iftttwall

Authored by Michael Averko via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

There’ve been ongoing propaganda pieces that skirt over some inconvenient realities, for those seeking to unfairly admonish Russia in the Olympic movement.

One case in point is the January 2 Reuters article “Use 1992 Yugoslavia Precedent for Russians in Tokyo – Historian“. With a stated “some Russians“, that article suggestively under-represents the actual number of 2018 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang, while supporting a hypocritically flawed aspect, having to do with Yugoslavia in 1992.

The downplaying of Russian participation at Pyeongchang, is seemingly done to spin the image of many Russian cheats being kept out. At the suggestion of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) closely vetted Russians for competition at the 2018 Winter Olympics. In actuality, the 2018 Russian Winter Olympic participation wasn’t so off the mark, when compared to past Winter Olympiads – something which (among other things) puts a dent into the faulty notion that Russia should be especially singled out for sports doping.

At the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, Russia had its largest ever Winter Olympic contingent of 232, on account of the host nation being allowed a greater number of participants. The 168 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang is 9 less than the Russians who competed at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Going back further, Russian Winter Olympic participation in 2006 was at 190, with its 2002 contingent at 151, 1998 having 122 and 1994 (Russia’s first formal Winter Olympic appearance as Russia) 113.

The aforementioned Reuters piece references a “historian“, Bill Mallon, who is keen on using the 1992 Summer Olympic banning of Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro) as a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the upcoming Summer Olympics. In this instance, Alan Dershowitz’s periodic reference to the “if the shoe is on the other foot” test is quite applicable. Regarding Mallon, “historian” is put in quotes because his historically premised advocacy is very much incomplete and overly propagandistic.

For consistency sake and contrary to Mallon, Yugoslavia should’ve formally participated at the 1992 Summer Olympics. The Olympic banning of Yugoslavia was bogus, given that the IOC and the IOC affiliated sports federations didn’t ban the US and USSR for their respective role in wars, which caused a greater number of deaths than what happened in 1990s Bosnia. The Reuters article at issue references a United Nations resolution for sanctions against Yugoslavia, without any second guessing, in support of the preference (at least by some) to keep politics out of sports as much as possible.

Mallon casually notes that Yugoslav team sports were banned from the 1992 Summer Olympics, unlike individual Yugoslav athletes, who participated as independents. At least two of the banned Yugoslav teams were predicted to be lead medal contenders.

Croatia was allowed to compete at the 1992 Summer Olympics, despite that nation’s military involvement in the Bosnian Civil War. During the 1992 Summer and Winter Olympics, the former USSR participated in individual and team sports as the Unified Team (with the exception of the three former Soviet Baltic republics, who competed under their respective nation). With all this in mind, the ban on team sports from Yugoslavia at the 1992 Summer Olympics, under a neutral name, appears to be hypocritical and ethically challenged.

BS aside, the reality is that geopolitical clout (in the form of might making right), is what compels the banning of Yugoslavia, unlike superpowers engaged in behavior which isn’t less egregious. Although a major world power, contemporary Russia lacks the overall geopolitical influence of the USSR. Historian Stephen Cohen and some others, have noted that post-Soviet Russia doesn’t get the same (for lack of a better word) respect accorded to the USSR. This aspect underscores how becoming freer, less militaristic and more market oriented doesn’t (by default) bring added goodwill from a good number of Western establishment politicos and the organizations which are greatly influenced by them.

On the subject of banning Russia from the Olympics, Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound, continues to rehash an inaccurate likening with no critical follow-up. (An exception being yours truly.) Between 2016 and 2019, Pound references the Olympic banning of South Africa, as a basis for excluding Russia. South Africa was banned when it had apartheid policies, which prevented that country’s Black majority from competing in organized sports. Russia has a vast multiethnic participation in sports and other sectors.

As previously noted, the factual premise to formally ban Russia from the Olympics remains suspect. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is set to review Russia’s appeal to have the recommended WADA ban against Russia overturned, as Western mass media at large and sports politicos like Pound continue to push for a CAS decision against Russia.

