China and Uruguay strengthen bilateral relations that go beyond trade

China and Uruguay strengthen bilateral relations at all levels, including trade but not exclusively trade. President Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou is in Beijing for the signature of important agreements with a country that already receives 56% of Uruguayan exports.

Uruguay is a key geographic player with full access to Antarctica and the South Atlantic having some of the best deep water harbours in the region. Somebody that was already remarked by other Asian nations seeking to exploit the riches of Antarctica and of the South Atlantic.

The Uruguayan President has long seen bilateral agreements outside Mercosur as the key for Uruguay development, taking Uruguay away from the straightjacket of a trading block. It is not about leaving Mercosur, but about looking towards the rest of the world and especially towards new trade agreements in distant parts of the planet.

We do not know what will the Argentinian position since President Elect Javier Milei and his political partners in the Argentinian Parliament still need to decide what is needed to curb the inflationary process in Argentina. One needs to assume that for while internal matters both financial and political will be seen as immediate priorities. With regards to Brazil, President Lula is still interested in an agreement with the European Union, agreement that in view of present positions in Europe seems to be distant.

When comparing trade agreements, the European Union is a very small fraction of world markets. In demographic terms, Europe is an even smaller fraction compared to India, China, Russia and other world operators and this includes Africa - a massive continent with a vast amount of resources.

For Uruguay, anything that limits Uruguay's capacity to trade with the rest of the world is something to get rid of. Paraphazing what was said by Hungary when Hungary joined the European Union, 'we are going to accept that benefits Hungary and reject what does not benefit Hungary'. By the way, the music of the Uruguayan National Anthem was composed by a Hungarian composer. 
 

Ukraine: If mobilization continues, there is the certain risk of Britain and Europe being engulfed in a very destructive war

 

World War One was seen as the war that would put an end to all wars in Europe. Then came World War Two. 

World War Two was a progression that started with the Spanish Civil War, when the future foes had the time and space to put into practice what they were going to do later on.

Even in September 1939, World War Two merely involved a few countries in isolated areas. In Europe, it was about Germany, Poland, Britain and France. In Asia, Japan was making advances in continental Asia. Not a hint of what was going to happen a few months later. In 1940, the pinnacle was the invasion of France - one of the countries that declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939, but soon most of Western Europe had been either invaded or was at war.

Therefore, these are the early days of World War Three, a new conflict that will certainly involve the whole of Europe as when it starts in earnest no one will escape from it. Lamentably, governments continue making steps that bring World War Three closer to home. Adding logs to the fire will not extinguish the fire. Quite the opposite. The location - once again - of nuclear stockpiles on Britain soil will certainly make Britain a first strike target.

Funnily enough, when a Conservative MP mentioned the idea of re-introducing Military Service in the UK the Labour Party Opposition was dead against such an idea. If there is war, the number of British military personnel actually trained and fit for war is minimal and most of the civilian population has been softened by years of neglect.

If you have children above the age of 16, rest assured that your children will be called to serve and die in war. At the moment they might busy themselves with pop music and entertainment, watching videos on Internet, and so forth, and are totally unaware of what is coming to them.

Without Conscription Britain is doomed

 

Without conscription, Britain is doomed. Never mind the chit chat of people like Liz Truss and others. President Putin stated the obvious: we have not even started. Having said that, conscription will be seen as mobilization and mobilization will ellicit a response.

For several years now, the Russian Federation has been turning the Russian Armed Forces into fully professional Armed Forces for several reasons and many that are not related to military purposes. In the Russian Federation, the Armed Forces are called to play a social role providing social stability and continuous preparation, promoting existing skills and developing new skills that will come handy in case of armed conflict. Once again, British journalists and Western journalists in general have been found wanting because they are driven by prejudices and misconceptions instead of being driven by factual evidence.

