Category: zerohedge

Authored by Viktor Katuna via OilPrice.com,

Although some companies have learned to ride the waves of geopolitics quite efficiently, still in most cases political tensions only complicate the dealings of energy companies. The Skripal poisoning case has driven a massive political wedge between the United Kingdom and Russia (nations whose relations are historically strained already) and is on the verge of blighting their energy ties. The UK Government’s threats to ban Russian gas imports altogether would be a very short-sighted step, the harm of which would take many years to undo. As opposed to the usual rhetoric of ‘‘safeguarding energy security“ and ‘‘countering Russian influence“, both London and Moscow have a lot to win from a good energy relationship.

The Skripal case is slowly turning into a whodunnit where no one will tell you what really happened and you have to reconstruct everything by yourself – why was the allegedly lethal nerve agent not that lethal, who perpetrated the poisoning and how exactly. Usually when analyzing foreign affairs‘ scandals, it is imperative to look at who could benefit from such a deterioration. One thing is for sure – energy companies only stand to lose. Firstly, British companies might see their maneuvering space narrowed down, especially against the background of Brexit jeopardizing Britain’s adherence to the internal energy market (IEM) of Europe. Although the May government wishes to remain in the IEM, so as not to risk the potential $700 million per year expenses it could bear in a worse-case scenario breakup.

Even if a disaster can be averted and the United Kingdom would stay, regardless if in a limited or full-fledged manner, in the IEM, infrastructure funding from EU funds will almost certainly evaporate. This could be one of the Brexit’s most serious energy consequences, since 16 EU projects of common interest are UK-related, without funding from Brussels, many fall into the risk category of not being implemented. Continental Europe might turn out to be more resolute vis-à-vis UK Brexit demands than expected, for instance, it might justifiably ask whether the €9 billion invested in British electricity and gas projects in 2012-2017 under EIB auspices could have been allocated someplace else. But the risk of relinquishing on Paneuropean trade preferences and investment is not the only specter haunting the UK’s energy specialists.

Concurrently with the trends above, the UK North Sea gas production entered the phase of terminal decline after a temporary rebound in 2013-2017. Thus, imports will inevitably play a more significant role in the UK gas matrix as the rate of production decline will outpace that of a forecast demand decline (expected to balance out at around 60 BCm per year). Adding insult to injury, the UK’s largest gas storage facility, Rough, closed down last Summer, wiping out a hefty part of the nation’s potential storage capacity (3.31 BCm). As things stand currently, UK can sustain only 2 percent of its annual consumption from its storages, which necessitates a thorough rethinking of its gas imports. In such an intricate situation, flexibility of supply should be the paramount aim of the UK political establishment.

Many self-proclaimed energy experts claim that Russia might use its gas supplies as an energy weapon, yet in the case of the United Kingdom there is virtually no risk of seeing that happening. Russia supplies 7 percent of UK crude oil imports and 13 percent of its products intake, in both cases trailing significantly to Norway (56 percent) and the Netherlands (20 percent), correspondingly. Yet crude was never really the crucial issue, gas has been boggling the minds of energy wonks ever since LNG from the recently launched Yamal LNG project hit the terminals of Isle of Grain and Milford Haven. Yet the situation with Britain’s gas imports is even more clearcut as it is with crude – 75 percent of its gas imports are fed via pipeline from Norway, with an additional 13 percent supplied from Qatar in the form of LNG.

Russia’s energy footprint in the United Kingdom has been anything but significant – a fitting example is Gazprom Export, which according to its statistics, supplied 16.3 BCm of gas last year to the UK (34 percent of its import volumes), without specifying the origins of the above gas or disclosing whether the volumes in question were physically delivered to Britain or were swapped elsewhere. Keeping in mind that Norway and Qatar satisfy between themselves 90 percent of UK gas imports (and in both cases Russian companies are not part of the transaction), one can easily assume that any talk of a serious energy clout is a wild overstatement. Which brings us to a key assumption – Russian oil and gas cargoes can be of massive help to the UK to keep their supplies, especially in winter months, as flexible as possible.

While it‘s very difficult in the current political climate to advocate free trade with Russia and not be labelled a propagandist, energy issues are best kept out of politicians‘ direct sphere of influence. Supervision is one thing, obstructionism is an entirely different one. For instance, when Britain needed gas on short notice late February, two 164 000 m3 LNG cargoes were delivered from the Russian Yamal LNG. Everyone was glad about it, except for the political elite. Yet Yamal LNG is just a tiny part of the whole equation – with Baltic LNG expected to come on stream mid-2020s, it would be the closest source of LNG for UK consumers if one is to exclude Norway. Let’s not forget initial plans for the Nord Stream pipeline included a subsea extension to Britain – even without it, Gazprom can bring in more of that cheap pipeline gas via the Balgzand-Bacton Line (BBL), now that Groningen is being wound down.

Last but not least, unilateral trade restrictions rarely lead to results that the initiator anticipates. For instance, do UK legislators promoting the Russian energy ban examine the ways Moscow might respond? Keeping in mind that BP owns 19.75 percent of Rosneft, they can potentially be very painful (and genuinely unsettling after the 2017 BP-Rosneft gas supply deal). Hence ‘‘keep your options open and talk to everyone“ is a good motto, whilst ban the unsympathetic and make the customers pay for your foreign policy decisions is a slow economic suicide. Five-year term politicians might want to choose the latter, but it just demonstrates their ignorance of rules energy markets live by.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KKC9kG Tyler Durden

With Moscow–Washington tensions approaching a boiling point, Russia has increasingly debuted a wide array of next-generational weapons to defend itself against Western aggressors.

According to Russian News Agency TASS, Russia will showcase its newest Kinzhal hypersonic missile and other high-tech military weapons during the upcoming May 09 Victory day parade based in Moscow.

“I want to remind you that less than a week has been left before the most important and revered holiday in Russia – Victory Day. Preparations for the military parade are in full swing,” Defense Minister Army General Sergei Shoigu said last week.  