In a move that’s seemingly unprecedented in the history of American organized crime, a gangster-turned-government witness has published an open letter to his former criminal associates, warning them that if they’re thinking about trying to whack him, they should probably reconsider – for their own sake.

Former Genovese family soldier Michael “Cookie” D’Urso penned the letter, which was first shared with Gang Land News, a premium site that aggregates news about the American Mafia. D’Urso addressed the letter to several ‘former associates’ who were ‘overheard’ by law enforcement sources discussing D’Urso’s new identity and whereabouts.

First, some background: D’Urso was a mob soldier in the early 1990s when he survived a bullet to the head, allegedly fired over a gambling debt during a late-night card game at a social club in Williamsburg. One of his cousins was killed in the incident, but D’Urso survived.

D’Urso, more than 20 years ago

He took it on the chin when his Genovese bosses forbade him from retaliating for the shooting. But it wasn’t until he caught wind that then-acting Genovese boss Farby Serpico had threatened to have him whacked that he decided to turn state’s witness, becoming one of only a handful of Genovese family members who have violated their oath of secrecy.

His testimony eventually helped the Fed’s jail more than 70 mob members and associates, including the current Genovese boss Liborio Bellomo.

Of course, all that was more than 20 years ago. D’Urso, now 49, has been living under a new identity provided by the witness protection program since then.

But, as he acknowledged in the letter, D’Urso still ventures into his old neighborhood from time to time. It’s during these visits that he warned any passing wiseguys should think twice if they think they’re going to boost their rep by taking D’Urso out.

In his letter, D’Urso insists that those who “know him” understand that he only cooperated to save his own life from being taken out by rivals for whom he had no respect, and that he would have done “100 years” in prison “for the right people.”

Even if he’s not armed with a gun, D’Urso warned that he’s a black belt in ju-jitsu and mixed martial arts, and that anyone who attacks him “will need a gun” – a bat or a knife simply won’t do it.

If the bosses are intent on rubbing him out – so be it, D’Urso said. But anyone involved in the plot should keep in mind that they will likely be caught and prosecuted. And their bosses could eventually face life imprisonment.

A LETTER TO THE MOB:

This letter is a heads up to the individuals who were seen and overheard during the Christmas holidays at the TBar Steak & Lounge on the Upper East Side talking about me.

Law enforcement folks told me you were talking about my new identity and where I might be living today. I hope that 20 years later, no one would be so stupid to get himself into very serious trouble over me.

While I still have some respect for the life I once lived and the life that some of my old friends and acquaintances still choose to live, rest assured I WILL NEVER GET CAUGHT SLEEPING AGAIN. I am ready, able and willing to defend my family and myself. Also, I have very capable ex-law enforcement friends with gun permits who are with me all the time. And don’t forget, there are cameras everywhere today that can track people to and from any location.

As you know, I didn’t create this mess. I was extremely loyal until my life was in danger for the SECOND time. The people that got in trouble because of me can thank Farby for threatening me on the phone and putting me in the position that led to me cooperating. What boss gets on the phone to actually threaten someone? Did he not expect a response? As a street guy was I supposed to just let someone I don’t know abuse me? No f- -king way.

I hate the fact that some of my Bronx friends got caught up in my cooperation. They are legitimate tough guys. They know who they are. If I had been with them before, I believe they would have been by my side the second I got shot and would have helped me get even. I am truly sorry you guys got wrapped up in the investigation.

There was only one person who raised a finger to try and help me get revenge when I got shot, and my cousin got killed.

Unfortunately he [Editor:Vito Guzzo] got 38 years in prison. He was arrested before I cooperated. He was facing the death penalty and I paid for his capital punishment attorney while I was cooperating. The government didn’t need me to convict him.

When Sammy Meatballs [Editor:Salvatore Aparo] came to me with tears in his eyes and said, “If I send for you don’t come,” I knew that Farby was going to have me killed. I had no choice but to reach out to the government. Those of you who truly knew me know that I would have done 100 years for the right people and the right reasons.

