One of the stranger parts of the summer of left-wing violence is that no one has bothered to think too much about why the people are rioting. Sure, the official Left says it is an organic uprising over something or other. The official Right says these people are communists doing communisms. That’s the same old tired sloganeering we hear from the political class all the time. Neither claim gets to the question of why these people are out in the streets every night in certain cities.
Initially, the Black Lives Matter stuff was just the semi-organized Democratic Party street activism we have come to expect before an election. BLM was organized by the Obama administration on the college campuses. Then it bled into the legacy racial grievance rackets. The statue toppling after George Floyd overdosed in police custody was mostly paid for by the party trying to whip up black support. Then it gave way to the anarchy we are seeing in places like Seattle and Portland.
That’s an aspect that gets very little attention.
The violence we are seeing is in mostly white cities by mostly white people. Minneapolis is 19% black. Seattle is 7% black and Portland is 6% black. Kenosha is 10% black and close to 80% white! Note that super-black cities like Baltimore, St. Louis and Detroit have had no riots. Los Angeles, which just had a police shooting, could not get a decent riot going. They tried, but they lack the white kids with back packs needed to do it.
The truth behind these riots is that they have nothing to do with local issues or legitimate grievances. They are simply a happening that is drawing in the disaffected white youth that provides bodies for Antifa. Get up close to an Antifa crowd and what is striking is how unimpressive they are individually. The males are skinny and awkward, while the females are loud and ridiculous. These are young whites who have no place in the neo-liberal order, so they end up in Antifa.
What being in the anarchist underground gives them is the same thing you see in other types of anti-social subcultures. They get a sense of purpose, but also a community in which they have a clearly understood place. They go out and protests or riot with their mates and then have that to bond over afterward. It is not all that different from the hooliganism you see around European soccer. The difference is the Antifa kids come from the middle-class, rather than the working class.
Now, calling them kids is not entirely accurate. The guy who murdered the Trump fan in Portland is a middle-aged man. Still, he is a good example of a larger phenomenon that is fueling anarchism and also fueled the alt-right to some degree. This is a guy who has no place to go in life. There’s no role for a low-normal intelligence white guy with a taste for action. He’s probably too dumb for the military and there is no working-class community for him, so he drifted into anarchism.
The cities that are experiencing the anarchist unrest should be models for the modern liberal democratic order. They have very low crime. They are prosperous, bourgeois urban areas based on the new economy. The young people have access to college and jobs, while living in carefully curated hipster areas. Portland is what east coast cities aspire to, in terms of demographics and urban renewal. The whole point of gentrification has been to look more like Seattle than The Bronx.
The problem is these cities are entirely synthetic. Walk around hipster parts of these model cities and they seem very nice, but they also feel like the suburban town centers developers create for their housing developments. You can’t put your finger on it, but something is missing. Granted, visitors can’t truly judge these things, but the constant civil unrest by the younger people suggests they are not happy with the paradise in the wilderness either. Progressive Whitopia is not working.
Related is the flight out of places like San Francisco and New York. The plague is being blamed for it. The man-made panic shutting down these cities is forcing people to find greener pastures. Note, however, that the people who flocked to these urban oases for the culture, lifestyle and urban living are unwilling to fight for it. Instead of taking to the streets demanding more from their mayors, they are just packing the Subaru and heading for the suburbs. It was all fake and temporary for them.
What we may be seeing this summer has nothing to do with the tired clichés from the worn-out political establishment. Instead it is one of the consequences of trying to turn America into a Potemkin village. Replacing social capital with likes on social media and pointless employment in the new economy is not working. The generation that created it is committing suicide at record numbers. The generation that is faced with living it would rather watch it all burn than participate in it.
A truth of the human condition is men need purpose and fraternity. Maybe it is the military and family life. Maybe it is a frat at college and then a career. Maybe it is the job site and the local pub. Women need community and companionship. The nuclear family was created for them. The liberal democratic world order does none of these things for people. Living atomized, pointless lives among constantly shifting groups of strangers is a recipe for disaster, not paradise.