Back in March, Russian President Vladimir Putin used his state-of-the-nation speech to showcase six superweapons that would supposedly revolutionize the game of geopolitics for Russia, and give the country a significant military advantage over the United States. In particular, Putin revealed to the world that his newest hypersonic missile could travel upwards of ten times the speed of sound and overcome all existing missile defense systems operated by the West.

As quoted by TASS, “upgraded MiG-31K fighter jets armed with the Kinzhal hypersonic missile system will take part in the Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9.” General Sergei Shoigu said.

New photos surfaced last Friday on social media of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ Mikoyan MiG-31 (NATO codename “Foxhound”) carrying the Kinzhal hypersonic missile during Victory Day rehearsals.

A MiG-31 Foxhound with the Kinzhal hypersonic missile was photographed over Moscow on Thursday. (Source: ВКС России/Facebook)

Two MiG-31 Foxhounds carrying Kinzhals were photographed over Moscow on Thursday. (Source: ВКС России/Facebook)

“Apart from advanced Su-57, Su-30SM and MiG-29SMT aircraft, upgraded MiG-31K fighters armed with the cutting-edge Kinzhal hypersonic missile systems will take part in the parade’s air component,” General Sergei Shoigu added.

A prototype Su-57 jet made an appearance during the rehearsal. Russia’s first fifth-generation fighter jet is expected to become the core of its air force. (Source: Vladimir Sergeev / Sputnik)

Su-30s and Su-35s rehearsed late last week over the skies of Moscow. (Source: Grigory Sysoev / Sputnik)

“I want to draw the attention of the personnel involved in the events to the need to comply with safety measures and the rules of hardware operation,” the defense minister pointed out.

The military parade will also feature “advanced weapon systems, including Tor-M2 air defense missile complexes, Terminator combat vehicles, Uran-6 and Uran-9 robotic systems, modern drones, off-road buggies, and snowmobiles,” said General Sergei Shoigu

Mil Mi-28N attack helicopters were also seen above Moscow rehearsing for the military parade this Wednesday. (Source: Ilya Pitalev / Sputnik)

An S-400 Triumf long-range anti-aircraft system was spotted on the streets of Moscow during the rehearsal. (Source: Ramil Sitdikov)

A Korsar strike drone. (Source: Vladimir Astapkovich / Sputnik) 

A BMPT Terminator. (Source: Evgeny Biyatov / Sputnik)

An Arctic variant of the Tor-M2DT anti-aircraft missile system. Source: (Aleksandr Vilf / Sputnik) 

A TTM 1901-40 snowmobile being carried by a Kamaz truck. (Source: Aleksandr Vilf / Sputnik)

A clear consensus is emerging between Moscow–Washington: a new Cold War is developing, with many uncertainties ahead. While Moscow is eager to show off their modern weaponry this Wednesday, President Donald Trump is expected to have a military parade of his own on November 11, in Washington, D.C.

Is it time to get bullish on war?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2ruxJp1 Tyler Durden

Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Five NATO members continue to possess colonies. These NATO states have no intention of granting their territories independence any time soon. Not only does France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United States insist on maintaining vestiges of their colonial pasts, but their colonies have been interwoven into NATO’s military infrastructure.

The continued presence of French, British, Dutch, Danish, and American colonies around the world extends what is officially called the “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” to the South Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea, the Pacific Ocean, and the Indian Ocean. If there was ever an organization guilty of blatantly deceptive advertising practices, it is NATO.

Recent attempts to secure more political autonomy in the French Caribbean territories of Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana, the latter the home of a French space launch facility having strategic importance, have been met with everything from indifference in Paris or extreme hostility. A January 26, 1968 SECRET Central Intelligence Agency report warned against Soviet attempts to establish space tracking facilities in French Guiana. That same year, the Guiana Space Center was established at Korou in the French colony. NATO ordered the suppression of independence moves by the people of Guiana to keep the center solely in the hands of France and the European Space Agency. In March and April 2017, populist tempers flared when Guianese protesters took over the Korou space facility over charges that France was ignoring the people of the colony. Youth unemployment, for example, is at a staggering 55 percent.

Moves by Britain to curb the financial independence of its Caribbean-Atlantic territories of the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Bermuda, Anguilla, and the British Virgin Islands (BVI) have faced charges in those territories of Britain’s re-imposition of colonialism on the self-governing territories. The Dutch have been the most blatantly neo-colonialist in rolling back self-government in St. Maarten, Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba. The Dutch totally ignored the results of a 2015 referendum in Bonaire that rejected the island’s incorporation into the Netherlands by 65 percent. A 2014 referendum in St. Eustatius also rejected incorporation into the Netherlands. The Dutch colonizers have moved to impose direct rule on both islands with a wink and a nod from NATO.

NATO treats its member states’ Caribbean and Atlantic territories as military “terra firma,” where air and naval bases either currently exist or could be ramped up for military actions. Attempts at independence or a strong degree of autonomy are not in NATO’s interests. NATO, through its surrogates in Copenhagen, has deterred any move toward independence by the Faroes and Greenland, both Danish territories that, on paper, enjoy self-government. NATO wants to ensure its continued presence at the U.S. airbase in Thule and deter China from mining operations in rapidly-warming Greenland that target known major deposits of rare earth minerals. Recent elections in Greenland resulted in a victory for Prime Minister Kim Kielsen and his four-party coalition that favors independence from Denmark. One of the parties, Nunatta Qitornai, favors immediate independence from Denmark. A scheduled referendum on a new constitution in the Faroes was postponed for six months. The referendum, which could lead to independence from Denmark, may have been delayed as a result of NATO interference directed through surrogates in Copenhagen and the Faroese capital of Torshavn.

The Dutch have ignored requests for more autonomy in the Caribbean territories of Aruba and Curacao, both sites of U.S. and NATO military and intelligence aerial and naval assets targeting the government of Venezuela and leftist groups in Colombia. The U.S. 12th Air Force, based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, operates two “Cooperative Security Locations” at Hato International Airport in Curacao and Reina Beatrix International Airport in Aruba.

