SINGAPORE IS WORLD’S COSTLIEST CITY

SINGAPORE WORLD’S COSTLIEST CITY

The soaring cost of cars and utilities as well as a strong currency have made Singapore the world’s expensive city, toppling Tokyo from the top spot, according to a global survey.  Tokyo’s weakening yen saw it slide to sixth place, the position previously occupied by Singapore, in the 2014 Worldwide Cost of Living survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit.  According to the report, Karachi & Mumbai are the cheapest cities of the world.

Singapore’s rising price prominence has been steady rather than spectacular. It is said that 40 percent rise in the Singapore dollar along with solid price  inflation pushed the country to the top of the twice-yearly survey from 18^th a decade ago. The survey, which examines prices across 160 products and services in 14-0 cities, is aimed at helping companies calculate allowances for executives being sent overseas. Singapore’s curb on car ownership, which include a quota system and high taxes made it significantly more expensive than any other location when it comes to running a car.

Overall transport costs in Singapore are almost three times higher than those in New York. In addition as a city-state with very few natural resources to speak of Singapore is reliant on other countries for energy and water supplies, making it the third most expensive destination for utility costs. It is also noted that Singapore is the priciest place in the world to buy clothes, as malls and boutiques in its popular  Orchard Road retail hub import luxury European brands to satisfy a wealthy and fashion conscious consumer base. Singapore has one of the world’s highest concentrations of millionaires relative to its 5.4 million population. It per capita income of more than $55000 in 2012 masks a widening income gap between the richest and poorest. In Europe, Paris rose six places to become the world’s second most expensive city a trend the EIU and indicative of recovering European prices and currencies. 

UKRAINE – RUSSIA TENSION

UKRAINE – RUSSIA TENSION

Russian president has calmed fears on an imminent war between Russia and Ukraine and Moscow has no intention of loosening its new grip on Crimea in defiance of Western anger.

The standoff between Moscow and the new-pro-West leadership had prompted apocalyptic fears of Russian tanks rolling across Ukraine’s eastern borders in a conflict that could draw in NATO.  

As Russian president commented that Russia would not give up its newly acquired control over Crimea, a region with a majority Russia speaking population.

The Russian president made clear that they will not be a extensive war – least such a radical scenario has been set aside. But he will not leave Crimea and he is going to preserve real control there.

Russian president also denied that Russian troops were already in Crimea and said that it was local self defence forces who were in control of the Black Sea peninsula.

Russian president also eyeing the situation in the largely Russian speaking east of Ukraine but that region would prove a far bigger and more dangerous mouthful for the Kremlin.

Mr. Putin a week ago was soaking up praise for Russia’s smooth organization of the Sochi Olympics but showed remarkable little concern about the international repercussions, shrugging off Western threats not to show up to the G8 summit Russia is due to host in Sochi.

At last the reaction of the West is currently weak, it does not bother him. He is not worried by the declarations and sanctions of the United States.

If Ukraine has decided to leave the Russian embrace, then Mr. Putin is going to want to keep a piece of Ukraine as a souvenir at least Crimea or maybe the east. 

Israel Needs Tough Decision

Israel Tough Decisions against Palestinians

The US president warns Israel’s PM that Israel needs to take tough decision if peace talks with the Palestinians are to have  a future.

During a joint address at the White House as a major snow storm blanketed the city, the two leaders who have struggled to overcome mutual antipathy once again found themselves very publicly at odds.

The US President pushed for a decision on the peace process, while Netanyahu insisted Israel had done its part and said Iran is now the  most urgent threat.

Israel and the Palestinians have been engaged in seven months of direct peace talks which are due to expire at the end of April.

The Israeli leader hit back telling the president that Israel had taken unprecedented steps to advance peace over the last 20 years and that the ball was now firmly in the Palestinians court.

The greatest challenge, undoubtedly is to prevent Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons.

The US leader looked o impassively nodding almost imperceptibly at several points, resting his clenched jaw on his hand.

On the other hand,  Washington may demand a partial settlement freeze to try and ensure the Palestinians remain at the negotiating table.

Obama’s most significant entry into peacemaking since 2010 when his first attempt at Middle East mediation collapsed after just three weeks in a bitter dispute over settlements. 

