Hakuna Matata

Stricter visa rules are required, especially for nationals of Russia, Kazakhstan, China and some other countries.

Oh, my God! RIP Koh Tao is a damned place. Better to avoid this place by all means.

Chinese mafia and Russian mafia hub! Stricter visa rules are required!

Stricter visa rules are required!

IMHO, all those Call Centers in Myanmar and Cambodia (and many of them in Laos and Thailand as well, not forgetting Viet-Nam of course) are being orchestrated by the Chinese Mafia from PRC. What do you think? By the way, PRC stands for People's Republic of China

More details here. https://aif.ru/society/law/-pensiya-v-26-mlrd-supervzyatku-tambieva-v-bitkoinah-perevedut-v-yuani English translation is here. https://aif-ru.translate.goog/society/law/-pensiya-v-26-mlrd-supervzyatku-tambieva-v-bitkoinah-perevedut-v-yuani?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Absolutely! “Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.”

555

Oh, same-same! 555

Stricter visa rules are required!

Many Ukrainians are mimicking as Russians, you never know.

Oh, no. That is China and Viet-Nam.

Oh, those crazy Russians again in Thailand! Enough is enough. Stricter visa rules are required!

"... because I was concentrated on my smartphone as usual"

Oh, those addictive smartphones again!

Wow, you have a good sense of humor!

Wow, interesting!

