under even MORE pressure.

In the US, here’s how fragile the banks actually are:

At the far right of the chart is this year – right now.   As you can see, the banks are stuck holding Bonds that are worth LESS than their face value.   In the color gold, those bonds can be sold by the banks if the banks need to raise cash.  Those gold-colored (sellable) bonds are worth three-hundred BILLION dollars LESS than their face value.

As long as the banks don’t have to sell them (to raise cash) the loss on the bond is “unrealized.”  But as people begin to take more money out of the banks, because the general public sees the banks as untrustworthy, some banks are going to HAVE TO sell those bonds.   And the moment they do, the loss becomes “realized” and the bank is in trouble.

This week may very well be historic.  We just don’t know how it will turn out.

Politicians all over the world are screaming from the rooftops that “the banks are safe and secure.”  Trouble is, the public long ago learned that when they tell you things are safe, that’s when you run!

Because politicians and government officials have shown themselves to be liars, over and over , and over again.   Only the truly stupid believe them anymore.

With that reality, there’s no telling what will happen this week.  However . . . Calamity . . . is on the menu.

This isn’t going away.

This is not your typical msm-driven race-baiting, class warfare, type of drivel designed to distract you from real problems.

This is a real problem. They’re going to try to keep your eyes – and mind – off of it with crap like North Korea nuclear threats, Trump’s impending arrest, etc. Expect some race-fueled incident to really throw everyone over the edge.

If they can keep us worked up over things like that, maybe we won’t notice all the banks failing and the economy literally crumbling around us. Maybe.

This isn’t something they can bury and hide for long, though, but they will try to keep us in the dark as long as possible. Many won’t notice until bank failures and sky-high inflation impacts them personally.

When they know you notice the real problem, like with the Credit Suisse-UBS merge, they’ll issue some statement about how all is well and good, the US dollar is strong and we shouldn’t worry. When they say this kind of nonsense is when you need to worry the most.

 

UPDATE 5:20 AM EDT —

European market:

UBS – 12%

Deutsche -10%

most others -8%

people do not believe their lies anymore . . .  this is a bad omen for everything today . . . .

 

 

 

UPDATE 5:31 AM EDT —

They just talked on Bloomberg about “the possibility of UBS walking out of the deal.”

 

You’ve Gotta Be F**king Kidding Me

Russell is truth teller that is so needed in society- THANK YOU! It is truly unfathomable that Wasserman is given ANY time after her known corruption. The world is upside down…

Global Times editorial

Global Times has published a brutal editorial that damns everything about this event and deserves to be pasted in full:

The leaders of the US, Britain and Australia celebrated the unveiling of the AUKUS nuclear submarine plans with great fanfare at the Naval Base in San Diego, California, on Monday. It was a public humiliation to France, which was cheated by them, and a cover-up and deceit to the Australian people, and a kind of bravado to neighboring countries. It was also a blow to the already fragile international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism, and obviously a dangerous move for the entire international community.

According to the agreement, Australia will purchase up to five US nuclear-powered submarines in the next few years, which means that Australia will become the seventh country in the world to have nuclear submarines. The peace and stability of the Indian Ocean and Pacific region will expectedly bear the impact, pressure and risks brought about by this agreement for a long time. Some American media even called it a "milestone." This obvious misnomer has produced ironic effects, but the agreement may indeed become a boundary stone for the US, Britain and Australia to drag the Asia-Pacific region into a "new cold war." It is what everyone is worried about.

In order to obtain the US' nuclear-powered submarines, Australia may have to spend nearly $250 billion. Does Australia have too many mines and is too wealthy? Australia indeed has mines, but life in Australia is not rich for most, and the current economic situation is very bad, with a huge structural budget deficit. $250 billion is roughly equivalent to about two years of public healthcare expenditure of Australia. In order to pay for this huge sum of money, Australia is bound to squeeze social welfare. In other words, the 25 million Australians will eventually have to pay the bill through a certain degree of frugality.

Another question, is Australia in danger without US' nuclear-powered submarines? Can't it survive? Obviously not. Not only does Australia not need them, but it will definitely put itself at risk by buying them. Australia, which is isolated in South Pacific and far away from other hotspots in the region, has a relatively unique geographic advantage. No country will attack or even invade Australia for no reason. Australia has had the conditions to spend its main resources and energy on improving people's livelihood.