War Between Russia & Western

COLD WAR AGAINST RUSSIA

The crisis in Ukraine is increasingly taking a dangerous turn that some are warning could trigger a new cold war between Russia and the west. The crisis began with protests against the elected but widely considered corrupt government of former President  Viktor when he plumped for closer ties to Russia rather than the European Union. The mediated compromise agreement between Viktor and the opposition in the streets on 21^st Feb 2014, brokered by Germany, Poland and France, unraveled even before the ink was dry on it and this finally led to the ouster of the president and his flight to Russia, where he has been given protection. Meanwhile the Crimean peninsula where the Russian Baltic Fleet is stationed has been taken over by pro-Russian elements. Eastern Ukraine, overwhelmingly inhabited by people of Russian ethnic origin, could be the next pawn on chessboard. The fracturing on ethnic and political lines of Ukrainian national unity between pro-23st and pro-Russian groups spells either a breakup of the country or as Russia may be trying to achieve a federal solution that prevents Ukraine from turning wholesale from what Moscow sees as a Ukraine that is not Russia into a Ukraine in Opposition to Russia. Russia’s mobilization of 20000 troops after the duma gave President VIadimir permission to invade Ukraine if necessary to protect Russian-co-ethnics, defend the Russian Fleet’s base in the Crimea and ensure Ukraine does not become a hostile neighbor at the behest of the west has evoked a military mobilization in Ukraine by the interim government that replaced Yanukovyeh.

However no one has any doubts that the Ukrainian armed forces are no match for Russia’s might. US president and Secretary of State have warned Russia of the cost to be paid for its actions so far as well as if it invades Ukraine. These would include a likely cancellation of the impending G8 summit in Sochi in June, economic sanctions and a pullout of US and other western businesses from Russia. This threat seems unlikely to deter Putin, who since his rise to power has been battling western attempts at encroachment and worse in the near abroad, Russia’s neighbours that are former Soviet states. Since the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, the west has felt free to carry out military and subversive interventions in a host of countries to bring about regime change that suits its interests.

The US led west’s new-imperialism through direct military intervention or subversion through paid trained proxies on the streets is causing enough trouble all over the world. In the case of Ukraine it could engender a new conflict and even the beginning of a new cold war. The promise of peace, cooperation and progress after the end of the cold war has been dashed by western countries unabashed desire to subjugate the globe through military might and the power of capital. History suggests the west may be overplaying its hand and threatening humanity the world over with the unbridled ambition of dominance that cannot but engender enormous new tensions and conflict in a war weary world.

NEWS OF INDIAN NUCLEAR PLAN

INDIAN NUCLEAR POSTURE

Indian nuclear weapons programme was originally motivated more by the prestige factor than as a necessary means to meet real security threats a gradual shift in India’s nuclear posture over the past few years has been viewed as worrisome by the community of strategic thinkers. The statements of Indian policymakers and military generals  suggest a significant departure in its declaratory, if not its operational variation, from the official nuclear doctrine as revised in 203.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT NO NUCLEAR STATE IN THE WORLD IS TOTALLY IMMUNE TO SECURITY THREATS TO ITS NUCLEAR ASSETS, OR TO THE SIMPLE RISK OF SAFETY RELATED ACCIDENT. 

Influenced by a strong scientific community, India is moving away from its unequivocal policies of no first use (NFU) and maintaining a credible minimum deterrent, India’s development of its nuclear delivery capabilities can further play a destabilizing role by triggering a nuclear arms race in the region. Because of its geopolitical weight, New Delhi’s choices will have significant implications both for deterrence stability in the region and the future of the evolving world nuclear order.

The Indian nuclear establishment has also ditched its long-held claim of maintaining a credible minimum deterrent. Although much confusion surrounds what minimum means  in numbers credible minimum deterrence is no longer the driving aim of India’s nuclear doctrine. Achieving a credible minimum deterrent towards both of its primary strategic adversaries, China and Pakistan means substantially different levels of capability. What is credible toward China will not be minimum toward Pakistan and what is minimum toward Pakistan cannot be credible toward China. The probability of a major war with China is not very high so India’s nuclear posture should be framed keeping in view its primary deterrent adversary which is Pakistan and against whom they initially wanted to build a credible minimum deterrent. In addition, China is so advanced in nuclear capability that perhaps India will never be able to match China’s nuclear arsenal or delivery capability. But the prevailing attitudes toward nuclear weaponry among Indian nuclear security managers betray an over-obsession with China. such attitude will achieve nothing and start an unending nuclear arms race in South Asia. India’s conventional superiority could easily deter Pakistan from any attack against India, so India’s nuclear capability never had a strategic justification but was a desire for prestige.

There is no gainsaying the fact that India’s nuclear establishment is going down this potentially dangerous path due to the overriding influence of nuclear Scientifics and technical bureaucracies. Like Pakistan, the Civilian  political leadership due to complications of domestic politics, is not in a position to exercise authority over India’s vast  nuclear establishment.

On the other hand, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear programme has always received attention in the international media due to domestic political instability and growing international militant threats. There is little public discussion about  threats to the security of India’s huge civilian and military nuclear infrastructure. Instead, an overriding assumption exists that relevant agencies in India provide enough security to nuclear infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that no nuclear state in the world is totally immune to security threats to its nuclear assets, or to the simple risk of safety-related accidents. Giving the rapid growth of India’s nuclear arsenal over the past few years, different homegrown insurgents and militants have the potential to compromise India’s nuclear security. But there is no public information available about practical measures taken by New Delhi to counter internal threats to its nuclear weapons.