What’s now happening on the Left is a reflection of what has been happening in the white working and middle-classes. Progressive politicians cheer it on, because at some level, they wish they could be in the streets too. The mayor of Portland is living a pointless existence and he knows it. The difference is these anarchists get to express their unhappiness outside. Working class whites are ignored and the white middle class is threatened into remaining quiet.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QWixhA Tyler Durden
The Pentagon Has ‘Staged’ Black Sea B-52 Intercepts As An “Intelligence Trap” For The Russians Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/06/2020 – 08:45
While Russian media and the defense ministry hailed the latest successful intercept of three US B-52 bombers over the Black Sea on Friday, which involved no less than eight Russian fighters dispatched, a new report in Forbes says the Pentagon has been using such intercept incidents over Eastern Europe as a “trap” in order to gain valuable flight data on the Russian fighters’ advanced sensors and communication equipment:
On Aug. 28, a U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bomber flew through international air space over the Black Sea. Russian air force Su-27 fighters rose to the meet the B-52, zooming so close to the lumbering bomber that the fighters’ twin afterburners rattled the American crew.
American officials objected to the “unnecessary” harassment of their bomber. But the joke was on the Russians. For the B-52 was merely bait in an elaborate, and ongoing, intelligence trap.
Close B-52 intercept over Black Sea a week ago. A similar scenario was repeated on Friday Sept.4.
The report describes that at the very moment the Russian fighters were coming extremely close to the B-52, even reportedly limiting its movement and coming within a mere 100 feet, two US RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic-intelligence planes were nearby scooping up useful data on the Su-27 aircraft.
Ultimately the “trap” netted valuable intelligence on the Russian anti-air response and technology.
The initial “intelligence trap” intercept from a week ago over the Black Sea:
USAF video of an ‘unsafe and unprofessional’ intercept of a B-52 by a Russian SU-27 over the Black Sea. pic.twitter.com/k7lzNseIJJ
Forbes details further that with this latest Sept. 4 Black Sea incident involving eight Russian fighters scrambled, the US Air Force did the same:
Exactly a week later, the Americans and their friends did it again. Today at least one B-52 flew through Ukraine and skirted the edge of the Black Sea just miles from Russian forces on the Crimean Peninsula. Two other B-52s were exercising over Ukraine around the same time, according to U.S. European Command. It’s unclear whether all three flew the same track near Crimea.
The report emphasizes of this last encounter that “A pair of RC-135V/Ws meanwhile flew over the Black Sea, close enough to Crimea—and to the B-52—to intercept signals from any Russian radars tracking the bomber.”
Open source radar analysis appears to show this:
The wisdom of operations like these eludes me. There is a difference between necessary deterrence and unnecessary provocation. pic.twitter.com/dWVCGT6ToB
Meanwhile Russian defense officials hailed these latest successes against the B-52 bombers to “prevent their unauthorized incursion into the Russian airspace.”
“The National Defense Control Center pointed out that after the US aircraft had flown away from the border of the Russian Federation, the Russian fighter jets returned to home airbases,” TASS writes.
Air Force RC-135V Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft, via USAF
Interestingly, the Forbes report notes that Russia could actually be doing the same thing back to the Americans — that is, sweeping up intelligence on the American aircraft by deploying spy planes which monitor these intercepts, making the uptick in such close encounters which have been ongoing since the start of this year a kind of cat-and-mouse intelligence gathering drama.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/321eM0M Tyler Durden
The failed state is to post-modernity what the nation-state was to modernity. It’s a recent development that is a hallmark of our age – like a state, but incapable of exercising sovereignty over all of its nominal territory. And while it might sound a little far-fetched, the failed state isn’t just coming to the West. It might already be here.
What Is a Failed State?
A failed state is a state no longer exercising effective control over the whole of its nominal territory. This can take a number of forms in practice, such as:
Failure of the legitimate authority of the nation to make practical, collective decisions.
Inability to adequately provide basic social services such as policing, firefighting or emergency medical services to some or all of its territory.
Inability to connect with other states through diplomatic channels; a lack of participation in the international community.
A central government incapable of collecting enough tax revenue to operate effectively.
One or several of these factors can be present in a failed state. Once a state is “failed,” this often means widespread crime, corruption and outsized influence by non-state actors.
Who Decides If a State Is “Failed?”
You and anyone else can have an opinion on whether or not a state is failed. Politicians have less leeway, as calling a state “failed” can result in serious geopolitical consequences. As a result, most politicians would be hesitant to describe any state as “failed.”
The “Fragile States Index” (FSI) is calculated by the U.S.-based think tank Fund for Peace. They use a number of objective and subjective factors to determine whether or not a state is failed (or “fragile” as they call it) by scanning media for indicators of social, economic and political failure or fragility in a country.
Among the top-ten most fragile states include: South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe. Haiti is the first representative from the Western Hemisphere at number 12. The next appearance in the Americas is Venezuela at 46, followed by Colombia at 71. Of the 10 most stable countries, eight are in Europe (Finland, Norway and Switzerland get the gold, silver and bronze respectively) and two are in Oceania (unsurprisingly, Australia and New Zealand). The most stable non-Western country is Singapore at 161, followed by Japan at 158 and Mauritius at 151.
