Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (195598)	1/27/2023 7:12:22 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218701

Re <<Why is one country fighting the last war while it's rivals are fighting the next one?>> am agnostic but interested to see which side wins the Ukraine Open gambit. 'they' seem to be changing their mind midway, typically not a good sign, but I remain agnostic, in case I forgot to mention earlier in this post. For at first 'they' reckoned ... ... but now appear concerned, but the cost has already been substantial, and the flywheel has no stop-switch fresh off of the grill by the same 'they' I wonder what 'they' had to say about all past wars, and who fund 'they' aha ... rand.org rt.com Pentagon think tank warns against ‘long war’ in Ukraine While both Moscow and Kiev think they will benefit from continued fighting, such a turn of events does not serve Washington’s best interests, the Pentagon’s think tank RAND Corporation argues in a new report published on Friday. Authored by Samuel Charap and Miranda Priebe, “ Avoiding a Long War” ( rand.org ) accepts the prevailing premises about the conflict, but notes that US interests “often align with but are not synonymous with Ukrainian interests.” According to the authors, the conflict has already inflicted significant economic, military and reputational damage on Russia, so its “further incremental weakening is arguably no longer as significant a benefit for US interests.” The price to the West has not been insignificant either, from the disruption to energy, food and fertilizer markets to the cost of “keeping the Ukrainian state economically solvent,” which will only “multiply over time.” NATO’s military aid to Ukraine “could also become unsustainable after a certain period,” while Russia may “reverse Ukrainian battlefield gains,” they said. The conflict is “absorbing senior policymakers’ time and US military resources,”distracting Washington from other global priorities, such as China, while pushing Moscow closer to Beijing. In short, the consequences of a long war – ranging from persistent elevated escalation risks to economic damage – far outweigh the possible benefits. The study describes President Vladimir Zelensky’s vision of victory, in which Ukraine would recover all the territories it lays claim to and force Russia to submit to war crimes trials and reparations, as “optimistic” and “improbable.” Moscow, “perceives this war to be near existential” and has signaled “a high level of resolve,” the authors caution, raising the probability it might use nuclear weapons if it feels threatened. Prospects for some kind of negotiated peace are “poor in the near term,” the report acknowledges, as Kiev believes Western support will continue indefinitely, while Moscow has been given no reason to believe the sanctions will ever be lifted. The US could “condition future military aid on a Ukrainian commitment to negotiations,” while giving Kiev security commitments, but “not as binding as US mutual defense treaties” or NATO membership, the report suggested. Washington should also give Moscow assurances regarding Ukraine’s neutrality and set “conditions for sanctions relief.” Founded in 1948 by the US military-industrial complex, RAND has provided the Pentagon with policy advice for decades. In 2019, the think tank provided a blueprint for “overextending and unbalancing” Russia that included economic sanctions, sending weapons to Ukraine, promoting uprisings in Central Asia and even deploying more nuclear weapons to Europe. By contrast, the advice on how to avoid escalation with Moscow while arming Kiev, from July last year, seems to have had little to no effect.

To: ggersh who wrote (195598)	1/27/2023 7:55:52 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218701