As annecdotical evidence, there was a particular moment in British history - Market Garden. Montgomery planned a military operation in the Netherlands that was supposed to bring the war to an earlier end by taking over Netherlands and reaching the German industrial heart. Those who were supposed to achieve the military objective were told that the German Armed Forces would only have children, elderly soldiers and inexperienced troops not able to tackle the contingent of British, American and Polish troops sent to capture bridges in the Netherlands. They were literally slaughtered by German Armed Forces many of whom were made up of seasoned elite troops including SS contingents. It was a complete and utter disaster, but for political reasons for several years the British tried to disguise it as a success. When the Russian Federation says that it hasn't started yet, the Russian Federation has not started yet. Ukraine is 1936 Spain, a training ground, an exercise, a drill for what is to come.

Incompetent British politicians are more interested in personal power games, instead of focusing on the real issues facing Britain. Boris Johnson was talking about a 2.5% increase of the military budget. Cosmetics. Meaningless soudbites. Utter nonsense. Military scouts should be right now visiting education centres to select individuals who could be potential material to beef up the British Armed Forces and military service should have already been introduced. The fact that nothing of the sort is being done tells you that Britain is not just blissfully unprepared. Britain does not have the will to be prepared.

   

If Liberals and Greens prevail, National Socialism will be back in Germany and the Fourth Reich will be born

 

Although he did not refer to it by name, Frans Timmerman, European Union Deputy said it.

Europe is in danger of highly damaging "very, very strong conflict and strife" this winter over high energy prices, and should make a short-term return to fossil fuels to head off the threat of civil unrest. Not my words, but the words of Frans Timmerman, Vice-President of the European Commission.

He stated by lack of energy will lead to strong disruption in our societes. We need to make sure we keep our industry, as much as possible. Once again, sanctions and measures implemented against the Russian Federation have backfired. Coal will have to be used (main source of energy in Germany). He remarked that present policies about coal would contribute to tensions within our society getting even higher. Frans Timmerman is Dutch and he knows fairly well that, when things go wrong. Netherlands will be among the first countries that will suffer the consequences of what happens in Germany. Two World War attest to that.

Fear is already spreading. They are waking up. Germany has a ruling coalition, but only just. Until 2017, SPD - head of the present ruling coalition - was CDU/CSU partner. Angela Merkel ruined the CDU/CSU and was forced to resign as leader of CDU as pre-condition to remain as Chancellor until 2022. In 2022, CDU/CSU was crashed and without increating its vote SPD became the biggest party. It has to be said that SPD - unlike AfD - has no representation in 5 of the 16 Federal German States. SPD is hanging from its fingernails and any economic disaster will throw the present coalition into disarray. And then what will follow? Both German industrialists and trade unions are talking about an impending disaster if the energy crisis pushed German over the edge.

Now lets look at the argument about reduction of the use of fossil fuels. Angela Merkel dismantled German nuclear energy making Germany ever more dependent on coal, oil and gas. German does not have enough capacity to story liquidified gas. Do people really believe that if China has any intention to project its military might in Asia the environment is really a priority? China will be seeking to maximize use of any source of energy, including coal, to propel its military capabilities. In case of war, more and more fossil fuels will be used. Weakening Europe economically, socially, politically and militarily is not the way forward.

There was a passing reference to the Developing World and the consequences of the present situation in the Developing World.  

 

Military realities: Armies cannot be built overnight and speeches based on thin air are not helpful

 

This morning the Conservative Party looks smaller in Parliament having lost two by-elections created by sheer stupidity of two now former Conservative MPs who engaged in activities that led to the conviction of one of them for criminal sexual behaviour and another for impropriety having been forced to accept the fact that he had been watching pornographic videos inside the House of Commons. Not a very uplifting behaviour and nothing to be proud of.

But something else is looking pretty small and this is something to be a lot more concerned about. The size of the British Armed Forces is smaller than the Russian deployments in Ukraine while those in power are engaged in warmongering activities that increase the risk of a major incident triggering yet another European-wide war. As Chinese preparations continue apace, those in charge in the United Kingdom seems oblivious to the fact that there is an obvious issue concerning numbers. It is a bit like the case of a mouse trying to bite an elephant. If the plan is to go to war on Continental Europe or in Asia, Britain has lost the war before the war has even started. The Foreign Secretary seems to live in her own fantasy world and the Defense Secretary is pushing forward plans that will make British Forces even smaller. Britain will end up fighting using toothpicks.