A 2012 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and the Netherlands grants access until 2021 to U.S. military forces for “training” and other purposes to Bonaire, Saba, St. Eustatius, and Saint Maarten. It was after this agreement was signed that the special autonomy enjoyed by these territories began to be rolled back by the governing cliques in The Hague and Amsterdam.

Recent moves by the British government to require its Caribbean and other territories to adopt public ownership registers prior to the end of 2020 or risk having their financial affairs taken over directly from London has resulted in a revolt among the British colonies, especially those in the Caribbean. London maintains that the public ownership registers are necessary to stem the flow of “dirty money” and secret corporate ownership in the wake of the “Panama and Paradise Papers” offshore tax haven financial records’ disclosures. The British territories argued that after the imposition of public ownership records, offshore firms and their money will simply move to other locations where corporate secrecy will continue to be maintained.

Of course, to avoid dictates from London, some British territories are already floating the idea of independence. BVI Premier Orlando Smith said London’s move to infringe on BVI’s self-government calls into question the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the people of the BVI. BVI has moved to establish direct links with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) of independent nations, without the interference of the London colonial authorities. BVI is now represented at CARICOM and Association of Caribbean States meetings by its own External Affairs Secretary. Likewise, Cayman Islands Premier Alden McLaughlin has demanded more control over his islands’ affairs, including national security and membership in the World Trade Organization. British authorities have not only refused but are making moves to impose British financial regulations on the popular offshore business haven.

Caribbean territorial leaders point out that the requirements imposed on them do not apply to the Isle of Man or the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, which, as crown dependencies of Queen Elizabeth, are not subject to the whims of the British Parliament. If London attempts to impose its will on the crown dependencies, they have let it be known that they will move to cut their links with the British Crown and opt for independence.

NATO, of course, does not want to see any moves toward independence from islands within the Irish Sea, English Channel, or Caribbean. The Trump administration has re-established the U.S. Navy’s Second Fleet, which was disbanded by President Obama in 2011 and will have responsibility for the North Atlantic, including Bermuda and Greenland, the latter also seeking independence from its Danish colonial masters. The U.S. Navy’s Fourth Fleet continues to dominate the American Caribbean territories of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico; the British territories of the Caymans, Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, BVI, and Montserrat; the Dutch territories of Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Saint Maarten, Saba, and St. Eustatius; and the French territories of Guadeloupe and St. Barthelemy, Martinique, and French Guiana. U.S. Southern Command, based in Miami, exercises an almost viceroy-like political domination over the entire Caribbean region.

NATO is also keeping a wary eye on the French colony of New Caledonia in the Pacific. Neither NATO nor Australia want New Caledonia voters to opt for independence in the upcoming referendum in November of this year. French mainlanders who colonized the island territory are pushing for a “no” vote and French President Emmanuel Macron recently visited the colony to emphasize the importance of retaining the colonial link with France. A major psychological operations campaign is being waged to convince the indigenous Kanaky people that the French colonialists already have the votes to defeat independence. Another psychological campaign is being waged that falsely claims that China is moving in to establish a naval base in nearby Vanuatu.

NATO, while still using the “North Atlantic” designator, does not want to lose its colonial footprints around the world, from Mayotte in the Indian Ocean and Wallis and Futuna in the South Pacific to St. Helena in the South Atlantic and Guam in the West Pacific. NATO has long been accused of waging neo-colonial wars in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. However, when it comes to basic garden-variety colonialism, NATO is intent on maintaining control over of its member states’ territorial toeholds in the seven seas.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rpMk68 Tyler Durden

In the case of a no deal Brexit, in which the country must resort to WTO rules for international trade, the negative effects on the UK car industry could be devastating. The current uncertainty surrounding the type of deal that will be struck with the EU is already having an effect on production output and leading major investors such as Toyota and PSA (Vauxhall) to assess their future in the region.

It’s not just investors that need to be reassured in these times of uncertainty, though.

If the industry is to prosper, demand for cars also needs to remain high among consumers. As Statista’s Martin Armstrong shows in the infographic below, the Brexit effect is also starting to take hold of new registrations.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As with production, new registrations peaked in 2016 at 2.69 million. Last year though, this fell by 150,000 to 2.54 million.

Looking ahead, forecasts by SMMT are less than optimistic, with the trend expected to continue down to 2.35 million by 2019.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2FUsFiW Tyler Durden

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy is all about becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia through the skillful diplomatic management of the hemisphere’s multiple conflicts, though the greatest danger to this vision comes not from the US’ Hybrid Wars, but from Russia itself if its diplomatic and expert community representatives don’t rise to the occasion in properly explaining this strategy to the masses.

Russia seems to have become one of the favorite topics nowadays of anyone who’s even remotely interested in international politics, and apparently everyone has an opinion about the country’s grand strategy. Those inclined to believe the Western Mainstream Media usually hold one of two contradictory positions in mistakenly believing that Russia is either hell-bent on militarily conquering the world or is just a few years from an all-out collapse as a result of systemic mismanagement at home. On the other hand, many followers of Alt-Media wrongly think that Russia has a self-appointed mission to save the world from American-led unipolarity in all of its manifestations and that the 5-D chess grandmaster President Putin is flawlessly winning victory after victory. All three trains of thought unfortunately fail to account for the reality of Russia’s grand strategy, which can best be summarized as endeavoring to become the 21st-century’s supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia through the skillful diplomatic management of the hemisphere’s conflicts.

From The “Ummah Pivot” To The “Golden Ring”

This ambitious vision owes its origins to the “progressive” faction of the Russian “deep state” (its permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) that courageously decided to throw off the Soviet shackles of the past and initiate game-changing rapprochements with non-traditional partners such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan in what can colloquially be called the “Ummah Pivot”.  These foreign policy pioneers “filled in the (geographic) gap” that their predecessors left unattended to after they “bookended” Eurasia with their own post-Cold War rapprochements with Germany in the West and China in the East, so it makes sense that the time would eventually come for Russia to look South towards the Muslim-majority countries lining that part of the Eurasian Rimland. As all of this has been happening, China unveiled its One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity that provides the infrastructural basis for connecting these disparate geopolitical nodes together and building the structural foundation for the emerging Multipolar World Order.

Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan summit in Tehran in 2017

Having been rebuffed in Western Eurasia by the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions that Brussels was pressured by the US into implementing, Moscow “rebalanced” its hitherto European focus and diversified its diplomatic efforts through the “Ummah Pivot”, which has seen the creation of two new trilateral partnerships. The first one centers on Syria and concerns Russia, Turkey, and Iran, while the second one is all about Afghanistan and involves Russia, Pakistan, and China. The combined geostrategic potential of these five multipolar Great Powers “circling the wagons” to protect the Eurasian supercontinental core is the “Golden Ring”, which represents the ultimate integrational objective of the 21st-century and would symbolize the institutional union of many of the Eastern Hemisphere’s most important continental powers. Of the highest strategic significance, the fulfillment of the Golden Circle would allow its members to trade with one another via forthcoming overland Silk Road routes that crucially avoid the US Navy’s dominance along the Eurasian Rimland.

Peripheral Problems

Nevertheless, the supercontinental maritime periphery is still very important because of China’s dependence on sea routes for trading with Africa, whose future is intertwined with the People’s Republic because the latter absolutely needs the continent to become robust enough of a developed market to purchase the country’s overproduced goods. Beijing’s greatest competitors in the Afro-Pacific space are Washington and its “Lead From Behind” coalition of the “Quad”, which have unveiled the so-called “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” (AAGC) to counter the New Silk Road. Making everything all the more tense, China and the other four Golden Circle Great Powers need to prepare themselves for responding to externally provoked identity conflicts in the Silk Road’s geostrategic transit states (Hybrid Wars), and while the Eurasia Core can more or less count on multilateral solutions to these challenges via the SCO or any other related structure, Africa has no such security options.

China is therefore compelled to build up the military capacities of its Silk Road partners there and potentially even deploy its aircraft carriers along the coast in the worst-case scenario to “Lead From Behind” in assisting the locals in their counter-Hybrid War campaigns, but it’s interestingly at this point where Russia could play a pivotal role in restoring stability to Africa. Moscow is already experimenting with a new policy of using “mercenaries” to support the internationally recognized but fledgling government of the Central African Republic in its quest to reclaim the civil war-torn country from the myriad bands of militants that are occupying the vast majority of it, and the success of Russia’s version of its own “Lead From Behind” strategy would be the “proof of concept” needed to convince the rest of Africa and China that Moscow could provide much-needed security services in protecting their Silk Road projects.

The African Angle

As was explained in the hyperlinked analysis above, Russia’s involvement in African conflict resolution processes could expand from the initial military phase to a secondary diplomatic one in making Moscow a key player in any forthcoming political settlements there, provided of course that its national companies can be guaranteed privileged access to the said nation’s marketplace and resources. This win-win tradeoff could appeal to African elites and their Chinese partners alike, both of which don’t have the combat or diplomatic experience that Russia has earned through its anti-terrorist campaign in Syria and attendant Astana peace process to handle the coming Hybrid War challenges ahead. So long as Russia exercises prudence and avoids getting caught in any potential quagmires, then it can continue to “do more with less” in “cleaning up” the many messes that are predicted to be made all across Africa in the coming future.

Together with the military dimension of this “balancing” strategy comes its traditional diplomatic one, which Russia is already practicing to a degree with China’s Indo-Japanese rivals. The reinforcement and betterment of bilateral relations with each of these American-aligned Great Powers is to both Russia and even China’s advantage because it could allow Moscow to exercise “moderating” influence on each of them in the event that the US succeeds in getting them to provoke a crisis with Beijing. Taking it even further, though, Russia should explore opportunities to become a full-fledged member of the AAGC in order to “piggyback” off of these two much more entrepreneurial countries’ progress in Africa, especially when considering that China isn’t helping Russia gain access to this marketplace (though that could change if it becomes Beijing’s strategic security partner in the continent). “Balancing” between the two economic “blocs” would be to Russia’s premier advantage, and it could even yield benefits for its underdeveloped Far East and Arctic regions.

Strategic Review

Reviewing the grand strategy that’s been expounded upon thus far, Europe’s rejection of Russia as a result of American pressure motivated Moscow to commence the “Ummah Pivot” in solidifying the Eurasian Core through two interlinked trilateral partnerships that collectively form the basis of the Golden Ring Great Power nexus. By leveraging its centralized position in Eurasia, Russia aims to become the irreplaceable transit state for most continental connectivity ventures as well as the neutral “balancer” for constructively resolving the Hybrid War chaos that the US has wrought all across the landmass, thereby flexing both economic and diplomatic muscle through this strategy. Moving beyond the Eurasian Core and into the Rimland, Russia’s multi-vectored relationships with India and Japan can skillfully be put to use to acquire a market presence in Africa that would complement its unofficial military one via “mercenaries” and thereby allow it have a chance at “balancing” that continent’s affairs too.

No Narrative, No Chance

For as nifty as this approach may sound, there’s a lot of risk inherent in it, particularly when it comes to American-encouraged Hybrid Wars in the Eurasian Heartland and divide-and-rule infowar operationsdesigned to break the Golden Ring, but these can still be managed on the state-to-state level with enough multilateral coordination and trust. More difficult to handle, however, are the consequences of Russia’s soft power “shortcomings” in traditionally “failing” to properly explain its “balancing” strategy to the masses, thereby leading to discontent and confusion that in turn provides a fertile environment for devious US-backed NGO operations aimed at sowing discord between the society and their elites. Russia assuredly communicates its “balancing” intentions to each of its “deep state” counterparts, just as it has a history of doing, but the Russian Federation hasn’t been able to match the USSR when it comes to getting its message across to average folks in each of those countries.

