HUMOUR - ex-MI6 John Sawers - Russia Is A Threat To EVERY NATION

.......................................... Took me forever messing around with this, but the legibility is so crap it's not only a scaremongering fail ... it's a political humour fail, too (unless the image magnification link works). Nah, it looks like a right-click & 'View Image' task, until I figure how to code a hover enlargement, or something. So annoying.  :)

SWEDEN - The Woes of Foreign Minister Margot Wallström

Margot Wallström Riyadh blocks Sweden FM address at Arab League meeting The Swedish foreign minister says Saudi Arabia has blocked her scheduled speech at an Arab League meeting in the Egyptian capital city of Cairo. “The explanation we have been given is that Sweden has highlighted the situation for democracy and human rights [in Saudi Arabia] and that is why they do not want me to speak,” said Margot Wallström in Cairo on Monday, adding, “It’s a shame that a country has blocked my participation.” Wallström implicitly criticized the Arab League for allowing Saudi Arabia to exert such a considerable influence on other member states. The Arab League had invited the Swedish official to give an address to the ministerial meeting of the organization in praise of Stockholm’s official decision to recognize Palestine as an independent state in October 2014. The decision to cancel the speech “has also put the Arab League in a difficult situation since it means that a country can block an event of this kind," Wallström added. An Arab diplomat has confirmed the news about canceling Wallström’s scheduled address in Cairo, AFP reported. EXTRACT - FULL AT SOURCE http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/09/401035/KSA-bans-Sweden-FM-speech-at-AL  Russia blames Sweden for Ukraine crisis Russia’s embassy in Sweden has pointed the finger of blame at its host country for causing Ukraine's woes, in a furious response to comments made about the crisis by Foreign Minister Margot Wallström.  Writing on Facebook, the embassy lambasted the “honoured minister” for the “one-sided” view of the Ukraine conflict she put forward in an opinion piece published on Friday in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper. In the article, Wallström said Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its military support for separatists in eastern Ukraine posed the greatest threat to peace in Europe since the end of the Cold War. In its response, the Russian embassy suggested Sweden and others had provoked Russia into seizing part of its neighbour’s territory by offering Ukraine a pathway to membership of the European Union. “The main tool turned out to be a state coup, a violent power takeover, which pushed Ukraine into the abyss of civil war,” the embassy wrote. EXTRACT - FULL AT SOURCE http://www.thelocal.se/20150309/russia-blames-sweden-for-ukraine-crisis Wallström not welcome in Israel Sweden's Foreign Minister Margot Wallström had planned to visit Israel this Thursday, to take part in a seminar in memory of the Swede Raoul Wallenberg in Tel Aviv. The Swedish Foreign Office says the trip was cancelled for scheduling reasons. But according to Swedish Radio News, the real reason is that Wallström was not welcome in Israel. Israeli officials have refused to meet with her, and it would have been embarrassing for the Foreign minister to visit the country unofficially. EXTRACT - FULL AT SOURCE http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6067802

Israel’s Lieberman calls for beheading of Arab Israelis

Minutes after putting up the groovy IDF song for Defence Minister Ya'alon, I discover this streaming before me on social media: Israel’s Lieberman calls for beheading of Arab Israelis Mon Mar 9, 2015 12:18AM The Israeli foreign minister has called for the beheading of all Arabs living in the occupied territories, only because of their opposition to the policies of the Tel Aviv regime. Avigdor Lieberman said on Sunday that all Arabs who reside in occupied Palestine and oppose Israel for its discriminatory policies against the Palestinians should be decapitated. “… those against us, it cannot be helped, we must lift up an ax and behead them — otherwise we will not survive here.”  Lieberman said. The extremist Israeli politician, who leads the Yisrael Beytenu party, made the remarks during a campaign event ahead of the general election slated for mid March. Lieberman has repeatedly called for taking harsh measures against the Arabs living in the occupied territories, whom Lieberman call terrorists because of expressing their solidarity with the Palestinians. He has even called for issuing death penalties for those who publicly denounce Israeli’s policies against the Palestinians. “… [those] who raise a black flag on Nakba Day [on which Palestinians mourn the establishment of Israel] — from my perspective, they should leave here,” he said. Lieberman has also proposed a land swaps plan in which Arabs would be handed over to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for more territories in which Israel could expand its illegal settlements. In a TV debate earlier in the month, Lieberman lashed out at leader of the Arab party, Ayman Odeh, calling him a terror supporter and a fifth column. Lieberman is quite known for his odd and controversial comments on foreign policy issues, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu designating him as the “embarrassing foreign minister.” http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/03/09/400936/Arabs-opposing-Israel-must-be-beheaded COMMENT LMAO ... how bad do you have to be for Bibi to declare you an embarrassment! At first I wasn't sure this was real and wondered if PressTV had misconstrued what he'd said.  Maybe he didn't really mean literally behead them? This is unbelievable.  The guy's a foreign minister and he says crazy stuff like that. Some of the other Israeli politicians seem off their heads, too. Ayelet Shaked (HaBayit HaYehudi, The Jewish Home party member) is one of those. Confused about Israeli Arabs.  I thought they were Palestinians.  But they're not. Find it so bizarre that people in positions of power hold such extreme, hostile positions.