The FSI does not hold a monopoly on deciding what nations are and are not “failed.” It is, however, the only major organization ranking countries.
Most people under 40 were probably introduced to the concept of a “failed state” by Somalia, after the collapse of its dictatorship in the early 1990s. This led to an extended American adventure in Somalia, resulting in the events described in Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War. Not only were American lives lost, but so was a significant amount of American prestige, as Washington neocons got their first bitter taste of “nation-building” in a nation which didn’t want to be built. The central government collapsed and nothing effectively replaced it.
To this day, some organizations operating within Somalia claim to be the ruling authority. Others claim to be separate, but completely legitimate nations. And those who must do business in Somali waters arm themselves via floating barges filled with guns and ammunition to fight off pirates.
Are Failed States Coming to Europe?
As with most things, the answer to this question depends on how we define “failed state.” For example, the presence of terrorism within a state doesn’t necessarily make it a failure, but rampant terrorism is a signature feature of a failed state. No one would suggest that the 9/11 attacks on America make it a failed state. However, the constant terrorist attacks against the Afghan state might be an argument in favor of Afghanistan as a failed state.
A more useful concept in terms of understanding whether or not failed states are coming to Europe is the so-called “No Go Zone.” United States President Donald Trump made headlines when he suggested that Sweden was on the verge of civil war or collapse. The press quickly lambasted him. How could this possibly be true of a country ranking in the top ten most stable countries in the world?
There are two answers to this question: First, the Fragile States Index measures how failed a state is, not how likely it is to become a failed state in the near future. Second, the manner by which Sweden might become a failed state could be something completely novel – and why wouldn’t it be, as Sweden would be the first failed state in Western Europe?
Yugoslavia might be the model for this. Remember, Yugoslavia was a stable nation until it wasn’t. It then turned into a bloodbath that defined a generation. While it’s tempting to blame this on Communist rule, nowhere else in Europe has there been similar levels of bloodshed. Other multinational Communist states such as Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union broke apart with very little fuss and almost no spilled blood.
What Are European Secessionist Movements?
A little-known story about 21st-century Europe is that it’s filled with secessionist movements. Catalonia, a region currently part of Spain, made headlines when it voted overwhelmingly to declare independence.
In fact, there are dozens of secessionist movements in Western Europe operating at any given time. Some are more serious than others. For example, Catalonia voted decisively to leave Spain, which led to a constitutional crisis. Scotland came pretty close to voting to leave the United Kingdom. Some other active secessionist movements in Western Europe include:
Belgium: It’s been joked that Belgium is made up of six million Walloons, three million Flemish and one Belgian – the monarch. The country is largely an artificial marriage between a Dutch and French population, with little in the way of shared cultural heritage that was engineered by the British due to its strategic location.
France: France is filled with secessionist movements, many of which it shares with Spain, due to their proximity and shared history. The Basque Country, French Catalonia and the Celtic region of Brittany all have thriving independence movements. So does the Southern Occitan region, the island of Corsica and the formerly Italian territory of Savoy.
Germany: Even stable, sensible Germany has a secessionist movement. The southern, conservative and Catholic region of Bavaria has never comfortably fit into the nation of Germany. Indeed, prior to the formation of a unified Germany, Bavaria was closer to Austria. After World War I, several proposals were made to create a nation out of Austria and Bavaria. A number of other movements seek autonomy for regions within Germany.
Italy: Much like Germany, Italy was not a unified nation until relatively late in modern European history. And, much like France, it’s never quite integrated all of its parts into a whole. Venice, South Tyrol, Sicily, Sardinia, Northern Italy (known as “Padania”), Southern Italy (known as “Ausonia”) and Lombardy are just some of the regions of Italy with active secessionist movements. Of these, Northern Italy’s is the most robust. The Lega Nord (League of the North) is in a ruling coalition with the Five Star Movement.
Spain: The Catalonian independence is the most famous, but not the only independence movement in Spain. There’s the Basques, Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Castille, Galicia, Leon, Navarre and Valencia. Spain is comprised of autonomous regions, nearly all of which were once independent kingdoms. Virtually all of them have independence movements of varying relevance and strength.
Switzerland: Despite being a federation of largely autonomous cantons, Switzerland has secessionist movements in at least two: Jura (a French-speaking canton) and Ticino (an Italian-speaking canton).