Gilbert Doctorow Transcript of ‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 3 January By gilbertdoctorow on January 3, 2025 Transcript submitted by a reader Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:06 Hi everybody, today is Friday, January 3rd, 2025, and our friend Gilbert Doctor is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert. Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Good to be with you and happy new year. Alkhorshid: Happy new year. Let's get started with what's going on right now between Russia and the United States. The Russian representative to the UN said that they're receiving mixed messages from Washington. What does it mean and what do they understand from Washington right now? Doctorow: Well, to my understanding, the Kremlin does not take seriously the belligerent remarks coming from General Kellogg and from the other nominated persons around Trump, nominated to positions in the military and foreign relations. These have been out of line, not supportive of the message that Donald Trump was delivering before the election, which was one of finding a peace solution and one that was rather sympathetic, I would say, to the Russian situation. Instead, there has been this belligerency, how they will pound Russia if Russia does not come to the negotiating table under the dictates from Washington. That's what Mr. Trump's assistants have been saying. Trump himself has been usually quiet, although when he, a week ago, 10 days ago, came out saying that he believed that Biden's decision to permit the use of American missiles to strike deep into Russia was a foolish and dangerous decision. That already alerted Russia to the fact that Mr. Trump was a man they probably could do business with. And accordingly, they have put to the side the negative remarks of his assistants and advisors, and they are hopeful that a meeting with Trump can be arranged, a direct meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. They see, in any case, as the Soviet Union always felt, the natural talking partner in global affairs for Russia is a country of its own scale, and that is the United States, and not these pygmy countries that make up Western Europe, who as they now fully realize are simply servants of Washington. They don't want to negotiate with the servants, they want to negotiate with the master. Alkhorshid: But the situation, I think at the end of the day, there has to be some sort of understanding of the situation in Ukraine, is the situation in Ukraine and the way that the Biden administration is trying to send more aid, more weapons, and right now with the situation that Ukraine has with the European Union, are they really in a better position in Ukraine? Doctorow: Well, the position of Ukraine is worsening day by day. And then you have Mr. Zelensky coming out and bravely saying that the final cutoff of gas deliveries via the Ukrainian pipelines to Europe was a major defeat that he had inflicted on Russia. Well, that is-- maybe he can enjoy that small comfort. But the reality on the ground is of course, very depressing for any Ukrainian patriots; they are losing badly on the ground. And that's not that there's no fighting spirit on the Ukrainian side; there is. And they are making small counterattacks here and there along this 1200-kilometer-long line of confrontation. Nonetheless, their small counterattacks are being beaten down by the Russians, and the Russians are advancing daily kilometers here and there on the front. The most important thing is not to consider just their advancing, or what this means for the Ukrainian defenses. They are not giving the Ukrainians time as they fall back to construct defensive earthen works or concrete bunkers or whatever. So the Ukrainians are moving backwards without any defense. Therefore, this onward march of the Russians westward is likely to continue, and therefore the Russians have had absolutely no interest in talking about a ceasefire. They will not give the Ukrainians a chance to recover, to most importantly, to find shelter from which they can hold their positions. I think-- so the war is going very badly for the Ukrainians and any bright spots that Mr. Zelensky tries to present to the Western press are really beside the point. Alkhorshid: It seems that the Russians were approached by Emmanuel Macron and France. They're talking about negotiating without Ukraine being part of those negotiations. First of all, is Russia interested to negotiate with France, as we saw? Because France was part of that negotiations in Minsk II, and they didn't respect that. Doctorow: Well, I don't think that Moscow has any high regard for Macron, on the contrary. The political observers believe that he has lost his political power. And I think they anticipate that his government, not the government, but that he personally will fall, will be forced to resign, especially if the latest government fails the vote of no confidence. So on those grounds, whatever Mr. Macron would say would not be taken very seriously by Moscow. But the bigger issue is that this question of France or another country acting as-- European country-- acting as intermediary, is of no interest to the Russians, for the reason I said a moment ago. They will seek a solution to the war that is embedded in a solution to Europe's security architecture. The boundaries, where the Ukraine exists, what kind of Ukraine it will be, what will happen to the neo-Nazis -- all of these issues are relatively minor and are not of interest to Moscow today. They will be regulated, resolved in accordance with the resolution of the big issue of Russia and NATO in Europe and what is the security architecture. And for that, there's only one interloctor, only one talking partner, and that is Donald Trump in Washington. All of the NATO member states in Europe account for nothing in this. Decisions about NATO were taken in Washington, not in Paris or London or xxxxx. Therefore, for Russians to get a solution, to negotiate a solution to what Europe's architecture of security looks like, there is only one person to deal with, and that man is Donald Trump. And since he made plain in his first term and reiterated in his campaign speeches for this election, November 5th, that NATO does not seem very attractive organization for him, particularly when all the member states are not carrying their weight and are dependent on the United States to essentially defend them. Though I think that there is ground for talk and negotiation and compromise between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with respect to the future of NATO. Alkhorshid: Do they see Keith Kellogg's proposal as a bargaining process or they see someone that is totally disconnected with the reality? Doctorow: I think it's the second. But nobody understands, and I put myself in when I say nobody, including myself, understands fully the logic of Trump's appointing this collection of neocon personalities in which Kellogg is one of them, and Rubio is another. These high-level positions that he's designated in this future administration, they are hardliners. And what is the sense of this? The sense that I tried to find some weeks ago is that he wanted to gather all of his enemies in one room and then dominate them or ensure that they could not break free of his control and denounce him in general. That's one possibility. Another was an insurance policy for himself. He's left everyone slightly uncertain what policies he will pursue once he takes office, And that is for him the best protection against another assassination attempt. As when Mr.