VIDEO: Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon - Defence Minister Israel - IDF Retirement Song

ꕤ Catchy song.  Quite like this. Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon Current Defence Minister Israel Former Chief of Staff IDF 2005 IDF retirement song source https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLA4118AC5D3712433&v=3NZjsrkcJEo&feature=player_embedded ꕤ

'It’s Nato that’s empire-building, not Putin' - Peter Hitchens

RUSSIA It’s Nato that’s empire-building, not Putin Two sides are required for a New Cold War — and there is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe Peter Hitchens 7 March 2015 "Rapid Trident" Military Exercises In Western Ukraine Just for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding? There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’ This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, Nato, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily, ‘Against whom is this expansion intended?’ I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which Nato was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist? There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either Nato or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders. But we do not do this. Instead we have a noisy pseudo-moral crusade, which would not withstand five minutes of serious consideration. Mr Putin’s state is, beyond doubt, a sinister tyranny. But so is Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, which locks up far more journalists than does Russia. Turkey is an officially respectable Nato member, 40 years after seizing northern Cyprus, which it still occupies, in an almost exact precedent for Russia’s seizure of Crimea. If Putin disgusts us so much, then why are we and the USA happy to do business with Erdogan, and also to fawn upon Saudi Arabia and China?  [A sinister tyranny?  Guy's off his head.  For sinister tyranny, check out the British mass surveillance, infiltration of political groups, US rendition, torture etc.] Contrary to myth, the expansion of the EU into the former communist world has not magically brought universal peace, love and prosperity. Croatia’s economy has actually gone backwards since it joined. Corruption still exists in large parts of the EU’s new south-eastern territories, and I am not sure that the rule of law could be said to have been properly established there. So the idea that the recruitment of Ukraine to the ‘West’ will magically turn that troubled nation into a sunny paradise of freedom, probity and wealth is perhaps a little idealistic, not to say mistaken.  [Foreigners will make a sh*tload of money out of Ukraine.  So the money part's right.] It is all so much clearer if we realise that this quarrel is about power and land, not virtue. In truth, much of the eastward expansion of Nato was caused by the EU’s initial unwillingness to take in backward, bankrupt and corrupt refugee states from the old Warsaw Pact. The policy could be summed up as ‘We won’t buy your tomatoes, but if it makes you happy you can shelter under our nuclear umbrella’. The promise was an empty assurance against a nonexistent threat. But an accidental arrangement hardened into a real confrontation. The less supine Russia was, the more its actions were interpreted as aggression in the West. Boris Yeltsin permitted western interests to rape his country, and did little to assert Russian power. So though he bombarded his own parliament, conducted a grisly war in Chechnya, raised corruption to Olympic levels and shamelessly rigged his own re-election, he yet remained a popular guest in western capitals and summits. Vladimir Putin’s similar sins, by contrast, provide a pretext for ostracism and historically illiterate comparisons between him and Hitler.  [ *Eyeroll*  How sneaky is this?  Now Putin is another Yeltsin?  Doubt that, or the West would love him.  It's precisely because he's got rid of all the leeches that he's vilified by the West.] This is because of his increasing avowal of Russian sovereignty, and of an independent foreign policy. There have been many East-West squabbles and scrimmages, not all of them Russia’s fault. But the New Cold War really began in 2011, after Mr Putin dared to frustrate western — and Saudi — policy in Syria. George Friedman, the noted US intelligence and security expert, thinks Russia badly underestimated the level of American fury this would provoke. As Mr Friedman recently told the Moscow newspaper Kommersant, ‘It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it [Russia] wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.’  [Hey, that's Stratfor Friedman.] Mr Friedman (no Putin stooge) also rather engagingly agrees with Moscow that overthrow last February of Viktor Yanukovych was ‘the most blatant coup in history’. He is of course correct, as anyone unclouded by passion can see. The test of any action by your own side is to ask what you would think of it if the other side did it. If Russia didn’t grasp how angry Washington would get over Syria, did the West realise how furiously Russia would respond to the EU Association Agreement and to the fall of Yanukovych? Perhaps not. Fearing above all the irrecoverable loss to Nato of its treasured naval station in Sevastopol, Russia reacted. After 23 years of sullenly appeasing the West, Moscow finally said ‘enough’. Since we’re all supposed to be against appeasement, shouldn’t we find this action understandable [Sneaky barb.] in a sovereign nation, even if we cannot actually praise it? And can anyone explain to me precisely why Britain, of all countries, should be siding with the expansion of the European Union and Nato into this dangerous and unstable part of the world? http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9459602/its-nato-thats-empire-building-not-putin/ COMMENT Thought it was finally a positive article about Russia, but it's just another article with anti-Russian barbs.  Didn't really enjoy this one.  Found it rather depressing. No way has Syria got anything at all to do with the behaviour of US-NATO in Ukraine.   US tit-for-tat regarding Syria is a load of horse manure.  The Americans have been pouring money and NGOs into Ukraine for decades, to install themselves in Ukraine, because it's part of their overall strategy for that region. Why Britain of all countries should be siding with expansion of the EU & NATO?  For the same reasons Britain was fighting Russians in that part of the world in the mid 1800s:  imperialism.