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has seen an uptick in secessionist movements since the Scottish independence movement gathered steam. Of course there’s also an independence movement for Wales and even Ulster. No, we don’t mean Irish in Ulster who want to be reunified. The Ulster independence is an ultra-British movement that sees London as having sold out Irish Protestants. Other independence movements in the UK include one for Cornwall, Shetland (which might seek union with Norway), Mercia, Yorkshire and – wait for it – England. Some in England resent that Scots can vote to decide policy in England, while the Scottish Parliament controls Scotland. This is known as the West Lothian question.
If any of these secessionist movements gains enough traction to break apart a Western European nation state, that could result in civil war and failed states without help from any other factors.
What Are Irredentist Movements?
A similar phenomenon is irredentist movements in Europe. Irredentist movements seek to reunite external territories with their “home nation.” The most famous example in Western media is probably “Greater Serbia,” which was the goal of Serbian ultranationalists in the rump Yugoslavia during the Yugoslav wars.
While these are more common in the Balkans than probably anywhere else in the world, Western Europe has no shortage of irredentist movements including:
South Tyrol: Mentioned above, South Tyrol is a part of Italy seeking either independence or union with Austria. Nationalists in Austria likewise seek to reclaim South Tyrol, which was part of Austria for centuries.
Ireland: The government of Ireland, for its part, still claims that the six counties of Ireland that are a part of the United Kingdom are an occupied part of Ireland.
Portugal: Portugal claimsOlivenza, a Spanish border town, as part of an obscure dispute with Spain dating back to the Napoleonic era.
Spain: Spain’s claim on Gibraltar, nominally British territory, is so strong that under the Franco regime “The Ballad of John and Yoko” was banned because of the line “Gibraltar near Spain.”
As stated above, these kinds of disputes are far more common in Eastern Europe, where borders are much newer and much less rigid than they are in the Western half of the country.
What Is a No Go Zone?
A No Go Zone is sort of a failed state in miniature form, and is not that recent of a development. In the strictest sense, a No Go Zone (or ”No Go Area”) is an area that has been barricaded off by military or paramilitary authorities. However, a broader definition has emerged in recent years as governments such as France and Sweden use euphemisms such as “vulnerable area,” “exposed area” or “sensitive urban zone” for what are effectively No Go Zones.
For our purposes, a No Go Zone is anywhere that the government is incapable of providing basic support services – policing, firefighting and emergency medical services. This is also the common meaning when “No Go Zone” is used in the media.
Beyond the merely uncomfortable for some and into the deeply disturbing for all, second-generation Muslim immigrants tend to be more radicalized than their parents, not less. This is true across Europe. Second-generation Muslim immigrants have been behind nearly every terrorist attack in Europe post-9/11. The kind of assimilation America saw after its massive immigration wave between the Civil War and the First World War simply is not happening with Muslim immigrant communities in Europe.
No Go Zones in Europe
Much of the debate around whether or not Europe has “No Go Zones” comes down to how terms are defined. A 2017 article on RT’s website put the matter very succinctly:
“Thus those looking to dismiss no-go areas as a ‘myth,’ can argue the semantics of what constitutes a ‘no-go zone,’ or how much of a threat they present, but not that term represents a real phenomenon.”
Here are some examples of growing civil unrest in Europe:
Belgium: Following the November 2015 terror attacks in France, Belgium’s Home Affairs Minister Jan Jambon stated that the Belgian government does not “have control of the situation in Molenbeek.” He described this as a “gigantic problem” without actually using the term No Go Zone.
France: Fox News created controversy in 2015 when they declared France had No Go Zones after the Charlie Hebdo shooting. However, looking beyond the hysteria, there’s considerable evidence that France has No Go Zones. In fact, Reuters referred to No Go Zones in Paris in October 2016. In June 2018, the French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech with repeated euphemistic references to No Go Zones. The National Post, Canada’s paper of record, did an in-depth feature on No Go Zones in 2016. In 2017, an app launched called “No-Go Zone,” allowing the French to report lawless areas to be avoided. So while there may be a reflexive reaction to dismiss reports from Gatestone Institute or Breitbart on French No Go Zones as “right-wing propaganda,” there are no shortage of so-called “mainstream” sources reporting on No Go Zones in France.
Germany: Angela Merkel has spoken about No Go Zones as a “reality” in Germany. In April 2018, the Daily Mail reported on a poll showing that a majority of Germans feared No Go Zones, with over three quarters stating they believed the government should crack down harder on organized crime.
