Situational Analysis of The U.S, Markets, And Russia (politics)
submitted by masuji to politics 3.2 years ago
4 comments
US GOVERNMENT:
1. distract from economy
2. distract from specific leaders failings and crimes
3. prevent russia from seizing control of the middle east
4. therefore drawing closer to major muslim countries
5. drop liabilities or allies that frusterate point 4
6. ergo we can expect a cooling of israel relations with the u.s.
perhaps by way of pushing the two state solution, or offering a competing
set of deals to iran and other nations, or tactic agreement to iran
having nukes
7. we can therefore likely predict, if trump isn't elected president again,
the israels will switch support to russia, or start a war before
their opponents unite against them
8. u.s. would only distract from the economy if it *couldnt* fix it.
9. if it COULD fix it, the ruling regime *would* to assure their prefered parties and president stay in power.
10. the actions available are a. raise rates, but not so much it breaks the market. b. accelerated money printing and large scale social programs through
centralization of markets, c. new stronger regulations and the restoration of various financial laws that have been rolled back. d. jailing bad faith financial actors or forcing banruptcy, e. anti-monopoly laws
11. wars are possible distractions, but have to be justifiable to the base.
12. there is no public support for it. This is an election year.
13. Because of that any real major conflict will wait to be kicked off till after midterms.
14. in the mean time the standard playbook can be expected (u.s. proxy terrorism)
15. this is supported by the u.s. shipping arms to the ukrainians while suggesting the russians are supporting proxies as well.
16. this action appears to be more of a public propaganda move, or an actual move, disguised as a public propaganda move.
17. it is as if the u.s. regime claims to publically want the war, but privately doesn't actually want it.
18. we can conclude from this, and other actions, that its about getting NATO involved, instead of the u.s. kicking it off.
19. the u.s. therefore does not want to appear to be an aggressor, while banging the war drum for its allies
20. outside the scope of situational logic, historically the u.s. and russia provoked ww2, but used national allies (rather than insurgent proxies) to
get the major fighting going. This is secondary, but it supports the analysis.
On number 10.
a. won't work, because the markets already showed it *cant* work
b. is very likely if we factor in the need to boost popularity numbers
to keep the prefered regime party in office in 2022-2024 and beyond.
c. will likely pass in order to swing the middle in u.s. elections
d. won't happen, except as political retaliation
e. will likely pass because people on both sides of the aisle support it, and it enables the removal of non-ESG major players from the market as major forces, especially those that are technically zombies (not even profit to pay off debt).
RUSSIA:
1. boost exports to support the ruble (which is mainly based on gas)
2. because of this, prevent u.s. control of the middle east, or get us
to withdraw
3. hold syria and ally with turkey, or iran, or israel
4. cut of EU gas, and leverage them into buying russian, or else control
EUs ability to buy middle eastern gas.
MARKETS:
1. fighting over gas supply and contracts leads to volatility
2. chasing yield, investment money pours in to exploit that volatility, despite the ESG green investment scam.
3. More investments goes to green as markets see that gas is volatile.
4. this leads to a rise in asian electronics makers stock prices, and likewise german engineering firms.
5. we see a renewed push in the day traders, and e-traders, namely from the fronts of major companies, looking to *create* the market for buyers at peaks, much the same way crypt-influencers and daytrader youtubers and article writers are paid now by major firms.