With a total population of about 65 million people, British Armed Forces are remarkably small, so small that they could only play second fiddle in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The Defense Secretary Ben Wallace MP had some troubles trying to explain in the House of Commons what had actually happened in Afghanistan and the apalling details of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. As it was explained to me, the issue when it comes to recruitment is not lack of potential recruits. Unhealthy habits lead to lack of the minimal requirements in terms of physical and mental fitness required to join the forces. In an attempt to boost the number of recruits able to pass fitness test, the decision was taken to open the field and accept recruits coming from the Commonwealth. As this did not work either, my educated guess is that plans drawn by Ben Wallace MP that include smaller conventional numbers is simply a reflection of what is happening in terms of recruitment. Too many people in Britain are not fit for purpose.

But there is more. On top of the fact that research indicates that in Britain about one in ten teenagers go on to suffer mental health issues - many cases go undetected - new medical conditions appear. One of them is DLD (Development Language Disorder) and youngsters suffering from DLD have difficulties talking and/or understanding. This is a condition that affects initially children and persists into adulthood. The condition can be missed, misdiagnosed or misinterpreted as poor behaviour, poor listening or inattention. About 7.5 percent of children 4-5 years of age suffer from it. Children's ability to learn is impared. It affect reading or writing and is often linked with dislexia. All in all, this means that a vast number of individuals will never be fit for military service for physical reasons, for mental reasons and for both mental and physical reasons reducing the pool of resources in terms military manpower. We are talking about millions of individuals in the UK that face a very uncertain future and the real possibility of not being able to cope by themselves in civilian life let alone military life.

This should also be a reason for concen in terms of National Security when we talk about long term commitments in a theatre of war. 

The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the danger of nuclear war

 

The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the chances of the unthinkable happening. In 1945, President Truman decided to use atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shorten the war and prevent a rising number of American casualties should American forces have to fight on Japanese soil where stiff resistance was expected. It was also a political statement for the then Soviet Union and to prevent a Soviet attack against Japan.

In 2022, the presence of nuclear devices is supposed to be a deterrent,but there is always a 'what if...' scenario in which the parties might decide to use nuclear devices. In 2020, NATO carried out military exercises 'to prepare for nuclear war'. If you prepare for something, you anticipate that it might come the time when it will actually happen. If it were to happen, it would open a whole series of new possibilities. One thing is combat with conventional forces and quite another is a scenario in which weapons that are much power powerful than the atomic devices used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are detonated in Europe and elsewhere. What would trigger the use of nuclear devices? Would there be a preemptive attack? Who will make the first move? If there is an attack going one way, it is going to be immediately followed by an attack going in the opposite way.

If we can imagine the commotion created by the bombs thrown in Japan decades ago, it is not difficult to foresee the commotion today if nuclear bombs were to fall destroying capital cities. In order to understand what would be the prevailing mentality, we need to remember what happened in World War Two. If any of the parties had had such bombs earlier during the conflict would they have hesitated? If instead of sending bombing crews one after another to be shot down, if instead of sending U-boots to be sunk, the parties had had nuclear bombs to wipe out any armed resistance, to destroy every industrial capability, in one go, what would they have done?

Think about D-Day. If the allies had had the choice of using nuclear bombs instead of sending hundreds of thousands of men across the sea, many of whom lost their lives before reaching France, would they have they used nuclear bombs instead? If instead of loading V1s and V2s with conventional explosives Germany had had nuclear devices to put an end to the war in one go, would Germany have used nuclear bombs instead of conventional forces? The reason heavy water installations were bombed by the allies was that they did not want Germany to develop atomic devices. If Germany had had atomic bombs, would the Soviets have reached Germany? 

