USA: Deal for Ukrainian Minerals

Why is a piece of land important? Land is a resource. It could be fertile land for farming. It could be strategic land allowing free passage. It could be many things but there has to be a value attached to it. For Ukraine it means surrendering mining that from now it will be exploited for the benefit of the USA and of American companies.

In 1973, the USA destroyed President Salvador Allende in Chile. Why? President Allende dared to nationalize Chilean copper mines that were American owned. This time, Ukraine has surrendered its mines to American interests willingly.

Now, what does it mean in the context of a military conflict? If some of the resources are in territories that are now a battlefield, the deal is only worth the papers used to sign the deal. The sides in the conflict will have to reach an agreement and if there is a territorial deal and the resources are not on land controlled by Ukraine, the deal is basically worthless. Therefore, we are dealing with non reality. Melodramatic, but not Reality, as real as works of fiction.

So, if more weapons are provided to Ukraine, the war will not stop and it does not give the Russian Federation any reason to stop fighting. Quite the opposite. It will reinforce the determination of the Russian Federation to continue fighting. On top of the human conflict of having to protect ethnic Russians, it adds the economic argument to prevent the enemy from controlling vital resources for industries.

In the present context, the deal is a Death Sentence for Ukraine.

Britain: Of Fidel Castro, Salvador Allende and Jeremy Corbyn

Britain: Of Fidel Castro, Salvador Allende and Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has publicly stated that he wants a General Election because he believes that the embattled Labour Party under his leadership has a clear opportunity to take over the reins of Britain and Conservatives like Philip Hammond, Dominic Grieve and Rory Stewart are more than willing to destroy a Conservative government and open the way for a government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

Will the European Union openly support such possibility in spite of the obvious ideological differences and geopolitical repercussions? We are talking about major issues that include Britain's relationship with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and, fundamentally, Britain's relationship with the USA and NATO.

And what about the unity of the United Kingdom? Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell openly supported the IRA and the unification of Ireland. The latter has been criticised for having in his constituency office images about the 'martyrs of the IRA'. 

Under Tony Blair, there was talk about nationalisation but it was just talk. Under a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn with John McDonnell as Chancellor of the Exchequer, talk will become certainty.

Getting Brexit right, given the threats posed by a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn, becomes much more of a priority. The newly elected Lib Dem Leader did well to distance herself from a potential alliance with the present Labour Party. There is always the Law of unintended consequences. If the Remain Camp seeks to destroy a Conservative government, the Remain Camp will unleash forces that they will not be able to control