Saudi Arabia (largest Sweden trading partner in ME) - Sweden Weapons Factory Deal

GOOGLE TRANSLATION Investor behind Saudi article It's Investor Chairman Jacob Wallenberg behind the famous debate article in Dagens Nyheter. It reveals SR echo that have taken part of a secret emails. Investors PR agency Kreab would not comment on whether they have been involved.     2015-03-06 17:30 This morning, an article in Dagens Nyheter signed by 31 directors, including Stefan Persson, Anders Nyrén, CEO of Industrivärden and Cristina Stenbeck, Chairman of Kinnevik. They argue that Sweden's credibility as a trading partner is at stake and wants the government to respect the criticized cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, which means that Sweden is building a weapons factory ate and in Saudi Arabia. The article has stirred up a lot of emotions and H & M went earlier in the day received the call and says that Stefan Persson signed debate article as a private person.- H & M has not written during debate article, we do not stand behind it, 'said Camilla Emilsson Falk, Press Manager at H & M, to SvD. [SvD = Svenska Dagbladet - Swedish daily newspaper] Several others who signed has also declined to comment. Now reveals echo that it's Investors Chairman Jacob Wallenberg underlying debate article in cooperation with Ericsson's chairman Leif Johansson. In an email sent Wednesday from his secretary to 40 businessmen, he urges them to sign the final text."We now need to make the business a strong signal about the importance of Sweden respect signed agreements" it says in the email that Echo has taken note of. Investor have long collaborated with PR firm Kreab. When Résumé reaches Peje Emilsson who is the founder and chairman of getting a comment about their possible role in the debate article will answer the standard:- We never comment on what we do or do not do, he says. Fredrik Thambert http://www.resume.se/nyheter/pr/2015/03/06/investor-bakom-saudi-artikeln/ COMMENT Looks like Jacob Wallenberg + Leif Johansson (Ericsson chairman) have been lobbying hard for Sweden to proceed with setting up a weapons factory in Saudi Arabia, despite opposition in Sweden. Svenska Dagbladet owner = Schibsted Media Group is a Norwegian, listed co Largest shareholder = Blommenholm industrier (26.1%) = Tinius Trust (Norway) Other owners include a number of American banks and financial services companies eg  J. P. Morgan, Northern Trust  & The Bank of New York Mellon Huge interests spread over many countries. Some Sweden media interests: Aftonbladet (91%) Svenska Dagbladet Metro (35%) *Believe Metro is a free paper (unless this 'Metro' refers to another type of business). Source - Wikipedia Maybe this type of thing explains why Iran is an official 'enemy' in the West. Saudi Arabia would see Iran as a regional competitor in a number of respects (incl. religious - ie Iran Shia v Saudi Sunni). If Western companies are so bound up in money (projects, investment, selling arms to Saudi Arabia (now world's largest arms importer)), they would probably be inclined to support Saudi Arabia's position, foreign policy, aims and so on. I'm just guessing here.  But that makes sense to me. Looks like there might be a bit of a history in relation to this weapons factory deal (unless there's been more than one controversy): Anger over Sweden's 'secret' Saudi arms plant Opposition condemns government after broadcaster reveals documents said to show links between Swedish firm and Riyadh. 07 Mar 2012 18:59 GMT | Politics, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Sweden Sten Tolgfors, left, the Swedish defence minister, says there is no record of any such deal [EPA] Sweden has been secretly helping Saudi Arabia plan the construction of an arms factory to produce anti-tank missiles, the Swedish national broadcaster has reported. The Swedish Defence Research Agency (known by its Swedish acronym FOI) has co-operated with Saudi Arabia since 2005, though construction on "Project Simoom" has yet to begin, Swedish Radio reported on Tuesday, citing hundreds of classified documents and interviews with key players. Denying the existence of the project, Jan-Olof Lind, the FOI director general, told the radio station: "We do not have a project agreement with that country." While Sweden has sold weapons to Saudi Arabia in the past, classified government documents show that the current project "pushes the boundaries of what is possible for a Swedish authority", the radio reported. "The fact that an authority such as FOI is involved in the planning of a weapons factory for a government in a dictatorship such as Saudi Arabia is quite unique," the radio said. Asked specifically if there has been a Project Simoom with Saudi Arabia, Lind replied: "No. And I do not wish to comment on discussions that may or may not have occurred between Sweden and Saudi Arabia. These discussions are classified." Several former