Armenian protests, Velvet Revolution, April 2018

Armenia is a perfect example of what went wrong with Russia’s soft power strategy and deserves to be concisely analyzed as a case study. Russia’s “military diplomacy” of preserving the regional balance of power by selling arms to both Armenia and its neighboring foe Azerbaijan is a sound strategy in the geopolitical sense but a risky one when it comes to Russia’s image in the minds of each of its partners’ populations. Azerbaijanis don’t mind much since Russia was regarded as previously being closer to their enemy until recently, but the Armenians were understandably upset when they learned that their CSTO mutual defense ally was arming their adversary. Even if the majority of its citizens wouldn’t ever “come around” to seeing Russia’s side of this situation, Moscow could have at least invested enough soft power resources and effort in trying to explain its grand strategic intentions in this situation, but it didn’t and this in turn fueled Pashinyan’s “protest” movement against the ruling Armenian authorities.

It’s not just Armenia either, but many of Russia’s traditional partners are uneasy over its newfound “balancing” relations with their historic rivals. The Serbian, Syrian, Iranian, and Indian publics would rather that Russia didn’t cooperate so closely with Croatia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, but seeing as how it already is, the “least” that Moscow could do, many of them feel, is try to explain to them why this is occurring even if they don’t ultimately end up agreeing with it. Unfortunately, that’s not happening, at all, and the consequences of this soft power “ineptitude” is that people are losing trust in Russia. Instead of having a chance to consider it as being a skillful player on the “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard” in “balancing” everything and therefore counteracting the destabilizing effects of American foreign policy, the country is coming off as overly “self-interested”, “untrustworthy”, and superficially “no different from the US”.

Global Risks

Russian strategists and policymakers are indeed adhering to a Neo-Realist paradigm of International Relations, but their country’s grand interest in maintaining stability in Afro-Eurasia and consequently securing the New Silk Roads that are expected to form the foundation of the emerging Multipolar World Order fully overlap with each of its partners’, though all of them should accept that each party must “compromise” on something or another in order to reach the Moscow-mediated “deals” for bringing this win-win future about. This “inconvenient” reality might not be popular among their publics but it’s nevertheless what has to happen in order for Russia’s model to succeed, though the actual problem arises when people aren’t made aware of any of this by their leaders and then all of a sudden hear on the news or come across rumors (whether true or not) that their country might be on the verge of “sacrificing” something dear to them.

Had the proper “preconditioning” and “perception management” been implemented prior to this happening, then the potential for the US or other hostile third parties to exploit this sentiment in stirring unrest like they did in Armenia after Russia’s repeated weapons deals with Azerbaijan would be a lot less because there’d at least be a “constructive” narrative already available to counter the newly created destructive one that’s been weaponized by Moscow’s foes. Regrettably, because Russia prefers to deal mostly with its partners’ “deep states” when it comes to these issues and tends to “neglect” public opinion in those countries, this soft power vulnerability is now present all across Afro-Eurasia and waiting to be exploited by the US, which wields considerably stronger sway in “winning hearts and minds” on the local level, even if it has to rely on indirect (NGO) means to do so. Russia’s partners, especially those with nominally “democratic” systems, are therefore at risk of being “blackmailed” by demagogic mobs.

Concluding Thoughts

It can’t be stressed how important it is for Russia’s grand strategic vision of “balancing” Afro-Eurasian affairs to be clearly expressed by its diplomatic and expert community representatives in order to prevent the US from weaponizing “public pressure” against it inside of each of its partners’ societies. Sensitive issues such as arms shipments to both Armenia and Azerbaijan or cooperating with Turkey in northern Syria need to be discussed at the local level and not just with each traditional partner’s “deep state” so as to retain public trust in Moscow’s international measures by making at least some degree of effort in trying to explain these policies to the masses. The lack of any narrative whatsoever from the Russian side in these regards leads to an informational void that is quickly filled by the US and its unipolar allies, which endangers the long-term sustainability of Moscow’s “balancing” efforts because of the risk that its partners might cave to externally manipulated “public pressure” (Color Revolutions).

For as ambitious as it sounds, it’s certainly possible for Russia to pull off its strategy in repairing the damage that the US made all across the hemisphere (especially in its non-European quarters), but only so long as there are equal measures of “deep state” and public trust in its initiatives. Nobody, let alone average folks, should ever be under any false impressions about Russia’s motives in doing this, which are first and foremost to secure its own interests but also overlap with the primary ones of each of its many partners when it comes to the general goal of advancing multipolarity, but false expectations about Moscow’s “commitment” to them will only lead to a sense of disappointment with time which will inevitably be capitalized upon by its American adversary. Along the same lines, having no understanding whatsoever of what Russia is up to is equally dangerous because it could also result in the same disruptive outcome.

Therefore, Russia needs to prioritize its soft power outreaches and must urgently make attempts through its diplomatic and expert community representatives to communicate its “balancing” intentions beyond its partners’ “deep states” and directly to their people. Regular citizens must be made aware of Russia’s global vision so as not to be as easily manipulated by America through the exploitation of the existing narrative void and/or their false hopes that wishfully arise from it, though it must nevertheless be accepted that not everyone will agree with Moscow’s “balancing” means regardless of its intentions. That’s perfectly alright because the importance is in making the narrative known so that subsequent soft power efforts can be invested in promoting it among the public, which is why the first step must immediately be undertaken in making people aware of this message to begin with so that follow-up plans can be implemented for advancing it in the future and strengthening this grand strategic vision at all levels of Afro-Eurasian society.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2I5ep90 Tyler Durden

According to market research company New World Wealth, the world has accumulated $215 trillion in private wealth, a 12% increase over the last year.

 

Incredibly, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, the vast majority of this wealth – about 73.5% – is held by just 10 countries:

 

Over the last decade, China and India have more than doubled their wealth. Meanwhile, developed economies like the United States and Japan have increased wealth at modest rates – and some, like Italy and France, even lost modest amounts of private wealth over that duration of time.