Australia's inexplicable sense of insecurity when facing China is basically the result of being spiritually controlled for many years by the US. Australia thinks that it is the "deputy sheriff" of the Asia-Pacific region under Washington, but not to mention that it has no salary, even its police uniforms and firearms have to be bought from the US at a high price. The AUKUS agreement is actually a big trick of the US on Australia. It is equivalent to asking Australia to build a nuclear submarine base to produce its own submarines, but more importantly, to maintain and ensure the nuclear submarines of the US and Britain, and hand them over to be commanded by the US Navy, moreover, the hundreds of billions of dollars need to be paid by Australia itself. The follow-up nuclear submarine equipment, maintenance, related personnel training are an even bigger bottomless hole. Australia is at best a cat's paw which helps the US to get chestnuts from the fire, and it can be regarded as one of the most representative chump in the history of international relations.

In the English context, "white elephant" usually refers to a useless but expensive and eccentric object. It could have been better if the nuclear submarines of the US were just white elephants, but they are also a big ill omen. Canberra bought them back with a huge sum of money and will turn Australia into a haunted house, bringing risk to the whole region and making the years of efforts of South Pacific Countries in building a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, which is protected by formal treaty, face the most serious impact. Not only China firmly opposes it, but Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia are also very dissatisfied. New Zealand directly denies Australia's nuclear submarines' access to its waters. Otherwise, the Australian Defense Minister and Foreign Minister would not have been running around recently, trying to dispel people's concerns about nuclear non-proliferation issues.

On the same day as the three AUKUS countries gathered together, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute released a new report on global arms import and export. The report shows that the US share of global arms exports has increased from 33 percent to 40 percent, and imports to East Asia and certain states in other areas of high geopolitical tension rose sharply. All this is in Washington's calculations. Just look at what America is exporting: weapons to kill, crises of all kinds (the fallout from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is still brewing), and the most destructive of all is geopolitical malice, which America uses to spiritually control Australia. [My Emphasis]

Not too long ago China published a long list of Outlaw US Empire crimes and its hegemonic ways. This event will be added to it even if it’s eventually rejected by Australians who the Chinese rightfully say don’t need it whatsoever. It can be said that the Australian continent’s been invaded twice–first by the British and second by the Americans and both have partnered to chain Australians similar to their convict forebearers.

There’re a lot of good Aussies here at the bar; I’m very sorry my government has done what is has done.

Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 15 2023 20:53 utc | 50

Ghost (1990) – the bank scene

What the war in the Pacific will look like…

They are suggesting this…

I think that the map should have a LOT of light RED nations to include North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, and much of SE Asia.

The point being is that maps that originate out of the West also self-isolate China, when that is not at all a reflection of reality.

Australia’s Defence Policy Explained

Utopia is criminally underrated.

China donated just $5.8m to assist Turkey, while the US pledged $185m and the UK $30m.

The after-effects of the tragic earthquake in southern Turkey and northern Syria are still being felt more than one month on, both literally and metaphorically. As a report mentions, global assistance has been provided – China donated just $5.8m to assist Turkey, while the US pledged $185m and the UK $30m.

A recent poll by Premise, a research technology and data company, asked 1,000 Turks from across the country for their views on the international relief effort, the contributions from various aid agencies and also for their views on causes of the catastrophic damage

The managing director of Premise, Arthur Soames, explained that “starkest finding in data is that China is perceived as being far and away the most valued country in providing disaster relief: 72% of our nationally representative sample had a positive or very positive impression of China’s contribution, while the US, despite providing more than 20 times as much cash, was perceived in a similar light by only 59% of the population.”

“Having invested historically in their relationship with Turkey, China has found it simple to project its influence as a high-profile presence in the disaster relief from the start. This has clearly struck a powerful chord with people. The US, on the other hand, has had to pay a vastly higher premium in return for credit from the Turkish people.”

 

“Qatar is perhaps the most surprising outlier to have secured a powerful, positive impression amongst Turks: 26% believed that Qatar has provided the greatest support to the relief effort, the highest figure for any country.

“A lot of this must have been due to Qatar’s decision to donate 10,000 housing units to the affected area that were left over from last year’s World Cup.

“The donation received widespread coverage in the Turkish media and clearly had a powerful impact – proof that Qatar continues to receive international and diplomatic benefits from hosting the World Cup.”

“Behind these two comes the EU. It came in third with 16% of people saying that it had provided the most support, while 11% thought it would be most capable of assisting in the rebuild.

“By contrast, the relief effort from the US and the UK does not appear to have been particularly recognised. Only 8% of the poll felt that the US had done the most. The UK falls much further behind, barely registering 1%.”

Read the full report here.

Moscow wrote off more than $20B in debts from African states, Russian president says

Anadolu Agency ECONOMY

Published March 20,2023

.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday said Moscow has written off the debts of African states worth more than $20 billion.