FOI employees, however, have confirmed the existence of the project to Swedish Radio, including Dick Straeng, who said he led the project until 2010. "If I were to contradict your claims I would have to say that the documents you are showing me are fakes, and they are not," he said when presented with the classified material. He said the Swedish government was fully aware of the plans. "Here is a document that the director general signed and sent to the ministry," he said. The defence ministry refused to comment on the radio's report because of the classified nature of the project. "I can't comment on the co-operation," Haakan Jevrell, the state secretary, told the radio. Shell company The radio station claimed that FOI set up a shell company in order to avoid any direct links between itself and the Saudi government. "FOI has, as far as the defence ministry knows, no collaboration with the company mentioned in the radio report," Sten Tolgfors, the Swedish defence minister, wrote on his blog. "There are no government decisions giving FOI a mandate to build a factory for weapons production," he added. Fredrick Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister, addressed the issue only briefly on Tuesday. "The government is responsible for ensuring that legislation and regulations are in place and followed, and I presume that the responsible authorities have respected the law," he told news agency TT. [How's that for sidestepping the issue & making this about merely govt administration and non-interference, while this is very much a government/public foreign policy matter.  As if govt is supposed to merely be a rubber stamp.  Or, that's how it sounds to me.] The co-operation deal with Saudi Arabia was struck in 2005 when the centre-left Social Democrats were in power, but was renewed in 2010 by the current government, the radio report said. [That's because all politicians work for the same masters.] Opposition uproar The co-head of Sweden's opposition Greens Party has demanded an investigation take place into the reported deal. Tolgfors, the defence minister, has been reported to the parliament's KU committee, which scrutinises ministers' handling of government affairs. "KU must examine whether the defence minister's actions are in line with Sweden's democratic ideals and international commitments," Gustav Fridolin said in a statement. He said a Swedish collaboration with Saudi Arabia would not be beneficial for democracy in the world or Swedish interests. "Sweden should not ruin its good reputation by supporting the militaries of dictatorships," he said. Another opposition party, the Left Party, has called for a special parliamentary debate. Deputy Prime Minister Jan Bjorklund, who is head of the second largest ruling party, the Liberals, in the centre-right coalition government, said he had been against the co-operation deal with Saudi Arabia under which such a plant would fall. "Sweden should be able to export military goods to democracies, not to dictatorships," he told reporters. Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, a member of the largest coalition party, the Moderates, told public radio that he supported continuing co-operation with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is Sweden's largest trading partner in the Middle East. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/03/20123718144905918.html Assuming these are linked stories. This looks like another example of Sweden's politicians doing things on the quiet & playing innocent when their activities comes to light. Don't know which documents they're referring to. Not really sure what the big deal is, apart from maybe it makes better commercial sense to do the manufacture, sales and export than it does to set someone else up to make weapons. On the other hand, if Saudi Arabia are backers of Sunni extremists in the Middle East, a Saudi weapons factory probably isn't ideal for regional peace and stability. Greens Party & Left Party are in opposition by the sound of things, while the Moderate Party and the Social Democratic Party play for the same side.   * Also, Defence Research / FOI set up a shifty shell company for distancing.  And then it looks like everyone went about denying what came out in the classified documents release.  Only for it to become an issue again in 2015.  How shift are all these politicians? * Yeah, Project Simoom, looks like the same weapons factory deal. Criticism of possible Sweden arms trade laws breach & secretive nature of deal took place when the deal was exposed.  This is not an exception in Sweden.  Parliament and public being fooled and kept in the dark by politicians and intelligence staffers seems to be the way things are done over there.  So what does this say about the likelihood of a secret US-Sweden deal regarding US-Swedish  'Project Get-Assange'?  I'd wager it's much like this secret deal that everyone denied.