Finally, it should be noted that the United Kingdom’s decrease above is mainly due to the depreciation of the GBP, which dropped in dollar terms from roughly $2.00 to $1.35 over the decade in question.

FUTURE PROJECTIONS

How is global wealth expected to shift in the future?

According to New World Wealth, the same 10 countries will dominate the landscape – but the order will change considerably over the next decade:

While the ranking order of the top three wealthiest countries will remain the same, India is expected to shoot up 200% to claim the #4 position with $24.7 trillion in private wealth.

Meanwhile, France and Australia are two other significant movers – and they are going opposite directions.

France will continue its descent down the ranking to 9th place with just 10% growth in a decade, and Australia will increase wealth at a rate that is very impressive for a developed economy. By 2027, it’s expected to be the world’s seventh richest country in terms of private wealth, with a total of $10.4 trillion. That will rival powerhouses like Germany and the United Kingdom, each with private wealth near the $11 trillion mark.

For more on private wealth, see the 15 wealthiest cities as well the countries that are gaining (or losing) wealth at the fastest rates.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2jH0qvE Tyler Durden

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson via SHTFplan.com,

A picture that has been around awhile depicts Homo sapiens society at its finest…as it truly is.

There are four “tiers,” so to speak, with the politicians, royalty, and rulers occupying the uppermost level, followed by the clergymen and religious swamis on tier two, and then the gendarmes/police/soldiers on tier three. The bottom tier is occupied by the people, supporting the other three tiers upon their back. The caption is “We rule you [Leaders], we fool you [Religious Heads], we shoot you [the “Enforcer” class].

These “tiers” are to be found in every nation, among every people and tongue. It is not a new concept: these three levels of nabobs have existed ever since man formed social communities that encompassed more than the nuclear family.

The difference between the past and now: for the first time, these tiers will soon be interconnected regardless of location and mutually supportive of one another to obtain global totalitarian rule.

They already have so much in place, as outlined in previous articles: cell phones for most of the populations that transmit user location along with biometrics (in the latest models), interconnected CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) cameras that coordinate and fix your position with the phones, and a record of all that you buy or sell at a POS (Point of Sale) in the happy big-box stores. They have laws to make you pay taxes on income, property, and they will come to seize your property and/or you if you don’t pay it…with force.

The laws are increasing in number, tightening the corral around you in your daily life…controlling where you can live, what type of home you can build, how you can communicate on the Internet, how you conduct business. Every business has a corresponding government inspector or regulator. The death of cash is coming soon, as governments replace it with EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) completely: they will then be able to keep track of every dime you earn or spend, keep track of what they can tax you (overt theft) and what they can pilfer (covert theft, in the case of an electronic “glitch,” a “matter of national security,” or some other nonsensical operation).

Many people do not realize the depth…the lengths these people are going to in order to achieve global totalitarian rule over all mankind. Recently Bill Gates announced a decision to invest with corporations to place 500 satellites in orbit to be able to monitor every inch of the globe in real-time surveillance. Last week he announced his intentions to develop a “super vaccine” in order to “safeguard” the health of the planet from an outbreak that could kill tens of millions of people.

There is one “biggie” that must be “taken care of” before all this control can be finalized: They must first confiscate all firearms.

The most recent news headlines show their intent to do just that. Let’s take it by “category” of the three tiers:

1. Rulers: The United States’ very own Representative Eric Swalwell, (D-CA) is the one representing the first big push toward totalitarian takeover via gun seizures. On Thursday, 5/3/18, Swalwell (as reported by NBC News on an interview with Swalwell by USA Today) proposed a complete ban of what he describes as “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons,” along with a government “buy-back” of these rifles…and pursuit of those who refuse it. Swalwell describes this last part as “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.” Swalwell cited the Australian mandatory gun buyback laws and as an example used the “unprompted” walkout and demonstrations of Parkland High School students after that school’s shooting. Here’s what Swalwell had to say:

“There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands.  They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment.  I’ve been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that ‘we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’  The right to live is supreme over any other.  Australia got it right.”

2. Foolers: On Sunday, 5/6/18, the Pope came out and said that all firearms must be confiscated and taken away, and that the only firearms must be in the hands of the UN (United Nations).  This is not a new thought, as it was John F. Kennedy who proposed a ban of all nuclear weapons and firearms, with the UN “peacekeepers” being the only ones who retained any weapons.  That “clarion call” has been echoed by the UN Small Arms Treaty (the one that Bolton…current Secretary of State…refused to sign when he was UN ambassador under Bush Jr.).  Sure, many may try to disregard what the Pope is saying…but you can’t completely discount anyone who has a billion people under his dominion, spiritually and economically.
3. Shooters: There are two excellent articles for your perusal written by John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute. One of them is entitled Armed and Dangerous: If Police Don’t Have to Protect the Public, What Good Are They? on 2/28/18. The other more recent article of 5/2/18 is entitled Dial T for Tyranny: While America Feuds, the Police State Shifts Into High Gear.

In “tier 1” of the “Rulers,” we have a sitting Representative of Congress who openly advocates bypassing the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by banning a specific type of rifle; he also proposes the governmental “buying” of those semiautomatic rifles. It would do well here to remember the words of Alexis DeTocqueville in “Democracy in America,” [para.] “The end of the Republic [America] will come when the government can buy the people with their own money.” Then(so-called) Representative Swalwell suggested the government follow (in the event weapons owners do not submit) a violation of due process, as well as the supreme law of the land to illegally confiscate any weapons not submitted under a proposed government buyback…a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

It runs deeper, as we can see how the “Parkland Students” cited as an example by Swalwell are the new mantra, the new paradigm to enforce social consciousness and supplant Constitutional law with the law of the mob…the “tyranny of the majority” (a phrase of DeTocqueville) inflicting its wishes. Then there’s the “Australia got it right” grammatical eyesore of Swalwell’s populist jargon, a phony attempt to appear “grass roots” and an average guy…jargon that also pushes the “groupthink” (Australia’s doing it, why shouldn’t we?) so necessary to obtain global governance.