There could not be a brotherhood without loyalty. But no real man can ever accept being told not to seek retribution when someone shoots you in the head and kills your cousin.

I understand why people have to act like tough guys when my name gets brought up. I would do the same if I was in their shoes. But just because I have been respectful and not rubbed anything in any of your faces, do NOT think that I will go on the defense if I see any of you. I am not running and I don’t need a weapon to protect myself. I am a black belt in Brazilian Ju-Jitsu and have been training in mixed martial arts for over 14 years. A bat and a knife won’t help you so you will have to use a gun.

But if you, and your bosses, feel that getting me is worth risking life in prison, then come find me. Just keep in mind that your bosses will get prosecuted for the murder as well.

And rest assured that if I feel my life is threatened, I WILL BE ON OFFENSE, NOT DEFENSE. I FEAR NO ONE AND NEVER WILL. And remember that there is no statute of limitations for the murder of a federal witness. And you’d be surprised to find out how many confidential informants there are in your circle, who would love to tell the feds they heard about a murder plot to kill me.

To the gangsters in my neighborhood: If you stop and think, you will realize that I left all of you out of my cooperation on purpose. I didn’t hurt any of you. I didn’t seek you out. I could have started a beef to draw you out. But I didn’t want to see anyone in the neighborhood get in trouble whether we were on good terms or not.

I bring this up because I still come in and out of the neighborhood every so often. If you see me, do yourself a favor and do not confront me. It may look like I’m alone but I’m not. Again, I am respectful but fear no one and you might not be happy with the outcome of a confrontation.

Everyone should just focus on their families, their well-being, and staying out of jail. Continue to make money the smart way and leave the violence that gets you life in prison alone. For those of you that have money, find ways to keep it and for those of you that don’t, find ways to make it without violence. Times are different today.

Cookie

And for anybody who thinks the five families aren’t still active in the New York area, one recent report from NBC New York delves into how the mafia has changed and evolved since John Gotti’s imprisonment in the early 1990s.

Authored by Peter van Buren via TheAmericanConservative.com,

History will judge the long-term impact of the death of Qassem Soleimani. In the short-to-medium term, let’s step back from the fear-mongering and instead focus on the geopolitical factors that make the large-scale war many fear unlikely.

For Iran to provoke such a war is suicide. They have no incentive to escalate to that level, though they may conduct attacks consistent with previous decades. Those attacks, and the U.S. responses, will in the current political and media climate (#WWIII was trending on Twitter and frightened youngsters crashed the Selective Service website worried a draft is forthcoming) consume our attention far beyond their actual impact. But they will in reality cycle inside the rough rules of what diplomats call escalation dominance, the tit-for-tat trading of controlling the moment, trying to stay under the victims’ threshold of response. Emotion is for amateurs.

The most recent series of events bear this out. According to our government officials, Iran and/or its proxies have fired on U.S. bases in Iraq multiple times, initiating the current escalation that included Soleimani’s assassination and this week’s missiles launched from inside Iran at American bases at Al Asad and in Erbil. Yet according to one long-time regional observer, “This doesn’t yet feel like a major escalation. Iran can claim it took revenge. Feels more like an escalation to deescalate.” Among other signals, the missiles’ long flight time, over some 200 miles, gave obvious warning to areas already on alert.

Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted that Iran was finished fighting and was not actively pursuing further escalation. Trump undertook no immediate counterattack, and in a speech spoke only of further economic sanctions alongside some vague thoughts on future agreements. The two countries’ actions add up to a collective “we’re done if you’re done.”

This was all to be expected. Iranian leaders know their country can be destroyed from the air. As only a regional power, it suffers from a massive technological disadvantage in any direct conflict with the U.S. It is far beyond the days in which Marines were driven from Somalia after “Black Hawk Down” in 1993, or out of Lebanon after the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks by Iranian proxy Hezbollah. Unlike years past, America is willing to take a punch to throw back two. Iran’s political leaders are aware of the limits of asymmetric warfare in this world, especially because America’s lack of dependence on Persian Gulf oil means 2020 is not 1991.