-- when Tony Blinken can believe that by shipping all of these several billion dollars in arms and financial assistance to Ukraine now in the closing days of their administration, they are doing Donald Trump a favor by strengthening his negotiating position-- if that's what they think, then I think that Mr. Trump has been very successful in bamboozling the people who hate him into hoping for or believing in a possible continuation of their disastrous policies under Trump. If he had appointed only people like Tulsi Gabbard, then I think there would be extra contracts out for his murder. Alkhorshid: In your opinion, right now, Russia, when they look at Donald Trump and this administration, as you've mentioned, most of them are neocons and connected with the neocon ideology. Do they, you remember those days when Donald Trump was running for 2024 presidential election, just weeks ago, Do they have the same sort of idea about Donald Trump? They have the same sort of hope about him? Or it's changing in the Russian mind, in the Russian media? Doctorow: The Russian media have for weeks been saying that whoever is elected in the United States makes no difference, that the deep state is running the show, and that we should not expect any miracles from Donald Trump. That was the basic policy line across all of the major media in Russia. This came, that was the first reaction to the very disappointing nominations that Trump made. And also with looking back to the experience of so much hope that was invested in Trump before his first term in office by the Russian side, all to be disappointed bitterly in what followed when he appointed this whole series of very anti-Russian advisors and implementers. So for these various reasons, Russians were saying, "We will solve the problem of Ukraine by ourselves, thank you. We will crush the Ukrainian army and we will make a peace on our terms. End of discussion." But in their heart of hearts, they knew that wouldn't the end of discussion, because it didn't address the reason why they went to war, which was NATO. And if they would succeed in crushing Ukraine and making, imposing a peace that prohibited foreign military installations and personnel operating in Ukraine, that would still not end the existential threat that NATO poses to Russia by its other locations. There is a common border with Poland, by Kaliningrad. There is now this 1200-kilometer-long border with Finland, which has invited in all sorts of American installations and personnel. These threats will continue. There's also the intentions of NATO and the United States to stir up trouble in Georgia, to stir up trouble in Armenia, to stir up trouble in Moldova. So peaceful living will not be possible for Russia even if they succeed in utterly destroying the Ukrainian army. Destroying the Ukrainian army of course is a big deal, but it is not the end of the conflict with the United States-led race. Alkhorshid: When it comes to this security of Europe and those agreements that Russia was talking about on December 2021, and they were asking for some sort of security agreement. Right now, is that the same or they're going to put some sort of, I'm not talking about Ukraine, I'm talking about Europe, or do they have some more considerations about Europe? Doctorow: Those terms were set down in December of 2021 dealing with one president who was a bitter, hardline Cold Warrior. Now, what will be on the negotiating table will be before Mr. Trump, who is somewhat unpredictable, but perhaps, perhaps meant what he said when he spoke so disparagingly about NATO. And perhaps, perhaps can scale down American participation in NATO to the degree where it just collapses for lack of military might. Without the United States participation, full steam, there's nothing. All the European countries put together count for nothing militarily. For any overseas mission, they all rely on them, and several of them, unfortunately, in the last 25 years, they have relied entirely on American air support, logistical support, not to mention weaponry. The armaments in Germany-- to look only at the number count is to miss the point of the quality of the count. They are inferior to what Russia fields. They're unable, NATO in Europe, without the United States, is unable to stand up to Russia. It can do so only by resorting to nuclear weapons, since there are after all France and Britain both are nuclear powers and aren't dependent on America, the nuclear umbrella, they could pose a serious threat to Russia if they decided to replace the United States as the guarantor. But that is improbable. The use of nuclear weapons is [to open] Pandora's box, which would very quickly result in the destruction, the utter destruction of Europe. Therefore, that's improbable as a scenario. So as I'm saying, if Trump simply cuts back on American support for NATO, doesn't have to leave NATO. Leaving NATO is a very difficult trick to pull off because American law requires a Congress-- congressional approval, which Trump will not get for this. But he has his own very extensive powers as chief executive to either implement and execute appropriations that were made to NATO or obligations that were assumed with respect to NATO. He can simply default on his obligations and no one can say a word, and NATO will collapse like a house of cards. There is, therefore, room for Russians to hope that a deal can be struck with Donald Trump. It's not essential to end this war. The war will end, Ukraine will end with a Ukrainian capitulation. That's almost certain. But the confrontation and the risks of escalation into something horrible will remain so long as NATO enjoys its present status. Alkhorshid: If we consider the Biden administration, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan, These were those people who were totally connected with the situation in Ukraine. They have done a lot to bring this war to that region. And right now Joe Biden is not functioning, Victoria Nuland is gone. Two other characters are Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, still in power. Just removing these two figures from the conflict in Ukraine and replacing them by Waltz and Rubio. We know that Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan have a lot of connection with Zelensky and his administration. They're