Speaking at an international parliamentary conference titled “Russia-Africa in a Multipolar World,” Putin said the trade turnover between Russia and Africa countries is growing every year, reaching almost $18 billion in 2022.

“It is unlikely that such a figure can fully suit us, but we know that this is far from the limit,” he added.

Putin also said he believed that “the development of counter-commodity exchanges will be facilitated by a more energetic transition in financial settlements to national currencies, and the establishment of new transport and logistics chains.”

He further said: “Additional opportunities are opened up by the process of establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which began in 2021, which in the future will become a continental market with a total GDP of more than $3 trillion.”

Russia, he said, is in favor of establishing ties with AfCFTA both through the Eurasian Economic Union and on a bilateral level, adding that Africa will become one of the leaders of the multipolar world.

“The states of Africa are constantly increasing their weight and their role in world affairs, they are asserting themselves more and more confidently in politics and in the economy. We are convinced that Africa will become one of the leaders in the emerging new multipolar world order,” Putin added.

He said Russia and the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America are against the neo-colonial ideology.

“Russia and African countries uphold moral norms and social principles traditional for our peoples, and oppose neo-colonial ideology imposed from outside,” he said. “Many states of Asia, the Middle East, Latin America adhere to similar positions, and together we make up the world majority.”

3 Doors Down – Here Without You (Official Music Video)

Steel barricades are being unloaded outside Manhattan criminal courthouse – TRUMP INDICTMENT?

Steel barricades are being unloaded outside Manhattan criminal courthouse as shown in the brief video below:

Numerous metal barricades have arrived outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, located at 100 Centre St. in Manhattan, New York City, ahead of a possible Indictment of former President Trump this week.

NYPD is reportedly mobilizing up to 700 Riot Cops, Ahead of potential unruly protest.

Italian Meatballs with Peppers

Chopped red and yellow bell peppers add color and texture to these savory meatballs seasoned with Italian herb mix and enriched with mushrooms.

Ingredients

• 1 pound ground turkey
• 1/4 cup finely chopped onion
• 1 teaspoon Italian herb seasoning
• 1/4 teaspoon salt
• 2 teaspoons olive oil
• 1 cup chopped red bell pepper
• 1 cup chopped yellow bell pepper
• 1 cup sliced fresh mushrooms
• 1 clove garlic, finely chopped
• 1 teaspoon MAGGI Instant Chicken Flavor Bouillon
• 1 can (12 fl. oz.) NESTLÉ® CARNATION®
• Evaporated Fat Free Milk, divided
• 4 teaspoons all-purpose flour
• 2 cups hot cooked rice
• Chopped fresh parsley

Instructions

1. Combine turkey, onion, herb seasoning and salt in large bowl; form mixture into 24 one-inch meatballs.
2. Heat oil in large skillet over medium-high heat. Add meatballs; cook, turning occasionally, for 3 to 4 minutes or until browned on all sides.
3. Reduce heat to low; cook, stirring occasionally, for 15 minutes or until cooked through.
4. Remove meatballs from skillet; keep warm.
5. Add bell peppers, mushrooms, garlic and bouillon to skillet; cook, stirring occasionally, for 2 to 3 minutes.
6. Combine 1 tablespoon evaporated milk and flour in small bowl; add to skillet.
7. Gradually stir in remaining evaporated milk; cook, stirring frequently, for 5 to 8 minutes or until sauce is slightly thickened.
8. Add meatballs to skillet; stir to coat.
9. Serve over rice. Garnish with parsley.

Prep: 20 min | Cook: 25 min | Yield: 6 servings

Peace In Ukraine Is “Unacceptable” Says Biden Spokesman

CHINA TO OFFICIALLY ARM RUSSIA IF KIEV REFUSES PEACE PLAN

World Hal Turner 21 March 2023

.

China will officially join Iran to arm Russia, “if Kyiv does not accept the Chinese peace plan.”

That is the information coming directly from the China delegation accompanying President Xi Jinping during his ongoing state visit to Russia.

Xi is expected to call Ukraine President Zelensky later this week; perhaps FROM MOSCOW during Xi’s state visit!

Washington’s response was like lightning:  The Free World officially rejects China peace plan for Ukraine: “China’s ceasefire initiative is an attempt to give Russia time to launch a new offensive.” – The White House.

 

More info as I get it.  Check back

 

UPDATE 10:36 AM EDT —

The Pentagon may soon announce measures for the possible delivery of Abrams tanks to Ukraine earlier than expected, White House spokesman John Kirby said.

Putin and China just dealt a KNOCKOUT blow to the west with this move