War in Iraq Cost Over $1.7 trillion dollars / Private Contractors PROFIT from US War: $138 billion US taxpayer to private contractors

Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War By Angelo Young, International Business Times 20 March 13 The accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels. Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops. Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday. The No. 1 recipient? Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. ..., which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. ..., in 2007. The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg. Who were Nos. 2 and 3? Agility Logistics ... of Kuwait and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corp. Together, these firms garnered $13.5 billion of U.S. contracts. As private enterprise entered the war zone at unprecedented levels, the amount of corruption ballooned, even if most contractors performed their duties as expected. According to the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion. Disciplined soldiers that would traditionally do many of the tasks are commissioned by private and publicly listed companies. Even without the graft, the costs of paying for these services are higher than paying government employees or soldiers to do them because of the profit motive involved. No-bid contracting - when companies get to name their price with no competing bid - didn't lower legitimate expenses. (Despite promises by President Barack Obama to reel in this habit, the trend toward granting favored companies federal contracts without considering competing bids continued to grow, by 9 percent last year, according to the Washington Post.) Even though the military has largely pulled out of Iraq, private contractors remain on the ground and continue to reap U.S. government contracts. For example, the U.S. State Department estimates that taxpayers will dole out $3 billion to private guards for the government's sprawling embassy in Baghdad. The costs of paying private and publicly listed war profiteers seem miniscule in light of the total bill for the war. Last week, the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University said the war in Iraq cost $1.7 trillion dollars, not including the $490 billion in immediate benefits owed to veterans of the war and the lifetime benefits that will be owed to them or their next of kin. http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war COMMENT The things that stood out for me are: War in Iraq cost $1.7 trillion dollars PLUS $490 billion in immediate benefits owed to veterans PLUS lifetime benefits owed to them or their next of kin Privatization of US military operations rose to unprecedented levels Private contractors (companies) received min.  $138 billion of US taxpayer money for contracts doled out by US govt Half (52%) of that went to 10 govt contracts Biggest recipients: KBR, Inc ie parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co received:  $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over past decade Agility Logistics (of Kuwait) &  state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corp Kuwait contractors received  $13.5 billion of US contracts (jointly) Private enterprise entered the war zone at unprecedented levels Amount of corruption ballooned Costs higher than paying government employees Professional, disciplined soldiers - displaced No wind-back by Obama admin on doling out contracts (without public tender process) - on contrary: increase of such contracts Iraq = private contractors remain on the ground, although US military has largely pulled out of Iraq eg.  $3 billion taxpayer money to private guards for USG sprawling embassy in Baghdad This is really mindblowing.   The amount of money that is made by PRIVATE companies enriching themselves through war is staggering. Bear in mind also, that those who PROFIT from war will lobby FOR WAR. What is also staggering is that the functions of the US military have been farmed out. The danger of that is lack of (a) accountability and (b) transparency. So, really, the government is pulling a stunt where they've probably got an 'anything goes' thing happening, because what's going on is contracted and therefore beyond public scrutiny. Hopefully, that makes sense.  I don't have a way with words.  But I hope that idea comes across. If the military screws up, it is on government heads.  But if private contractors screw up, it is passed off as a bad apple, renamed and redeployed as a mercenary. The 'decommissioning' of the US military for these private contractor forces or functionaries is worthwhile considering. And there's also the costs incurred by the taxpayer funding those that: do the job at higher price than professional soldiers introduce corruption and those that don't even compete (put in tenders) but I think these aspects aren't half as important as the establishment of 'private' State armies and functionaries that are arm's length and beyond public accountability and scrutiny. What's also interesting is the Kuwait profits.