totally connected. They have a lot of links. But replacing these two figures and by the Trump administration, is that going to bring some sort of change? Is that considerable in your opinion? Doctorow: That's imponderable. Look, I go back to what I was saying a few moments ago. The appointment of these odious figures to be, to senior positions in the administration, can be what it looks like, which is not good, or it can be something that it doesn't look like at all, which is following the rule of "keep your enemies close to your chest". Alkhorshid: Yeah. Doctorow: The way to disarm, to defang these people is to have them more close to himself and that he is not dependent on them for advice. He will be keeping counsel with himself and with a very few select people who are not in that circle. For example, Elon Musk, who is probably the person closest to the president and who certainly cannot be expected to pursue any of the Biden policies that people like Rubio would appear to back. Alkhorshid: The situation with the Russian gas, Russia not being able to send their gas directly to Slovakia and other countries. Do you think that-- Sikorsky yesterday he was bragging about how strong Ukraine is in cutting off the Russian gas. Do you think that this would bring even more problems within the European Union, or the situation cannot get worse? Well, it certainly doesn't improve relations between Slovakia and Brussels. That's ... clear. Mr. Fitco was rightly angry at everything that Von der Leyen was doing, and she is among those who is calling for an absolute cutoff of Russian hydrocarbons to the European Union. The poll of Russians, Mr. Sikorsky can make his propaganda points. In general, I think Sikorski is the <deleted> on his pants. The Poles, the top-level Poles, I think are very worried about Russian power today. They may have their orders for tanks and everything else coming in from Korea, but the reality is that Russia has everything now. And what was true two years ago, that the Polish elite were saying that Russia could just roll over them. I think that remains the case. And therefore, Sikorsky is kind of singing a nice positive sound for the public. I don't believe for a minute that he feels confident of Polish security in the face of an aggressive Russia, aggressive if Russia feels threatened by anything the Poland is doing. Therefore, let's look at the reality of this cut-off. Russia's relations with Ukraine over the transit of its gas to Europe, over on the same pipelines and gas reserve system that Ukraine has maintained. This goes back to 2005. There were big conflicts in 2005, 2006, and 2009 over first of all over siphoning off gas that was in the pipeline from Russia with intention of being transferred to Western Europe, but was siphoned off by Ukraine for its own needs without any records, without any offer of compensation. Then there was Ukraine's inability or unwillingness to pay for the gas they received. And so there were big conflicts and a shutdown of Russian delivery of gas in 2009, which was of course raised as an issue of Russia's reliability by all the usual propagandists in Washington and Western Europe. The fact that the cut, shut-off, took place because they weren't paid for what they delivered, nobody bothered to talk about. Nonetheless, there was this background of Russia's difficulties with a pre-2014 Ukraine that was dishonest, thieving, and malicious. And after 2014, it has been, and particularly after the start of the special military operation, when the Ukrainians, who Mr. Zelensky has been calling daily, weekly, monthly for Europe to impose the most drastic sanctions to deprive Russia of its financial means to pursue the war against Ukraine, it was an anomaly that Ukraine itself was facilitating the delivery of six and a half billion dollars worth of Russian gas to Central Europe over its pipelines. Of course, there had been much more delivered over those pipelines prior to the self-prohibition imposed by various European member states on receiving pipeline gas from Russia. But there was still this residual six and a half billion, which represented five percent of European Union gas consumption that was passing through the Ukrainian pipelines. Now that has stopped since the five-year contract under which it was being delivered was not renewed. And that is six and a half billion dollars less that Russia will earn from that particular pipeline. It means one billion dollars per year less that Ukraine will earn as transit fees. So he can claim that he is harming the Russians, but he is harming his own economy to the tune of one billion dollars a year. Considering the kind of infusion of money he receives from Washington, I don't think that one billion is a great loss to Mr. Zelensky and his circle. A loss of six and a half billion for Russia is also not what it looks like. It is reasonable to assume that a fair portion of that gas that is not going to be delivered by this pipeline will be delivered as liquefied natural gas to Europe by Russia. Despite all of the talk of cutting back on hydrocarbon imports from Russia, in 2024 the European Union imported more Russian gas by liquified natural gas than it did in 2023. So it's reasonable to assume that some of the gas deliveries not going through the Ukrainian pipeline will now reach Europe in the form of LNG. But that remains to be seen, of course. Overall, to take that six-billion-dollar loss, and I want to say all the Russians are suffering, the Russians have imposed on themselves a much heavier loss of income in arms sales. I believe their annual arms sales were running at 30 billion dollars a year. They're now running at zero, because all of Russia's arms production capability is focused on satisfying demand of its own armed forces to pursue the war in Ukraine and to prepare for a war with NATO. Therefore, if you want to look at overall costs, let us say this is one fifth, one sixth of what Russia has itself sacrificed to pursue the war without any reference to sanctions or actions by Western Europe or the United States. That's to put it into perspective. Alkhorshid: If Fico in Slovakia, you've mentioned Brussels being responsible for what's going on, but I would point out that Washington would be responsible for what's going on with Ukraine. I do believe that they're thinking that it's going to be part of the bargaining process for them. And the question is, to what extent Washington is willing to sacrifice Europe in the process of conflict in Ukraine? Doctorow: Oh, it doesn't hesitate for a moment. I think one of the wins for the United States in the whole war in Ukraine is precisely that it's reinforced, reached probably a never-before level of control over everything that's going on in Europe. So from that standpoint, for Europe to be weakened, for Europe to feel threatened, and to realize its total dependency on the United States for security. That is all a plus for Washington, in Washington's