Now, coming back to today's realities. If there is the scenario in which it is foreseen that millions of troops would lose their lives in combat, would any of the parties choose to use nuclear weapons instead of suffering heavy casualties at the front? Why does Israel have nuclear devices? Why do Pakistan and India have nuclear devices? Why does Britain have nuclear devices? Why does anybody want to have nuclear devices? The reason is pretty obvious. 

What is the danger of economic sanctions? What was the danger of the American oil embargo against Japan before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? If you push a country towards the wall, somebody might decide that if there are no economic benefits then war is a preferred option. Japan was becoming an industrial power in Asia and needed oil. This is why Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbour, to attack the one country that had limited Japan's chances to achieve economic development. The economy was the core issue that led Japan to attack the USA. 

President Putin's immediate reaction to the mention of further economic measures was to put the Armed Forces on alert. If the so called West is genuine, if the USA is genuine, in terms of favouring a peaceful outcome to put an end to the conflict, putting up pressure is not the right answer. If it is believed that the only way forward is nuclear war, the entire world loses.

War betwen Permanent Members of UN means the end of the UN

 

The Organisation of the United Nations effectively came to be in 1945 with a Security Council made up of five permanent members namely USA, UK, France, USSR and China. 

The aim was to prevent yet another major conflagration. Having said that, war between the Permament Members will destroy the Organisation of the United Nations.

Nowadays, the Organisation of the United Nations is a lot more than the original signatories intended and many international agreements are based on the existence of the Organisation of the United Nations. Once the UN is no more those agreements will be nul and void and this will effectively means that every country in the world will be on its own. All the safeguards in terms of an international framework will be gone and the stronger ones will prevail and be free do to as they please. This is why, apart from all other immediate consequences, it is important to avert a military conflict between permament members of the Organisation of the United Nations. 

As this has not been talked about and the subject is not on mass media, it is fundamentally important to remind everybody of what is at stake should the situation in Eastern Europe and in Asia get out of hand. 

Winning an election is a feat, but winning an election with a 300 votes margin when you had a 3,000 vote margin before is not 'excellent'.

 After 11 years in Opposition, the Labour Party should be making inroads and it isn't. What happened in the so called Red Wall, what happened in Hartlepool, what happened in Chesham and Amersham and to an extent what happened in Batley and Spen, tell yous that all is not well.

Despite the celebratory mood of Keir Starmer that saw the writing on the wall had the Labour Party been defeated in Batley and Spen - a seat that it holds since 1997, the knives were getting ready to strike. I am focused on my work and I am not thinking about any Leadership challenges, stated Angela Rayner now Deputy Leader. It was the kind of denial that much more of denial is a reminder: I am here. I am ready.

The Labour Party can blame George Galloway for their tiny majority in Batley and Spen, but what happened in Hartlepool happened because Labour voters chose not to vote. It was said again and again that in Batley and Spen there is an Asian majority that is increasingly discontent with Keir Starmer stance on Palestine. And there is more. We must remember that the Labour Party no longer has control of the local authority due to several local issues.

What next? There are still about three years before the next General Election. This should be the time that Keir Starmer should use to put the Labour Party back on track. He is lucky to have the support of Andy Burnham and even the support of Ken Livingstone that speaking today on GB News said that Keir Starmer is a genuine Labour man, that as soon as Keir Starmer went to ask him for advice as soon as he became Labour Party Leader.

Ken Livingstone didn't have kind words for George Galloway, but the fact that George Galloway was a complete outsider in Batley and Spen and still managed to get more than 8,000 votes, coming in third place, is a message that cannot be ignored. How many people in the Labour Party were secretely wishing that George Galloway's participation could allow them to challenge Keir Starmer and retoute the Labour Party?

Andy Burnham, the man that many want as Labour Party Leader, came out in support of Keir Starmer and said that he had the intention of keeping his word to remain as Mayor of Manchester for a full term.

Yes, the Labour Party has serious internal issues to deal with, but for some the present circumstances are not the best environment to launch a leadership challenge. Andy Burnham cannot be Labour Party Leader without being an MP. The next General Election should take place in 2024. So unless there was a by-election that he could possibly win, throwing away his seat as Mayor of Manchester where he has a much greater political profile both locally and nationally would be a very poor choice.