Iran, under sanctions, is near totally dependent on what oil it can export. Oil requires massive infrastructure, all of which can be bombed. Iran’s military operates in large part out of fixed sites. Its navy is small and its bases can be destroyed from the air, its harbors mined from above and below the water. Iran’s military strength is ranked 14th globally below Brazil and Italy; the U.S. is ranked first.

I’ve been to Iran. I saw the martyrs memorial outside the main marketplace in the holy city of Mashhad, with the names of Iranians who died fighting the U.S. in Iraq from 2003 forward. Soleimani has already joined the pantheon of martyrs as of this week, but he is neither the first nor the last soldier to die in this ongoing long war.

Iran’s government, meanwhile, is a tense coalition of elected civilians, unelected military, and theocrats. None would stay in power following a major war. They face an almost schizophrenic population, happy to chant “death to America” but equally open to the idea—albeit on more liberal terms than five American presidents, Republican and Democrat, have been willing to offer—of finding a way out from under sanctions that would release their potential and open them to the world.

Iran understands its limits. Think about the provocations it has been forced to endure without escalation: U.S. troops landing in-country in a failed hostage rescue in 1980; U.S. support for Iraq in using weapons of mass destruction and the provision of intelligence that allowed the Iraqis to rain missiles on Iranian cities in the 1980s; the U.S. shooting down an Iranian civilian aircraft, killing some 300 innocents in 1988; and the U.S. invading and occupying Iran’s eastern border (Iraq 2003) and western approaches (Afghanistan 2001) and maintaining bases there. 

In 2003, when Iran reached out following initial American military successes, George W. Bush flippantly declared them part of an Axis of Evil. U.S. forces then raided an Iranian diplomatic office in Iraq and arrested several staffers in 2007. The U.S. has kept crippling economic sanctions in place for decades, conducted the Stuxnet cyberattack in 2010 to destroy Iranian nuclear centrifuges, and initiated another cyberattack in 2019—never mind what the Israelis have done covertly. Nothing led to a wider war. Soleimani died in context.

Iraq, politically and geographically in the middle, has every reason to help calm things down. Despite the rhetoric, the Iraqi government needs the U.S. in situ as a balance against Iranian hegemony and as a hedge against the rebirth of ISIS. The recently passed, non-binding resolution for U.S. troops to leave Iraq carries no weight. It was passed by a divided government in caretaker status, applies only to the withdrawal of the anti-ISIS joint task force, and lacks both a timetable to happen and a mechanism to enforce it. Even that symbolic vote was boycotted by Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish (so much for losing the Kurds as allies) legislators, illustrating the difficulties a coalition Iraqi government faces in getting anything done.

Should Iraq somehow find a way to move against the U.S. troop presence, promised American sanctions on Iraqi oil would devastate the economy and likely topple a government already besieged by its citizens of all backgrounds for failing to provide necessary basic services. The $200 million in direct aid the U.S. paid Iraq last year is a tiny portion of the billions flowing in from Washington via loans, military assistance, training funds, etc. That all would be missed. Iraq needs a relative state of peace and stability to hold on. It will make ceremonial anti-American actions to appease its Shia majority and make it appear it is not being ordered around by the Americans it loves to hate, but the U.S. is not be driven out of Iraq.

America itself has no reason to escalate any of this into a real war. Iran is strategically more or less where it has been for some time and there is no U.S.-side driver to change that now. Chaos in Tehran serves no purpose, and war would spiral the nation into a series of internal struggles spiced with fissionable material that has no place in a foreign policy calculus in an election year at home. Trump gets the political credit (84 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of the strike) from his base for a tough-guy move with none of the sticky problems a wider conflict would create. His post-missile attack remarks position him as open to new talks of some kind.

To accept the U.S. will start a major war assumes a fully irrational actor unfettered. Many people want to believe that for political purposes, but the hard facts of the last three years say that when it gets to this strategic level, Trump has not acted irrationally. Same this time: he did not act irrationally, or even provocatively, in the aftermath of the Iranian missile launches.