interesting PoV Chess / Poker / Go at it rt.com China needs to do the right thing if McCarthy goes to Taiwan If the new US House speaker follows Nancy Pelosi’s example, Beijing must carefully measure its reaction By Timur Fomenko, political analyst Newly appointed Republican speaker of the US House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy is reportedly preparing for a visit to Taiwan. The news should not surprise anybody. Beholden to his party’s right wing, which blocked his election 15 times, and a scathing opponent of China, it is to be expected that McCarthy is both out to make life as difficult as possible for the Biden administration and to derail any stability in Washington’s relations with Beijing, pushing for further hawkishness where possible. In anticipation of this visit, the Pentagon is making contingency plans already. When Nancy Pelosi controversially visited Taiwan in August, it generated a crisis as China responded with fierce military exercises, raising alarm about a potential war brewing between the US and China over the island’s fate. Of course, there is nothing the Republican Party in particular would like to do more than to steer US-China ties towards conflict in the bid to introduce even more hard-line policies against Beijing and to intensify an already emerging cold war. China’s position on Taiwan has always been clear. Beijing considers the island part of its territory and perceives the US as deliberately stoking up sentiment of “Taiwan independence” to undermine China as a whole. But this time around, Beijing should not take the bait. McCarthy’s immediate and public declaration of intent to visit Taiwan is designed to be deliberately provocative, and is a slap in the face to China, but an escalatory reaction to this would cause more trouble than it’s worth for Beijing. First of all, it should be taken into consideration that Kevin McCarthy is an opposition politician, and is working against the presidential administration, unlike Nancy Pelosi, who represented the same party. Part of Beijing’s anger against her trip was caused by the fact that the Biden administration did nothing to stop her, aside from publicly warning against the move. McCarthy, in contrast, is part of the Republican Party and the White House does not have influence over where he chooses to go. He is an opposition politician who acts antagonistically to his country’s executive branch of government, even if containing China is something both US parties agree on in principle. As such, the political stakes for his visit are lower and there’s less blame that China would be able to pin on the Biden administration if it goes ahead. Despite the fact that China places strong emphasis on its own territorial integrity, a strong reaction from Beijing over McCarthy’s visit would work against its long-term interests. It has been made clear by US politicians multiple times that they are ideally seeking to replicate the “Ukraine model” in East Asia. This means provoking a rival state into a conflict which allows Washington to exert military influence in the region, break up regional economic integration, and rope in allies. The US is actively using the Taiwan issue to foment instability in Asia. For example, it is forcing the Philippines to take a position on a potential Taiwan conflict. In doing so, it seeks to thwart Manilla’s increasingly “non-aligned” attitude towards China and break growing economic ties between the two. The more insecurity and instability the US can create around Taiwan, the more leverage it will attain over others. The US does not want Asian countries to pool their economies with China, it wants to create a NATO-like system of containment whereby its hegemony is forced on them through dependency. Therefore, if Beijing reacts forcefully, even to assert its position, it gives momentum to other anti-China causes. It is no coincidence that, after the Taiwan crisis in August 2022, scores of new anti-China sanctions were pushed through by both the White House and Congress. Likewise, the misleading comparison between Taiwan and Ukraine will be used to garner greater sympathy, support and attention for Taipei in other Western countries. It is a lose-lose scenario for China to overreact, especially if, thanks to Western media scaremongering, Beijing is all but expected to pursue war – anything less than that will then depict China as spineless (as happened following Pelosi’s visit). Given this, it would be best for China to make a stronger diplomatic, as opposed to military, protest towards a visit by Kevin McCarthy. Don’t let the hawks win by giving in to their bait. Beijing should, as it did with Pelosi eventually, simply respond by blacklisting McCarthy in the country and blocking any potential interests he could have in China, and likewise by cutting off US-China dialogue and putting the US presidential administration in an awkward situation whereby it has to reiterate its “support” for the One China policy, which remains de jure, even if not de facto, Washington’s official position. Above all, another Taiwan Strait military crisis would be a huge overreaction, and the US and the mainstream media have the ability to manipulate the discourse of such an event in a way that puts China at a disadvantage. Beijing is likely aware of what Washington’s game with Taiwan is, but to succeed also requires restraint as much as it does deterrence by force. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

To: ggersh who wrote (195598)	1/27/2023 8:24:58 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By dubad Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218701

