Uranium deal was only national security adjacent but deal is like the Gerhard Schröder Gazprom situation

Are there strategic implications for increasing Russian control of uranium production based on the Hillary Clinton Uranium One deal ? I would say no. It is national security adjacent and mainly corruption similar to the Gerhard Schröder Gazprom situation.

As Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schröder was a strong advocate of the Nord Stream pipeline project, which aims to supply Russian gas directly to Germany, thereby bypassing transit countries. The agreement to build the pipeline was signed two weeks before the German parliamentary election. On 24 October 2005, just a few weeks before Schröder stepped down as Chancellor, the German government guaranteed to cover 1 billion euros of the Nord Stream project cost, should Gazprom default on a loan. However, this guarantee had never been used.] Soon after stepping down as chancellor, Schröder accepted Gazprom’s nomination for the post of the head of the shareholders’ committee of Nord Stream AG, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest. German opposition parties expressed concern over the issue, as did the governments of countries over whose territory gas is currently pumped.

The Uranium deal I am referring to is the Uranium One buyout that was approved by Hillary Clinton. This appeared to be in exchange for millios to tens of millions donated to the Clinton foundation and perhaps millions of speaking fees for Bill Clinton.

Uranium production matters more than Uranium reserves

Reserves is only how much they bothered to find and the quality of how easy the source is to produce.

Russia and Kazakhstan already produce about 50% of world uranium.
It is about 15 times more than the USA.

USA at about 1900 tons per year
Kazak at about 24000 tons per year
russia at about 4000-5000 tons per year.

Canada having big oilsand reserves but produces a lot less than Saudi Arabia.

The USA has less uranium reserves than Russia and less than Kazakhstan.

Raw uranium or uranium in the ground is not that strategic.

It is enrichment that is strategic and the highly enriched uranium that is strategic

Russia clearly has plenty of the highly enriched uranium.

The recently revealed Clinton deal is mainly about the money, bribes and corruption. It could have been farmland, oil or copper mines.

It is not any more likely that Iran can get nukes or uranium because of the deal.

Characterizing the deal

It is strong national security adjacent and weakly about national security.

It was with “enemies” or bad guys. Russian President Putin and also the other guy who is president of Kazakhstan.

Putin bought the old Chancellor of Germany for Gazprom

This is like that.

China has corruption. All of the top guys [or there families] are billionaires or have tens to hundreds of millions.
But 98% of the top china guys want a strong china (national pride and interest) and skim there 20% and things get done.

The USA likes to pretend or claim that they are cleaner.
Yet Harry Reid has a net worth of 20 million after serving all his life in the Senate.

Al Gore is a near billionaire now.

If the US polticians were on the take AND solved problems then that would be better.

In Hong Kong or Taiwan, the individual tax returns were one page or a post card size declaration.
The government in each country is saying how much they want to take. 10%, 15%, 50% or whatever.
The process can be simple and fast. It does not have to be 5-20 days of complex forms and software or tax accountants.

The US tax system is for tax accountants
The US health care is for the doctors
The US finance system is for the stock speculators, bankers and Goldman
The US Military is for military industrial complex
The Space program is only 5% a space program and the rest is pork for policians.

Subscribe on Google News

Uranium deal was only national security adjacent but deal is like the Gerhard Schröder Gazprom situation

Are there strategic implications for increasing Russian control of uranium production based on the Hillary Clinton Uranium One deal ? I would say no. It is national security adjacent and mainly corruption similar to the Gerhard Schröder Gazprom situation.

As Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schröder was a strong advocate of the Nord Stream pipeline project, which aims to supply Russian gas directly to Germany, thereby bypassing transit countries. The agreement to build the pipeline was signed two weeks before the German parliamentary election. On 24 October 2005, just a few weeks before Schröder stepped down as Chancellor, the German government guaranteed to cover 1 billion euros of the Nord Stream project cost, should Gazprom default on a loan. However, this guarantee had never been used.] Soon after stepping down as chancellor, Schröder accepted Gazprom’s nomination for the post of the head of the shareholders’ committee of Nord Stream AG, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest. German opposition parties expressed concern over the issue, as did the governments of countries over whose territory gas is currently pumped.

The Uranium deal I am referring to is the Uranium One buyout that was approved by Hillary Clinton. This appeared to be in exchange for millios to tens of millions donated to the Clinton foundation and perhaps millions of speaking fees for Bill Clinton.

Uranium production matters more than Uranium reserves

Reserves is only how much they bothered to find and the quality of how easy the source is to produce.

Russia and Kazakhstan already produce about 50% of world uranium.
It is about 15 times more than the USA.

USA at about 1900 tons per year
Kazak at about 24000 tons per year
russia at about 4000-5000 tons per year.

Canada having big oilsand reserves but produces a lot less than Saudi Arabia.

The USA has less uranium reserves than Russia and less than Kazakhstan.

Raw uranium or uranium in the ground is not that strategic.

It is enrichment that is strategic and the highly enriched uranium that is strategic

Russia clearly has plenty of the highly enriched uranium.

The recently revealed Clinton deal is mainly about the money, bribes and corruption. It could have been farmland, oil or copper mines.

It is not any more likely that Iran can get nukes or uranium because of the deal.

Characterizing the deal

It is strong national security adjacent and weakly about national security.

It was with “enemies” or bad guys. Russian President Putin and also the other guy who is president of Kazakhstan.

Putin bought the old Chancellor of Germany for Gazprom

This is like that.

China has corruption. All of the top guys [or there families] are billionaires or have tens to hundreds of millions.
But 98% of the top china guys want a strong china (national pride and interest) and skim there 20% and things get done.

The USA likes to pretend or claim that they are cleaner.
Yet Harry Reid has a net worth of 20 million after serving all his life in the Senate.

Al Gore is a near billionaire now.

If the US polticians were on the take AND solved problems then that would be better.

In Hong Kong or Taiwan, the individual tax returns were one page or a post card size declaration.
The government in each country is saying how much they want to take. 10%, 15%, 50% or whatever.
The process can be simple and fast. It does not have to be 5-20 days of complex forms and software or tax accountants.

The US tax system is for tax accountants
The US health care is for the doctors
The US finance system is for the stock speculators, bankers and Goldman
The US Military is for military industrial complex
The Space program is only 5% a space program and the rest is pork for policians.

Subscribe on Google News