Going back to Ken Livingstone, could Ken Livingstone have any aspirations to be allowed to rejoin the Labour Party? His comments about World War Two events and the episode with a Jewish journalist that he compaired to 'a German Concentration Camp Guard' would stand on the way of this return when many in the Labour Party are terrified about how the Jewish Community could react. 

Corona Virus and Immigration: Yet another reason to restrict immigration

Corona Virus and Immigration: Yet another reason to restrict immigration

The headline "Turkey allows 100,000 immigrants to cross into Greece" is not just about sheer politics. It is a health threat. Vulnerable people entering Europe could well be a bomb about to explode. Immigraiton has always been a health risk. Much of the native aborigine people of the American Continent were wipe out by illnesses brought in by Europeans.

People carry diseases wherever they go and the local populations might not be immune to viruses and bacteria brought in by newcomers. International Treaties and Convention on Assylym and Immigration fail to address health issues. What started in China is now spreading to the rest of the world.

Each country has to take measures to protect itself and if necessary treaties and conventions should be amended or rescinded on health grounds. Protecting local populations is top priority. This is about health and also about National Security.

President Macron: Are Americans the enemy of France?

Charles de Gaulle

President Macron: Are Americans the enemy of France?

A few days ago, President Trump visited France for the commemoration of the end of World War One. In two wars, in World War One and World War Two, the end for France would have been dramatically different if thousands of Americans had not lost their lives trying to save France.

Here we have a French President talking about the creation of EU Armed Forces to fight against 'USA, Russia and China'. The hysteria is such that Angela Merkel that also supports the idea of the creation of 'true, real, EU Armed Forces' had to explicitly say in the Bundestag that the creation of EU Armed Forces was not walking away from NATO or undermining NATO. Well, if the Germany Chancellor has to publicly say that it is not about undermining NATO then there is the implicit aim of undermining NATO 'by taking our defence in our own hands'. What next?

For decades, the USA has been offering to the Common Market, then to the European Community and now to the European Union very advantageous trade deals. Now, it is the time for the USA to ask for reciprocity but the EU doesn't want reciprocity. The EU wants to maintain its advantages not just against the USA but against the rest of the World. When an EU made car enters USA such export is taxed several times less than the US made car when it enters the EU. Is this fair? No, it isn't. Much of the spiteful approach of several EU governments against the USA is based on the fact that USA is asking for a fair deal when it comes to exports and imports. When the USA says that all NATO members should pay an equivalent contribution to NATO according to the size of their economies, how much Germany, France and others pay? A lot less than the minimum two percent required. Things are so bad that German Armed Forces are struggling with ongoing shortages due to lack of German investment in defence. Most of the jet fighters in Germany are non operational. Pilot Licenses are being withdrawn because Pilots are required to have a certain record in terms of number of hours in the air and minimum operational time in the air is not being met.

Hatred against President Trump is based on the fact that President Trump is asking for minimum requirements to be met. The EU is a Protectionist Racket whose interests are directly opposed to the interests of Developing Economies, some of the poorest economies of the world that cannot export to EU and that when they do export to EU have to pay very high taxes to be able to sell their products in the EU. Talking about fighting inequality and hunger, the EU promotes inequality and hunger. When we look at Asia, Africa and Latin America, we should remember the damage that high tariffs caused to the Developing World. It must be said that when the movement towards European protectionism started, the economies of Latin America went into a free-fall and that because of that political instability followed and that because of that many countries across Latin American ended up having Military Dictatorships, torture and execution of political opponents. The stress generated by the Common Market, followed by the European Community and then European Union killed tens of thousands of people across Latin America. If you think about the whole picture including other areas of the world that also suffered from European Protectionism, the number of victims can  number millions. 

European Union has nothing to do with Free Trade. European Union is about Protectionism and Exploitation or, to put it more directly, European Union is Neo-Colonialism.