Re <<I'll send you 31 Abrams and 100 Leopards, plus more HIMARS more ammunition and are thinking of sending some F16's, so there's no need to worry.>> ... you might be correct, except for a detail that the ruskies might have thought of ahead of the pentagonians who cannot do inventory-tracking? Curiosity question, how many 'Kirby-esques' have been put in charge of the gaming? Such a move would “fly in the face” of the Taliban’s stated goals, Kirby said. If the Taliban wish to receive international recognition, then they must live up to commitments of the Doha Agreement, he added. Suggestion, or something to quickly think about, before the near-peer gets hold of the inventory, that instead of Biden paying repeat visit to Saudi Arabia to buy American weapons to send to Ukraine, perhaps Blinken best traverse to Afghanistan?! and fast, whilst inventories last! Blue-light special on aisle 7 in big-box store that is Afghanistan as operated by Taliban eurasiantimes.com US ‘Breaks Silence’ On Russia Buying Afghan Weapons; Says Taliban’s Actions Would be ‘Fly In The Face’ Of Its Commitment Sakshi Tiwari January 27, 2023 White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said on Friday that he cannot confirm reports that the Taliban are considering sending Russia arms left behind by the United States in Afghanistan. “I can’t confirm those reports that the Taliban are looking at or considering sending weapons capabilities to the Russians,” Kirby said during a press briefing when asked about the reports. Such a move would “fly in the face” of the Taliban’s stated goals, Kirby said. If the Taliban wish to receive international recognition, then they must live up to commitments of the Doha Agreement, he added. In August 2021, the US ended its withdrawal from Afghanistan, culminating in an evacuation of foreigners and eligible Afghans from the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. The Taliban have since governed much of the country, taking control of remaining US arms. The US does not have an indication of where all systems left behind in Afghanistan are located or how they are being used, Kirby said. However, there are no indications that the Taliban are willing to export the weapons, Kirby added. Earlier Report By ET When Russia launched the invasion of Ukraine, it was planned to be a blitzkrieg-like operation that would sweep the capital Kyiv. However, the fierce resistance by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) pushed the Russian troops to the fringes and made it a war of attrition that will complete a year next month. The war has essentially proved to be a double whammy for Russia. Not only has the country lost a massive number of men and materials, but Moscow has also been unable to manufacture weapons at pre-war levels due to crippling sanctions. Going by the daily estimates published by Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, Russia has so far lost more than 3100 tanks, more than 6300 armored vehicles, more than 2100 artillery, more than 1900 drones, and almost 300 military jets, to name a few. While these figures could not be independently verified, it has widely been acknowledged that Moscow needs more weapons for a decisive victory. When reports about Russia’s missile stockpiles nearing exhaustion started to do rounds in the fall of last year, the country acquired hundreds of Iranian Shahed-136 kamikaze drones to continue attacking targets inside Ukraine. Together with Russian cruise missiles, these suicide drones wreaked havoc on Kyiv for weeks and fractured its energy infrastructure. Not just Iran, there have been reports of Russia turning to North Korea for military assistance. In November 2022, the US warned that North Korea was secretly supplying Russia with a “significant” number of artillery shells. Then, a month later, the White House announced that the Russian mercenary group Wagner had secured the delivery of an arms shipment from North Korea. File Image: Vladimir Putin and Sergey ShoiguOn similar lines, British news portal Sky News has reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin is preparing to acquire weapons seized by the Afghan Taliban during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. According to the report, Russia is allegedly in talks with the Taliban to officially recognize it. After ousting the Taliban in 2001, the US spent an estimated $67.59 billion arming the Afghan army and supporting the government. Between August 2005 and August 2021, the US provided the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) with equipment for a total of $18.6 billion. After the US withdrawal was over on August 30, 2021, $7.12 billion in equipment remained in Afghanistan. Taliban take over Kabul airport and USA military equipment (via Twitter)According to the US DoD assessment, the equipment left behind by the US troops comprised aircraft, air-to-ground bombs, military vehicles, weaponry, communications gear, and other supplies. Some of this cutting-edge equipment could be diverted to Moscow if a deal is struck with the Taliban. Russia has continued to engage with the Taliban, with the latter even exploring oil imports from Moscow last year. While the media reports suggesting this could not be independently corroborated by EurAsian Times, such a deal could come as a boon for the Taliban, which has been vying for recognition but has been chastised by the west due to its poor human rights records. All Eyes On US Weapons In Afghanistan Incredibly large numbers of weapons, trucks, and military equipment were delivered to Kabul, according to US papers, only for the Afghan forces to be overwhelmed by the Taliban’s advance. As per estimates, the US sent over 22,174 Humvees, 634 M1117 armored vehicles, 115 Maxx Pros trucks, and 549,118 machine guns, assault rifles, and pistols. The Afghan Air Force also received 33 Black Hawk helicopters, 23 Super Tucano fighter jets, and 4 C-130 transport aircraft. A total of 16,035 pairs of night vision goggles, 162,043 radios, and 8,000 trucks were also donated as support equipment. The US likely dismantled or destroyed a large portion of this equipment because it was no longer functional. However, the figures give an idea of the enormous size of Afghanistan’s arsenal, the remnants of which were destroyed by the insurgents. Further, an array of weapon systems left behind by the Taliban may have been rendered useless due to the lack of maintenance or spare parts. For instance, a US Department of Defense report earlier stated: “Much of the remaining equipment” left in Afghanistan requires “specialized maintenance that DoD contractors previously provided” to Afghan forces “in the form of technical knowledge and support.” Image for Representation.With no western support for the upkeep of this weaponry, it may be easier for the Taliban to decide on sending them over to Moscow. According to the Kremlin officials cited by the British media report, Putin wants to supply his soldiers in Ukraine with these Western weapons. The General SVR channel alleges: “Putin is overseeing negotiations with the Taliban to recognize the Taliban government. In return, the Russian leadership is offering a major arms and military equipment swap.” “Putin reported that the Taliban possess weapons and equipment, including those seized after coming to power in Afghanistan, that are scarce for the Russian Army at the front. “People initiated into the details of the negotiations say that the Taliban are extremely surprised by such proposals, but they are discussing them in earnest.” According to the DoD report, even the United States has supplied equipment meant for Afghanistan to Ukraine. Five Mi-17 helicopters that had been deployed in Afghanistan were formally handed to Ukraine in 2022, even though they had been in Ukraine for maintenance even before the US withdrew from Afghanistan. Having said that, if a deal is indeed struck between Russia and the Taliban, it would once again alter the security calculus in a big way and escalate tensions between President Putin and the collective west. As of now, both Russia and Ukraine are reportedly preparing for a grand spring offensive, with the latter acquiring cutting-edge weapons like Abrams and Leopard-2 tanks from the west.

