CleoPetranka13

A course of action has been approved – to increase the financial sustainability of our defense and ensure the continued transformation of the Ukrainian Army. First – pay. We have the resources to increase pay in the military. The minimum will be 30,000 hryvnias in rear areas. The more combat missions, the higher the level of pay. There will be new, significantly stronger contracts for infantry personnel. On average, 300,000 hryvnias on the front line. Everything depends on our Ukrainian infantryman. The contracts will be structured to ensure clarity: contract terms of 10, 14, and 24 months with clear conditions – meaning clear temporary discharge. Guaranteed terms – and real temporary discharge. In addition, payments for Ukrainian combat commanders will be increased, and this should create a positive incentive to preserve command experience within the Army. Second, I am grateful to all the volunteers from other countries who are fighting for freedom in Ukraine. I have instructed that significantly more opportunities be opened for foreign volunteers to join the Ukrainian Army. There will be additional recruitment mechanisms to support this. Third, further simplification of transfers for warriors, more opportunities to advance within the Army, and more positive incentives to join the defense. I expect every element of the changes now being implemented to show its effectiveness this summer. The Ministry of Defense will present the details of the decisions.

No words.

Trump's tariff strategy has geopolitical implications that's slipping past most people. These tariffs are not about crashing markets to "save the masses". This is a play to catapult US corporate power into a multipolar world with a decisive edge. Trump is weaponizing America’s de-industrialized state to outmaneuver nations still shackled by the burdens of industrial and national responsibility. He's trying to gain decades of lost ground for the US Corporate power. I'm going to try and explain this. Let's say for example, China ships a watch to Walmart for $100. Walmart slaps on a $20 markup, selling it for $120. Now, Trump’s 40% tariff kicks in, adding $40 per watch. That’s $140 before it even hits the shelves. Who foots the bill? There’s a tug-of-war with three possible outcomes. First, China could eat the $40 tariff, still charging $100 but netting only $60 per watch, getting hit by a profit squeeze. Second, they could hold firm at $100, forcing Walmart to pay $140 and sell at $160 to keep their cut, leaving US consumers to pay for it. Third, a middle ground: China bumps the price to $120, pays the $40 tariff, pockets $80, and Walmart sells for $160. In practice, it’s usually this mix where China takes a hit, but American buyers feel the sting too. These new tariffs Trump has imposed are Option 2 in play. China stands at $100, Walmart pays $140, and US shoppers face higher prices. It’s a damaging deal for the average American, no question. But the real story unfolds on the global stage, where the fallout cuts deeper. Imagine China exports 1 billion of these watches annually to the US, pulling in $100 billion. A 40% tariff hands the US Treasury $40 billion. If China sticks to $100 per watch and demand drops 20% due to the $140 price tag, Chinese sales slide to 800 million watches. That’s a $20 billion revenue slash. For an economy where $1 billion in exports might support 50,000 jobs, that’s 1 million livelihoods on the line. Beijing, duty-bound to keep the ship steady, can’t just let it slide. To patch the bleeding, China digs into its $3 trillion reserves, $30 billion in subsidies to prop up watchmakers, $50 billion in cheap loans or consumer perks to keep factories humming and citizens spending. That’s $80 billion spent not on flexing global muscle, but on damage control. They’re stuck in housekeeping mode, burning cash to protect an export-driven engine that’s losing steam. Now flip the lens to the US. Here’s where the game shifts. America isn’t chained to stabilizing a manufacturing base. It's not even chained by national interest. It’s a de-industrialized giant, with its government a servant to transnational private sector; your MIC, FIC, CIC. And tariffs play right into their business model. That $40 billion in tariff revenue flows to the Treasury, then gets funneled back to the private sector via tax breaks and corporate subsidies. And as China bleeds, the FIC pounces, shorting the yuan with speculative hedge funds. While the CIC, like your Walmart pivots, shifting to Vietnamese watches like they did in 2020, profiting as China’s grip weakens. The private sector swells, while US consumers pay $140 instead of $100, a $40 billion hit, or $120 per person yearly across 330 million people. It’s a burden, sure, but the private sector doesn’t care. Neither does the government. Inequality spikes, debt climbs, a $20 billion GDP dip barely rattles the cage as the private sector thrive, reinvesting that tariff windfall to lock in dominance. If China retaliated with tariffs, the blowback is entirely uneven. China’s $6.3 trillion industrial beast NEEDS markets; a tariff tit-for-tat forces them to tap reserves for survival. America’s tech-and-finance-driven economy shrugs off the counterpunch. The retaliation barely dents the US economy that's built on tech services and movement of financial instruments, not factories. China is probably a bad example to explain the geopolitical implications of these tariffs. Because they’ve got the power to absorb and adapt. But scale this to smaller, less resilient nations, say, in Europe, and these tariffs turn predatory. That $80 billion China spends to plug leaks, weaker economies will not be able to patch up. They’ll sink, diverting cash to jobs and factories, leaving them ripe for exploitation by the FIC and CIC. This is America’s sprint into the multipolar arena; a de-industrialized predator leveraging tariffs to outpace rivals bogged down by national duties. Globally applied, these tariffs ignite an economic war: a war between global states who try to preserve national interests, versus a transnational private sector poised to dominate. These tariffs are the first manifestation of US corporate power exiting old America to sit at the new multipolar table.

🚨 UPDATE: Elon Musk demands the EXECUTION of the two Iraqi 3rd world brothers caught r*ping a 7-year-old girl in Essen, Germany "Execute them." 💯 Child r*pists deserve the death penalty WORLDWIDE, once proven, NO EXCEPTIONS! 🇺🇸🇩🇪

The best way to anticipate the future is to find out what Benjamin Netanyahu wants and then assume it's just a matter of time before Trump does it. Hard to go wrong with that method. I can't think of a time when it would have failed.

If this is Trump's intention, it would mark a fundamental shift in the objectives of the conflict. Taking Kharg Island and assuming control of Iran's oil and gas markets is not deterrence, defense, or nuclear diplomacy - it is an attempt to control the economic lifeblood of a sovereign state. The strategic, legal, and geopolitical consequences would be enormous.

BREAKING: President Trump says the US will be "hitting Iran very hard tonight" and announces that the US will be "taking Kharg Island" in the "not too distant future." President Trump also says the US will "assume total control" of Iran's oil and gas markets, "much like we have with Venezuela."

The post-American era has begun.  Feb. 7, 2021