book. You would think that in a normal world, the United States would want to have strong allies. But regrettably, that wisdom is not understood in Washington, and they much prefer to have slaves. And in the crop of elected leaders in Europe, they have 27, 25 willing slaves, which is very, very sad and is what condemns Europe in its present configuration to a zero role in the world. Alkhorshid: How about Syria? Do we know that Russia would stay in Syria or they're going to leave? Doctorow: I don't have any special insider knowledge. I look at what's on YouTube and there are a lot of sensationalist video clips on what Putin is doing, not doing in Syria, what he is doing, not doing in Libya. I cannot comment on this because I don't believe any of these ... widely watched and sensationalist video clips are based on verifiable fact. So I just sit tight and wait to see how it develops. I believe the Russians would like to stay in Syria. I believe that the government in Damascus would like to have the Russians there as a kind of counterforce in case things don't go too well with Israel, in case things don't go too well with Israel, in case things don't go too well with Turkey. They would like to have another player of weight at their side. So it could be they'll strike a deal, but I have no insider's knowledge to judge what is now going on. And Russian media say nothing about it. Alkhorshid: It seems that the deal between Iran and Russia, the agreement that comprehensive agreement would be signed on January 20th, hours before Donald Trump takes office in Washington. Are they talking about what it's going to be with how they're going to, what are the ... influence, what are the main objectives of this agreement? Because right now nobody knows what's going to be in that agreement. Are they talking about it in the Russian media or they're not talking about anything about it? Doctorow: No, they're not talking about it. I don't think that the content has been leaked by anybody in the circle of Vladimir Putin. And so we'll wait and see. The logic is that it will have this big component of mutual defense. The logic is that this will provide substantial assistance to Iran in deterring irresponsible, reckless action by Israel and its US backers. But to what extent Moscow is comfortable with the government in Tehran, we don't know. Alkhorshid: Yeah. And right now, situation in Ukraine, Joe Biden is leaving Washington and Donald Trump is coming. Are we going to be surprised before Joe Biden leaving? Because the days are just running out. The Biden administration is running out of time right now. Doctorow: The logic is that the Russians will increase their offensive and will try to reach the Dnieper before the inauguration. That would certainly facilitate talks with Trump, because they will have achieved most of their objectives in the special march operation. And they would ease the situation for Trump himself because it wouldn't look like he's compromising things when they've already been lost. That is the logic. But whether I think Putin is willing to take additional losses, which any major offensive would necessarily entail, that again is unforeseeable. The latest Russian achievements is that they took Kurakhove, which is one of the logistical hubs. They still have not completed their conquest of Pokrovsk, or Krasnoyarsk, as they're calling it now. But that is clearly going to fall in the next several weeks, meaning that the Russians will have a clean route to the Dnieper, because the major defence points and logistical points will have been lost by the Ukrainians. And it's a straight run across the plain without any particular elevations or major rivers that would slow them down. The Ukrainians will not be slaughtered in one day. They will fall back and fall back and fall back until they reach the river and find a way across. But I think there's a reasonable expectation that in the coming month, the Russians could finish up xxxx xxxxx. Alkhorshid: The situation in AfD, Alternative for Germany, and the changes that are happening in Germany, do you think that these parties capable of standing against the policies of Washington in Germany, or they're not that capable? Doctorow: Well, we will see in the elections in February, to what extent they are capable of winning over a substantial portion of the electorate, sufficient enough for the cordon sanitaire that the centrist parties have built around the AFD to prevent it centering the government. I have to say, I'm not very happy that Elon Musk is throwing his money and his prestige behind the AfD. And I would have been much happier if he had backed the leftist candidate, Sahra Wagenknecht and her party, which is, I think, much cleaner than the AfD. For me, the AfD has one particular drawback. What we've been living through for the last 15, 20 years has been a new generation thinking within Germany about collective guilt and collective responsibility. And it was precisely the Alternative for Deutschland that raised this issue and made it a public issue, that of refusing to accept guilt, responsibility, for what the grandfathers, the Hitler generation had perpetrated in Europe and the destruction of European Jewry. It's understandable that they would like to see statute of limitations for this responsibility, but regrettably I cannot support that. And regrettably, the decisions that Germany has made under Scholz indicate that there are the same weak points of utter conformism and pursuit of policies that are self-destructive and a unwillingness to heed the voice of conscience in the question of Israel's genocide in Gaza. These issues raise for me a question of national guilt in present-day Germany. And lest anyone think that I am being unfair or unreasonable, I extend the same logic to the United States of America. The whole American nation now bears collective responsibility or collective guilt for the genocide in Gaza. Those who are not protesting against it in the streets, those who are not finding ways of civil disobedience or whatever to express their utter dislike, their utter contempt for the politicians who are facilitating that genocide -- this leaves the whole country with a kind of collective guilt. I do not believe, I am not a subscriber, to "woke" principles. I personally reject the notion of responsibility of anyone living today for what great grandfathers, for what people 150 years ago did or didn't do. I think that is unreasonable. But we all have responsibility for what we do or don't do. And that's where I say, I'm not happy with the AfD, and I'm not happy with the American political, or the American voters today for their silence, relative silence on the disaster being perpetrated in their name by the Biden administration's support, unqualified support for Israeli aggression. Alkhorshid: Yeah. Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always. Doctorow: I thank you for the opportunity to express some unusual news.