In “tier 2” we have a Marxist who is the leader of one of the world’s largest religions openly calling for a confiscation of the guns, with only the UN holding them. As mentioned, this guy has more than a billion people under his control, and he’s clearly in the “pocket” of those moving toward global governance. Standard Alinsky principle in “Rules for Radicals” is “organizing the organized.” His loyal followers will follow his lead. Don’t worry: Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and all the others are also “subjected” to the same playbook, perhaps not under one “figurehead” but with their own “Master of Puppets” enforcing their submittal to his/her authority and then compliance with outside directives of the governments.

In “tier 3,” when you read these articles, you will come to see how there is no more “Officer Friendly.” The police are duty-bound to protect the taxpaying corporate entities, businesses, and politico-oligarchy, and nothing more. They are our jailers, not our protectors. They ensure the continuity of the establishment: the existing social, political, religious, and economic order of things, nothing more. Those who mistakenly believe in the law (as police officers) will eventually be marginalized and drummed out of the force. Recently it was reported in Austin, TX that trainees/police cadets were informed by their instructors that the public are nothing more than cockroaches. In truth, the public pays for their funding…and they are under governmental control and direction: to obtain ad valorem for the municipal and state coffers while keeping the beeves moving, “tagging” the strays with tickets for the quotas and ensuring the docility of the herd.

The rulers, “foolers,” and shooters are tightening their grasp by the day, aided by the ever-increasing technology that allows for more surveillance and control, along with the stultified and complacent mentality of the public. There is a conspiracy, but it is not a theory: it is a fact. It is no longer a hidden agenda, but openly being pursued in plain sight.  The goal is global governance and the complete abrogation of all rights. We’re seeing it today, and it becomes worse with the passage of time.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2jDNq9R Tyler Durden

Last month, a Wall Street Journal op-ed posited that the new tax bill could create a mass exodus of roughly 800,000 residents from the state of California who will flee the state for low-tax red states. 

“In the years to come, millions of people, thousands of businesses, and tens of billions of dollars of net income will flee high-tax blue states for low-tax red states. This migration has been happening for years. But the Trump tax bill’s cap on the deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT, will accelerate the pace. The losers will be most of the Northeast, along with California. The winners are likely to be states like Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.” –WSJ

Taxes aside, a new report by Next 10 and Beacon Economics suggests the California exodus may get a lot worse, as new housing construction since the Great Recession has been tepid at best, and as a result, California faces a housing backlog of 3.4 million units by 2025 if the trend continues – and 2.8 million units at the current rate of construction. 

From 2007 to 2017, only 24.7 housing permits were filed for every 100 new residents in California – much lower than the U.S. average of 43.1 permits.

By 2025, California would have a housing backlog of 3.4 million units if the trend continues. At the current pace of construction, California would add just a minimal amount of new housing – about 600,000 new housing units (net of housing unit losses due to demolition and other causes) – leaving the state with a housing gap of 2.8 million units by 2025. –Next10

“California’s current housing supply is not able to support its growing population,” the report concludes, and as such “the low levels of construction will likely result in further increases in home prices, such that fewer and fewer California residents will be able to afford homes.“

According to the report, California lost over a million residents in the decade between 2006 and 2016, due primarily to the high cost of housing disproportionately hurting lower income households. Over 20% of those who moved over that decade did so in 2006 – at the height of the housing bubble.

And since American consumers are genetically predisposed to never learning from their mistakes, median home prices in California are once again gapping well above the national average in a very similar pattern, making housing once again prohibitively expensive:

Meanwhile, migration out of California is mostly tied to income, as most of those leaving the state earn less than $30,000 per year.

Those migration patterns are shaped by socioeconomics. Most people leaving the state earn less than $30,000 per year, even as those who can afford higher housing costs are still arriving. As the report noted, California was also a net importer of highly skilled professionals from the information, professional and technical services, and arts and entertainment industries. On the other hand, California saw the largest exodus of workers in accommodation, construction, manufacturing and retail trade industries. –MarketWatch

Crunched California homeowners spent an average of 21.9% of their income on housing expenses in 2016, while home ownership rates are terrible at just 53.6% of homes owner-occupied; the 49th worst in the nation on both counts. California renters meanwhile come in 48th in the nation when it comes to percentage of income spent on housing at 32.8%.

And how are Californians coping with the skyrocketing costs of housing? One strategy is doubling up – as nearly 14% of renters have more than one person per bedroom, making it the state with the highest percentage of overcroweded renter households. 

Another solution? 

Leaving. 

In a separate analysis noted by MarketWatch‘s Andrea Riquier, “Realtor.com found that the number of people searching real estate listings in the 16 top California markets compared to people living there and searching elsewhere was more than double that of other areas — and growing.”

Searches for homes in pricey California towns – primarily Santa Clara, San Mateo and Los Angeles – experienced virtually no increase over the past year, while views of listings in other parts of the country were up 15%. 

So where do most broke Californians move? Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington . 

Read the report below: 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2HY9kDw Tyler Durden

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

The new US National Security Advisor John Bolton controversially advocated the so-called “Libyan model” for North Korea’s denuclearization.

While he was indeed speaking about the technical aspect of this example in having the North African country completely surrender all of its nuclear-related capabilities, others are interpreting it differently and almost as a Freudian slip given that it was precisely because of Tripoli’s sincere adherence to this model that it was defenseless in deterring the NATO-led war that ultimately led to its destruction in 2011. On the surface, it makes one question why any country, let alone North Korea (whose media specifically said right after the beginning of the NATO campaign that Libya should have kept its nuclear program), would ever follow that model, but then again there’s a lot speculatively going on behind the scenes that the public isn’t privy to.