It’s hard to point to any irrational act, a decision made that is wholly without logic or reason, a choice Trump knew would have dire consequences yet went with anyway. Forget the tweets; they have never added up to much more than fodder for pop psychologists, impulsive remarks not followed by impulsive acts. Absolutely none of the apocalyptic predictions have come to pass. See North Korea, where Trump was supposed to start World War III two years ago, or the trade wars that were to destroy the global economy, or any of the other pseudo-crises. In sum, no new wars. Economy chugging along. Trump manipulating Democrats into practically putting Che-style Soleimani T-shirts up on Etsy. 

The current commander-in-chief is likely to start a war? He’s the only recent president who hasn’t.

Despite all the new wealth created by tech IPOs in 2019, home prices in the Bay Area are stagnating at potentially dangerous peaks. 

According to real estate firm Compass, the median price of a home in San Francisco rose 1.3% Y/Y to $1.6 million, the smallest growth since 2012. 

Compass said the median price for homes in Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Stanford, and Santa Clara, collectively saw 6% declines to $1.26 million.

Last spring, CNBC was drumming up the narrative that tech IPOs, including Uber, Slack, Pinterest, and Zoom Video Communications, would boost the housing market with new buyers. However, many of the IPOs went bust last year and didn’t create a new buyer pool as home prices are at danger of reversing from record-high levels. 

The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller San Francisco Home Price NSA Index shows that the average change in the value of the residential real estate in the region has been slipping since July 2018. 

After a seven-year tech party and the Federal Reserve injecting obscene amounts of liquidity into the market to fuel bubbles — it seems that Bay Area home prices could have hit a structural high. This means a correction could be nearing. 

 

Authored by William Suberg via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin can deliver 100% returns to investors in 2020 and may rise significantly in the five months until May’s block reward halving, a new report claims. 

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

In its forthcoming 2020 Crypto Outlook, market research firm Fundstrat Global Advisors said it believed that the halving was not yet “priced into” the Bitcoin price.

Fundstrat expects over 100% BTC gains

The report is currently only available to the firm’s clients, with key findings uploaded to Twitter by co-founder Tom Lee on Jan 10.

“For 2020, we see several positive convergences that enhance the use case and also the economic model for crypto and Bitcoin — thus, we believe Bitcoin and crypto total return should exceed that of 2019,” an excerpt states.

Fundstrat continued:

“In other words, we see strong probability that Bitcoin gains >100% in 2020.”

The factors Lee and others identified focus on geopolitical tensions and the upcoming United States presidential elections, in addition to the halving. 

Fundstrat took its cue from events last year, noting BTC/USD hit its high point amid tensions around Facebook’s Libra digital currency and negative comments on Bitcoin by president Donald Trump. 

Bull catalyst or “non-event”?

As Cointelegraph reported, geopolitical factors form the basis for other commentators’ bullish Bitcoin price scenarios for this year. 

As regards the impact of the halving, however, pundits are less united. Last month, Jason Williams, co-founder at digital asset fund Morgan Creek Digital, said May would prove to be a “non-event” for Bitcoin.

Williams appeared to contradict fellow co-founder Anthony Pompliano, who a month previously had claimed that even at $8,750, Bitcoin was yet to have the halving priced in.

By now, you probably know that Elon Musk appears to have knocked up his girlfriend, Grimes.

And just when you thought that was more than enough information on the billionaire’s personally, you fire up the Bloomberg terminal and wind up staring at this:

The headline comes from an Elon Musk tweet where the CEO, who is probably delirious with joy after watching his stock hit all time highs while facing zero accountability from the NHTSA, tweeted “Bitcoin is *not* my safe word”.

A “safe word” is, of course, a word used by sexual partners during rough sex. It’s a proverbial “tap out” when things make the transition from playful to harmful. You know, like the Fed with monetary policy over the last 20 years.

And regardless of whether Musk is serious or not remains to be seen, but that didn’t stop CCN from running an article with the title “Elon Musk Likes Shouting ‘Bitcoin’ While Having Sex”. 

And just like that, the voices of millions of Bloomberg terminal users cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. 