Preliminary investigations suggest that the bus may have lost control due to the driver having been concentrated on his smartphone instead of being concentrated on the road?

By gilbertdoctorow on January 2, 2025 ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 2 January: How the War in Ukraine Will End The title which Judge Napolitano assigned to this chat says it all. We discussed in particular why Vladimir Putin is amenable to meeting with Donald Trump given the bellicose statements that General Kellogg and others whom Trump is bringing into his administration have been making and their nonstarter proposals for simply postponing Ukraine’s accession to NATO for some more years, which the Russians have rejected outright. The Russians may have no illusions about the United States but they know, as the Soviets once did, that all of the European leaders count for nothing, that they are all underlings or proxies for the USA. In short, the Russians can pulverize the Ukrainian army and may do so in the coming weeks before the inauguration in Washington. But to find peace in Europe they must strike a deal with Washington over the downsizing or dissolution of NATO. I appreciated the opportunity to remind viewers that Russia is a democracy, in its own fashion, and that Mr Putin is not only a statesman but also a politician who has to deal with pressures from various strata of the population. And that is why this war has been drawn out so long: for the Kremlin to overpower Ukraine at a stroke, they would have had to bring into play far more troops than were available in February 2022, meaning through mass mobilization. And such a mobilization would have been very unpopular. This political stress was avoided by using the war of attrition method that Russia has applied.

Are you sure?