rattlesnake

Same in France.

I am not sure Thai banks are any safer than Western ones. Personally (as you seem to be doing) I advocate having one's eggs in as many baskets as possible, several accounts, look for the less risky banks, for example in France Société Générale is to be avoided, BNP is not so bad, Wise is good, Kasikorn and SCB also. Gold is definitely good, also Bitcoin in a cold wallet (i.e. offline), I am told. A BRICS currency is a good avenue to explore IMO. If you do it, I would be interested in hearing some feedback. A financial crash is likely to happen this year, but it is impossible to know how much impact it will have.

Your insight is duly noted.

Please explain how he was fooled by Kim, Putin, Xi, and Netanyahu.

I said initially in this topic that Trump was promoting himself as the peacemaker, that is his approach and strategy, and he demonstrated repeatedly during his first term that he favours an unequivocal break from the Pax Americana doctrine by not initiating or furthering the unilateral "forever wars". The shift towards multilateralism is largely underway and Trump is one of the major faces of this transition. We can always pick up this conversation in one year from now and see how it has played out.

In the context of this conversation, "no wars started under Trump" of course did not refer to the minor border skirmishes you listed. Now try addressing the issue seriously, i.e. Trump's position towards NATO and the military industrial complex and its stakeholders (I made an initial post on this issue mentioning John Bolton and Dick Cheney, but there is a long list of US warmongers, both conservative and liberal, who despise Trump). This ties directly into the Middle East and Ukraine (c.f. "US aid", "US support" etc.), please also refer to the post on EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell who clearly says this is about safeguarding US doctrine.

It isn't so much a question of being happy or not, but rather of assessing the objective reality and realising that Pax Americana (and everything it entails) is in its final throes.

Listen to Putin's speeches and you will undestand that he embraces a multipolar system as well, and will of course welcome the dissolution of NATO, as this hegemonic organization – and its underlying ideology – is the root cause of the Ukrainian conflict. If you think this is "conspiracy theory" or "Russian propaganda", well, as mentioned above, just read what the key stakeholders in US foreign policy (such as Brzezinski) have been saying about it for decades. "It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843 Like it or not, Putin is winning this conflict against NATO and as I said above, this is the direction the world is going in.

For context on the political role and ideological purpose of NATO as a vector of the US global hegemon, I recommend reading Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was also very clear in this respect during an interview with CNN last month: 03:55: "We cannot afford [for] Russia to win this war. Otherwise the US and European interests will be very damaged. It is not a matter of generosity alone … of supporting Ukraine because we love Ukrainian people. It is in our own interest. And it is also in the interest of the US as a global player." https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2024/03/25/amanpour-josep-borrell.cnn Trump’s multipolar vision means the end of “US as a global player” as understood under the doctrine which has prevailed for the past sixty years. A US withdrawal from NATO will be a key component of this reversal.

You are correct, though in today's context, protectionism and isolationism are usually intertwined as lots of taxpayer money is allocated to foreign policy. A dangerous political path for who? That is the question. In any case, this is the direction the world is going in.

In serious political terms, it is called protectionism.

I prefer to analyse rather than complain. Trump's protectionist policies logically led him to move away from NATO and other overarching supranational bodies, which was a major source of tension.

Please refrain from making bold assumptions and address the Bolton/Cheney information I posted yesterday.

Answered just above. Also please take into account the Bolton/Cheney information I posted yesterday if you wish to respond.

No NATO-driven wars costing taxpayers billions.