To: ggersh who wrote (195598)	1/27/2023 9:05:59 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218701

Re <<I'll send you 31 Abrams and 100 Leopards, plus more HIMARS more ammunition and are thinking of sending some F16's, so there's no need to worry.>> Statement of the obvious, that more and more nations are being dragged in. Let'e see Israel ship weapons to de-militarise itself, or not. In the meantime ... ... of course, at some level of sanctions against china-china-china would see earlier programmed China-Russia interoperability as exercised to kick-in, and once so, WWIII would be full-on, presumably or arguably, with 'supposedly democratic' but assuredly-Hindu India not on the fence. as to what level of unilateral sanctions would lead to such, I do not know China-China-China would not lightly be dragged into a war of others' making per avoid catching other peoples' head-lice and put on own head, but am thinking Republic of China has a event-triggering vote in the matter. As w/ regional war in Europe, Lithuanian / Estonia / Latvia individually has same event-triggering vote. We are just a few more sanctions away from full-on WWIII by some means. Events actually on cusp on going quite complicated and at the same time ver straightforward Recommendation: GetMoreGoldNow csis.org They have aimed to improve both forces’ capabilities, enhance interoperability, encourage defense industrial collaboration, send signals to third parties, and promote mutual reassurance and confidence building. The drills have become an important tool for the institutionalization of Sino-Russian defense ties without establishment of a formal alliance. usni.org First, they help Beijing and Moscow’s armed forces improve their tactical and operational capabilities and increase their interoperability, enhancing their ability to conduct joint operations. Second, the exercises serve a mutual reassurance function, affirming China and Russia’s “commitment to military cooperation as an important dimension of their evolving relationship.” Third, joint military exercises signal to third parties—particularly the United States—China and Russia’s strong commitment to each other’s security interests. scmp.com China-Russia military drill makes room for combined force against US - For the first time the two armies used a joint command and control system in a move which echoes the Nato approach - Chinese and Russian troops were integrated and shared equipment during the joint operations fdd.org China and Russia signed contracts late last month to host ground stations for their respective global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs), BeiDou and GLONASS, which are alternatives to the U.S.-run Global Positioning System (GPS). These stations will improve the performance of their systems, which provide precision, navigation, and timing (PNT) services for both military and civilian purposes. eastasiaforum.org China–Russia cooperation on missile attack early warning systems news.bitcoin.com China-backed Blockchain Project Proposes SWIFT Alternative for Stablecoins and CBDCs Both Russia and China have sought greater autonomy from SWIFT ... following on to my heads-up earlier newsweek.com China Supplying Russia With Technology Despite Sanctions—Report ... am supposing Russia 'private' corporations are able to buy whatever whenever from whomever, even as Russia 'the state' arranging to buy from USA by way of Afghanistan. But, as Afghanistan is already sanctioned 24-hours 365 days, and shares a common border w/ Russia-Russia-Russia not much more can be done except to deny access to spare parts not available by private enterprises in Shenzhen. What a mess. gcaptain.com Russia Using Chinese Supertankers to Ship Oil to Asia ... The sources said a fifth supertanker, or very large crude carrier (VLCC), was shipping crude to India, which like China has continued buying Russian oil sold at a discount as many Western buyers turn to other suppliers ...