We can’t tell if it’s a commentary from Musk on cryptocurrency. CCN notes “in the past, Musk has described bitcoin as quite brilliant.He’s even had his Twitter account suspended for half-jokingly urging one of his followers to buy the cryptocurrency.” In April he tweeted, “Cryptocurrency is my safe word.” 

Regardless, it seems like more time well spent on Twitter for the world’s favorite boy genius. We wonder how those 100 hour work weeks are still coming along.

And for us, this Tweet and the pregnancy news amount to far more Elon Musk sex-related news than we would ever want. 

But hey – if we had gotten away with all of the lies and deceit that Musk has over the last decade while the market rewards our cash incinerating company with a nearly $100 billion enterprise value, we’d be horny too. 

Authored by James Fite via LibertyNation.com,

Back in 2014, Charles Barkley told James Harden during a Foot Locker commercial obviously inspired by Democrats in the Swamp that “all the greats have short memories.” He didn’t know anything about any of the unfortunate events Harden mentioned, just that all the greats have short memories, and even passed to Scottie Pippen for confirmation. “I sure do,” Pippen assured Harden. “And I’m the greatest Chicago Bull of all time.” “And that’s how it’s done,” Barkley replied.

That’s how it’s done in the Swamp, too. But in politics, it isn’t only “the greats” who suffer this amazing case of mass amnesia.

Iran: What Would Hillary Do?

As tensions rise between the United States and Iran, the delusional Democrats who were “with her” back in 2016 are coming out of the social media woodwork to say, “I told you so.” Trump’s starting a war with Iran – never mind the fact that his aggressive moves against the Middle Eastern nation have all come after attacks by Iran or Iran-backed groups. If a country attacks the United States, what is the president supposed to do, just sit back and let Americans die like Obama and Clinton did in Libya?

But never mind for a moment whether Trump should take action. Let’s focus on the Cult of Clinton and their claims that Madam President would have done better. Short memories: All the greats have them. In 2008, back when then-Senator Clinton wanted to be president the first time, she made it clear that, if she won, any Iranian attacks on Israel meant war with the U.S.

“We didn’t want Trump to attack Iran, so we voted for this psychopath instead” pic.twitter.com/lk4wcUbD0a

— Yusuf (@yusufneedsarest) January 3, 2020

To be fair to Mrs. Clinton, she was talking about Iran attacking Israel, not the United States. So, perhaps she wouldn’t have cared as much had the lives lost been American. She certainly didn’t balk as secretary of state when Obama allowed Iranian aggression to go unpunished. And while we’re on the subject of short memories, how about that love for Israel back in ’08?

The Majority Wants A Wall – Every Majority

Iran and war aren’t the only issues on which Democrats appear to be suffering from amnesia. In 2016, Donald Trump said we need a wall between the United States and Mexico. Why? Well, obviously Trump the Terrible hates anyone who isn’t white. What an evil, sick man. But what about just ten years earlier, when Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer – all senators at the time – voted for the Secure Fence Act. Schumer defended this – and condemned such verbal trickery as calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” – as recently as 2009. It seems every majority wants a wall – or at least a really good fence. It’s only politically expedient for Democrats to oppose border security when their guy isn’t in the White House.

Chuck Schumer in 2009:

-Americans don’t like illegal immigration
-“Illegal immigration is wrong”
-People illegally in the U.S. are “illegal aliens,” not “undocumented”
-Border fence made the southern border “far more secure…created a significant barrier to illegal immigration” pic.twitter.com/zoVyEgdrTC

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) December 28, 2018

Intellectual Dishonesty And Dredging Up The Past

But all that happened more than a decade ago, you might say. It’s old news. And you would be right; it is. But that doesn’t mean it’s no longer relevant. Sure, some people do change their perspectives over time. But it’s a little suspicious that Democrats only changed their minds regarding the issues on which Donald Trump decided to agree with them.

Hillary Clinton

A phrase that pops up in the conversation from time to time when conservatives bring up these old videos is “intellectually dishonest.”  As if anyone were trying to pass off videos of a 2009 Chuck Schumer calling for tougher border security or a 2008 Hillary Clinton threatening war with Iran as recent. The intellectual dishonesty is in flip-flopping on the issues to back whatever stance seems most likely to win an election.