The entire denuclearization process is such a sensitive one and full of face-saving moves by all sides that it’s unlikely that Bolton would recklessly jeopardize the process by speaking as boldly as he did without he and his “deep state” handlers being certain that it wouldn’t offend Kim to the point of pulling out of the talks for reasons of national dignity. The opposite is actually happening, and he’s instead welcoming American and other experts to observe the decommissioning of his country’s mountainous nuclear test site later this month and even invite the media to report on the entire process. Furthermore, all of this is going ahead despite a South Korean presidential advisor saying last week that North Korea wants “American investment…sponsors, and multinational consortiums” coming to the country, which the man predicted could eventually lead to McDonalds and even a Trump Tower opening up in the former so-called “Hermit Kingdom”.

Again, despite the obvious sensitivity of this issue and North Korea’s history of strongly responding to those types of remarks, the denuclearization process is continuing unabated. It’s all the more remarkable then that a South Korean official quoted Kim as saying that “if we meet often and build trust with the United States, and if an end to the war and nonaggression are promised, why would we live in difficulty with nuclear weapons?”

For all intents and purposes, North Korea has reversed its previous position and is now willingly – and one could even say, eagerly – doing exactly what Libya once did, especially in regard to surrendering its tangible deterrence capacities in exchange for simple promises that don’t remove the regional threat posed by American forces.

John Bolton, National Security Advisor of the United States

It can only be conjectured at this point why Pyongyang is doing this and whether it’s related to the reported collapse of its mountainous nuclear test site that some rumors allege might have been destroyed by a new type of American weapon, but conventional analyses point to China’s active participation in the latest UNSC sanctions regime against North Korea as being one of the prime catalysts for Kim’s nuclear backtracking. The communist country might fear that it’ll eventually collapse without the sanctions relief that only denuclearization can provide at this point, and that its future will be much brighter if it embraces its pivotal transit role in facilitating the construction of a multimodal Russian-Chinese “Korean Corridor” and courts international expertise to develop its prospective $6-10 trillion rare earth mineral deposits.

Therefore, it’s because of these strategic reasons – both due to international pressure & its own prerogative as well as a mix of fact & speculation – why North Korea is surprisingly following in Libya’s footsteps, though it remains to be seen whether this risky gamble will ultimately lead to a different outcome.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KIliyJ Tyler Durden

A new directive by the Trump administration has paved the way for the criminal prosecution of every migrant caught jumping the US-Mexico border, as opposed to civil deportation proceedings employed in most cases up until now.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen issued the directive last week, announcing that DHS will refer those entering the country illegally for criminal cases.

Illegal entry into the United States is a misdemeanor crime, however attempts to sneak back in after a prior deportation are a felony which DHS says needs to be enforced.

“DHS will enforce the immigration laws as set forth by Congress,” said a Homeland Security official via the Washington Times.

The move will be a major test for federal prosecutors and courts, who could see their caseloads surge as they deal with what could be thousands of new cases each month.

But it’s likely to thrill Border Patrol agents who had begged for the government to impose serious consequences on illegal immigrants, for whom crossing the border, getting deported and trying again is just a part of their way of life. –Washington Times

On Monday morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reinforced the DOJ’s new push at curbing illegal immigration, telling a Scottsdale, Arizona law enforcement conference that those entering the country illegally with children will be subejct to separation. 

“If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” said Sessions. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”

Later, speaking from San Diego, Sessions reiterated the push – only changing his language from “will be separated from you” to “may be separated from you as required by law.” 

“If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you – and that child may be separated from you as required by law,” AG Jeff Sessions says during speech at U.S.-Mexico border. https://t.co/FjCeNLvINp pic.twitter.com/t0RRjU2inx

— NBC Bay Area (@nbcbayarea) May 7, 2018

Protesting Sessions was a man equipped with a bullhorn wearing a white shirt which read “Nazi Fascistas ¡No Pasarán!” – who asks “Why are you here? Are you gonna be separating families? Don’t.. why are you doing this? Do you have a heart? Do you have a soul?“

Protester with bull horn shouts at Sessions. #nbc7 pic.twitter.com/ykrAXAijPQ

— Artie Ojeda (@ArtieNBCSD) May 7, 2018

Sessions announced last Wednesday that the DOJ will be sending 35 prosecutors and 18 judges to the southern U.S. border in order to more efficiently prosecute illegal immigrants. Texas will receive 15 attorneys, followed by eight to California, six to Arizona and six to New Mexico. The judges will be deployed similarly. 

“The American people made very clear their desire to secure our borders and prioritize the public safety and national security of our homeland,” said Sessions. “Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is essential to our republic. By deploying these additional resources to the Southwest border, the Justice Department and the Trump Administration take yet another step in protecting our nation, its borders, and its citizens. It must be clear that there is no right to demand entry without justification.”

In early 2018, the Washington Times reported on one migrant who was deported a record 44 times between 2000 and 2015, while migrants with over a dozen deportations “are not unusual.” The Times points out that the immigrant who murdered Kate Steinle in 2015 had been deported five times. 

About two-thirds of all asylum claims lodged with U.S. Customs and Border Protection last year came between the ports of entry, meaning people jumped the border, were caught and then asked for asylum.

Homeland Security said those migrants, if they jump the border, will be prosecuted for illegal entry while their asylum cases proceed, just like other border jumpers. –Washington Times

“Those apprehended will be sent directly to federal court under the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, and their children will be transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement. The U.S. Marshals will then place the individuals in approved detention centers during the course of the criminal process and, if convicted, to complete their sentences,” the official said.

“During the prosecutorial process, immigration proceedings will be advanced by ICE Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO). Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, and after a finding of removability, individuals will be returned to their country of origin.”

The DHS push to secure the border and criminally prosecute illegal entries into the country comes two weeks after the remains of a giant migrant “caravan” made its way from Central America to the San  Ysidro border crossing. The last of the 181 asylum seekers from the caravan entered the U.S. on Friday and are currently being processed. 

President Trump railed against the caravan, calling it a threat to national security, while Sessions referred to it as “a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system.” 

It turns out all Trump needed to justify beefing up border enforcement was a giant caravan of illegal immigrants directly challenging the U.S. border. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2wp1zRA Tyler Durden