The current changes in India’s strategic posture and deployment patterns, whether politically sanctioned or not will surely force China and Pakistan to respond in ways that will likely prove determinate to  Indian and global security. India has been modernizing and expanding its forces both vertically and horizontally. Despite the world attention focused India’s nuclear doctrine may convert the terrorism. The mad pursuit of research Defense is totally inconsistent with anodic ability and uncertainty. Both India and Pakistan should halt expansion of their nuclear arsenals in order to enhance regional security.

AFGHANISTAN RAGES AGAINST UNITED STATES

AFGHANISTAN STEP DOWN AGAINST US

Afghan President has expressed extreme anger towards the United States as it prepares to end its 13 years war in Afghanistan, intensifying his criticism in his final months in power. Karzai has taken an increasingly antagonistic view of the US role in Afghanistan, despite formerly being a close all and accepting billions of dollars in aid since he took office after the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.  

The president who will stand down after elections on April 5, lashed out at the US government and described Al-Qaeda, the Islamist militants behind the 9/11 attacks as more a myth than a reality. To the American people given them my best wishes an my gratitude to the US government give them my anger my extreme anger, Karzai the Washington post in an interview on Monday.

But there was no immediate response from the US embassy in Kabul, but relations between  the two countries have plunged to a new low as the final 55000 US-led NATO troops prepare to head home and Karzai enters his final months in office.

The Afghan president made a surprise decision late last year not to sign an agreed deal that would see 812000 US troops stay in Afghanistan after this year on a training an counter-terrorism mission.

It is good for them (the US) to sing it with my successor, he said in an interview Karzai vented his fury over civilian causalities caused during the war against the Taliban, who had sheltered al Qaeda while in power in Kabul from 1996-2001.

Why is American here? I cannot answer for America. The American president says they are here to fight extremism and terrorism and to secure America.

If they way toward securing America is raiding Afghan homes, fighting in Afghan villages well that will  not secure America. 

Afghan president refusal to sign a security deal with Washington that would permit foreign troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond this year has frustrated the White House, and President Obama has told the Pentagon to prepare for the possibility that no US troops will be left in Afghanistan after 2014.

Obama told Karazi in a phone call on Tuesday that he had given the order to the Pentagon. The Phone call was  the first substantive discussion between the two leaders since June.

But staking out a new position, the White House said in a statement it would leave open the possibility of concluding the bilateral security agreement later this year. It is  good for them to sign it with my successor.

On the other hand, The NATO-led force in Afghanistan has a current strength of more than 50000 soldiers including 33000 US troops, more than 34000 coalition forces have been killed in the fight against the Taliban including US troops.

While Afghanistan’s police and army are seen as having made big strides in their remain about whether they can keep a still – potent Taliban at by, especially in remote areas.

It is also stated by the Afghan leader that he was deeply troubled by the war’s causalities, including those in US military operation and felt betrayed by what he described as an insufficient US focus on going after Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan rather than in Afghan villages.

NUCLEAR STOCK OF IRAN

NUCLEAR STOCK OF IRAN

Iran is reducing its most proliferation prone nuclear stockpile as required by its landmark deal with world powers but much work remains to be completed to resolve all concerns about Tehran’s activities.

Among measures Iran is taking sincere the interim agreement took effect on Jan 20 is the dilution of its stock of higher enriched uranium to a fissile concentration less suitable for any attempt to fuel an atomic bomb.

Iran is living up to its part of the six month accord in curbing its disputed nuclear programme in exchange nuclear programme in exchange for some easing of sanctions that  have impaired its oil-dependent economy. As of today measures aged under the Joint Plan of Action is being implemented as planned.

Under the accord Iran suspended enrichment of uranium to 20 percent fissile concentration a relatively short technical step away from the level step away from the level required for nuclear bombs and is taking action to neutralize its holding of the material.

Iran is gradually winning access to 4.2$ billion of its oil revenues frozen abroad and some other sanctions relief. The funds will be paid out in eight transfers on a schedule that started with a $ 550 million payment by Japan on Feb.1

Separately the IAEA is investigating suspicious largely believed to be based on intelligence provided by Western gates and Israel, that Iran has researched how to construct an atomic bomb, a charge Tehran denies. Iran says it is Israel’s assumed  nuclear arsenal that threatens Middle East peace.

Amano made clear his determination that those allegations alleged experimentation and tests to develop the expertise needed to turn fissile material into a functioning atomic bomb must be cleared up.