It’s the delusional Democrats who are being intellectually dishonest this time – or just suffering from the short memories of the greats – when they tweet #IVotedForHillary. War with Iran would have been just as likely with President Clinton in 2016 as it is now that we have President Trump – and it would have likely happened even sooner had we elected President Clinton in 2008.

Since Carlos Ghosn’s ‘Great Escape’ from house arrest in Tokyo over the new year holiday, reporters from around the world have been scrambling to dig up any details they can about the planning, execution and consequences of the now-legendary extraction operation, which was reportedly masterminded by an ex-Green Beret with a checkered past (and a reputation for rescuing kidnapping victims around the world).

Ghosn has refused to offer any more details about the planning and execution of the escape, other than saying that he numbed himself during the journey.  In the days since that press conference, some signs of strain have surfaced between Ghosn and his new host country, Lebanon, which yesterday announced a travel ban preventing Ghosn from leaving Lebanon while an INTERPOL red notice is still active.

Carlos Ghosn

While we might not learn any more details about Ghosn’s escape – at least not any time soon – a team of Bloomberg reporters have produced what seems to us like a realistic tally of the former auto titan’s expenses.

They determined that in addition to the $14 million in bail he forfeited by fleeing Japan, the operation to win his freedom might have cost another $15 million.

This includes $350,000 for the chartered jet that flew Ghosn from Osaka to Istanbul. The rest likely went to pay expenses and fees for a team of up to 25 people, who may have taken as long as six months to plan the operation. The enormous cost has seen Ghosn’s fortune shrink by roughly 40% since his arrest more than a year ago at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport.

Still, Ghosn’s net worth is still believed to be roughly $70 million – down from roughly $120 million at the time of his first court appearance in Japan. And looking ahead, Ghosn will likely rack up millions of dollars in legal fees pretty quickly as France investigates possible misuse of funds by Ghosn to host a lavish party at Versailles. Nissan is also trying to evict him from the pink villa in Beirut where he is staying. That villa was purchased and maintained by the company for the benefit of the CEO.

Ghosn’s downfall had already prompted Nissan and Renault, the two members of the Nissan-Renault-Mitsubishi alliance where Ghosn exercised the most control, to cancel some $140 million in retirement benefits that would have gone to the former CEO.

Though the general public wasn’t well-acquainted with Ghosn before his escape from Japan, the former CEO’s high-stakes antics has captured the public’s interest. Many have speculated that Netflix & HBO will rush to develop series about Ghosn’s escape from Japan, and a side-scrolling videogame entitled “Ghone is gone” has been uploaded to popular video-gaming service Steam.

Meanwhile, Ghosn is said to be planning a tell-all book, according to Japanese public broadcaster NHK.

Via MarketCrumbs.com,

Japanese conglomerate SoftBank Group is the the 36th-largest public company in the world and second-largest in Japan. SoftBank founder and CEO, Masayoshi Son, was even briefly the wealthiest person in the world in 2000 before losing 90% of his wealth when the dot-com bubble popped.

SoftBank is mostly known in the U.S. for its investments in startups through its SoftBank Vision Fund. The Vision Fund, which was founded in 2017, is the largest technology-focused venture capital fund in the world with more than $100 billion in capital.

Son revealed last year that LPs in the fund were already up 45%, after fees, two years after the fund’s inception. The Vision Fund booked successful investments in Flipkart, which sold to Walmart for $16 billion, and Nvidia. The Vision Fund’s notable investments in Uber, WeWork and Slack were performing well on paper until they came crashing down.

Last year saw the valuations of the Vision Fund’s largest investments take losses reminiscent of the days when Son was the world’s wealthiest person.

Early last year, Uber, which had hoped to achieve an IPO valuation of $120 billion, went public at a valuation of around $75 billion. This was a disappointment to SoftBank, which invested in Uber at valuations of $48 billion and $70 billion. Uber’s current market capitalization values the ride-hailing company at approximately $58 billion.

Most notably, SoftBank dumped more than $10 billion into WeWork, driving its valuation all the way up to $47 billion before the company’s epic collapse. The IPO never happened and SoftBank ended up throwing another $10 billion at WeWork to acquire over 70% of the company in a deal valuing it at about $8 billion.

The investments pushed SoftBank to its first quarterly loss in 14 years as the Vision Fund booked an $8.9 billion loss. “My investment judgment was poor in many ways and I am reflecting deeply on that,” Son said following the earnings release.

Late last year SoftBank racked up another loss. The Vision Fund took a loss on the $300 million it invested in dog-walking app Wag at a $650 million valuation. The company simultaneously laid off 80% of its workforce. Son hinted at another loss looming at Wag during SoftBank’s earnings release. “Is there any other similar concern? In fact, yes, there is,” Son said. “Like a dog-walking company and other portfolio companies, we may see similar problems surfacing.”

The new decade finds SoftBank back where it closed out the last one.

Zume, which landed a $375 million investment from SoftBank, is laying off 50% of its workforce as it pivots from making pizza with robots to food packaging. SoftBank invested in Zume at a $1 billion valuation, which was nearly five times the startup’s previous valuation of just $218 million.

SoftBank’s reputation is now taking a hit in the startup community as the Vision Fund has walked away from a few startups that it had previously offered term sheets to. Some speculate SoftBank walked from the deals because the Vision Fund 2 hasn’t raised outside capital yet. Others believe SoftBank may still be “shell shocked” by the WeWork collapse.

As the Vision Fund closed out the decade by pushing SoftBank to its first quarterly loss in 14 years, the last thing Son wants to see is the Vision Fund’s struggles carry over into the new decade. 

Amid the ongoing US-Iran crisis German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Saturday in her first visit since May 2018. Crucially it also comes the same day Iran’s leadership admitted to shooting down a Ukrainian passenger plane amid launching ballistic missiles on US bases in Iraq, killing all 176 passengers and crew.

Also topping the agenda for the Saturday afternoon working meeting was Syria and Libya. But the Iran nuclear deal was front and center, with both leaders agreeing they must seek to preserve the 2015 JCPOA “by all means”. 

Merkel stressed to reporters soon after coming out of talks with Putin that “everything must be done to keep the JCPOA going” and committed to using “all the diplomatic tools to help this agreement.” She explained further, “It is not perfect but it is still an agreement and it involves responsibilities for all the parties involved. And we want to keep it.”

“We agreed that we should do anything to preserve the deal, the JCPOA. Germany is convinced that Iran should not acquire or have nuclear weapons,” Merkel said during a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This after within the past two weeks as Washington and Tehran essentially enter open war, Iran’s leaders have declared they consider “no limits” are currently in place on their nuclear energy program, which they’ve said remains for peaceful purposes. 

Putin also said the “tremendously important” deal must be preserved and that all parties must “come back to the deal” in statements chiefly aimed at the United States. Putin said to reporters, according to the early Russian media translation:

“After the US refused to abide by the agreement, Iran announced suspension of its obligations as well. I would like to underscore that these obligations were voluntarily embraced by Iran. Iran is ready to come back to full compliance with the JPCOA.”

And addressing the European initiative to set up a “SWIFT alternative” special payment vehicle for Iran, Putin expressed optimism that INSTEX would seen be “be up and running” and the European nations “would deliver on their promise to create an independent mechanism free of the dollar influence.”

Though the Ukraine crisis has remained a point of tension and damaged relations between Moscow and Berlin, both have lately been critical of the January 2nd US drone strike on Iran’s Gen. Soleimani. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry previously condemned it as “reckless” while German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Rainer Breul somewhat more ambiguously agreed, saying that “information that would allow us to see that the US attack was based on international law.”

On Friday the Trump administration imposed new economic sanctions on Iran, however, most analysts are now in agreement that the end result of the past two chaotic weeks of soaring tensions, most especially the Soleimani assassination, will only push Iran further away from the 2015 agreement brokered under Obama.