Sweden: Much of the media attention surrounding No Go Zones is centered on Sweden. Despite vehement denials, there is overwhelming evidence of No Go Areas in Sweden, no matter what term one chooses to use. An April 2018 Sputnik report described areas where emergency services cannot enter without significant police support. In 2018, the Prime Minister of Sweden referred to “parallel societies” in Sweden. The spectre of civil war in Sweden is openly discussed in Parliament. A 2017 RT article quoted Swedish National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson as saying “we cannot continue in this direction ten more years.” In December 2017, the nation’s chief prosecutor described a Stockholm suburb as being like “a war zone” and stating that she would look to countries like El Salvador and Colombia for potential strategies.
How Is the Specter of No Go Zones Influencing European Politics?
No Go Zones are not currently dominating political discourse in any European country. They are, however, forming a persistent backdrop in nearly every European nation. Populist-nationalist parties use them as a frequent talking point to pillory the establishment parties of both the left and the right. For their part, establishment political parties tend to deny the existence of No Go Zones entirely. To what degree No Go Zones are a factor in anyone’s vote is highly speculative.
In the middle of summer 2018, riots broke out in Sweden. Many on the left blamed the riots on the popularity of Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration populist party. This only seemed to bolster their support among Swedes. Moderate Party MP Hanif Bali denied that this was the cause of the riots. Bali, the son of immigrants, is a staunch critic of Sweden’s immigration policies, showing that these criticisms are not limited to the Sweden Democrats. Bali is the only Swedish politician of note within the more mainstream parties to state that he is open to the possibility of a coalition with Sweden Democrats.
How Likely Are No Go Zones to Result in Failed States?
This is a difficult question to answer, because there’s no history of pockets of No Go Zones metastasizing into failed states in Western Europe.
However, some Western European countries have hallmarks of incipient failed states, such as:
Ceding their monopoly on legitimate violence. Sharia courts, for example, operate with relative impunity in the UK.
An unwillingness or inability to exercise sovereignty over its territory. The extended rioting in France and Sweden’s No Go Zones provide an example of this.
Escalation of communal or tribal conflicts. As No Go Zones grow, it’s almost a given that communal conflicts will escalate.
Guerilla conflict. Similarly, as No Go Zones grow, they may come to resemble completely autonomous areas and bases for terrorist attacks, such as the Moro areas of the Philippines.
Finally, there’s the specter of democratic collapse in Western Europe. What will happen, for example, if the Sweden Democrats win a plurality in parliament, but cannot form a government and neither can any collection of their rivals? How about if sections of the military or security apparatus start taking sides?
How Can I Protect My Family From No Go Zones?
The short answer is by not living near any. The problem with being “prepared” for No Go Zones and failed states is that even the most prepared people in these areas lead somewhat desperate qualities of life. Even all the tactical weapons and gear in the world won’t make living in what’s effectively a war zone any prettier.
Still, the last 30 years of European history teaches us that No Go Zones and failed states can crop up anywhere. Preparation should be focused on having adequate ammunition, water, food and power in the event of a disruption of normal civil society. More than anything, what you need is not supplies, but an escape plan.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3h5EPbs Tyler Durden
Turkey Escalates With Tanks & Armored Troop Carriers Deployed To Greek Border Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/06/2020 – 07:35
Amid soaring Turkey-Greece tensions related to the eastern Mediterranean gas exploration spat, which has already resulted in rival fighter jets patrolling airspace off Cyprus, the Associated Press reports Ankara has deployed some 40 tanks and armored vehicles to the border with Greece.
Meanwhile, Turkish media reported that tanks were being moved towards the Greek border. The Cumhuriyet newspaper said 40 tanks were being transported from the Syrian border to Edirne in northwest Turkey and carried photographs of armored vehicles loaded on trucks.
There was no immediate official confirmation of the deployment.
Turkey deploys tanks to Greece border from Syrian border, Turkish private news agency İHA claims.
But confirmation has come after Turkish news agency İHA posted video showing APC armored troops carriers headed to the border point.
However, tanks were not evident in the video of the large convoy on the Turkish highway, and the deployment could have been pre-planned, though will certainly be noticed and responded to by Athens.
Meanwhile NATO leadership is attempting to mediate the inter-NATO member dispute, which could prove highly embarrassing, also given Russia is about to kick off naval war games around Cyprus, notably in the very disputed waters Turkey is claiming as its own.
Edirne border point on Turkish side. Map via Daily Mail
The AP reviews the past two weeks of the standoff fast becoming militarized: “Simulated dogfights between Greek and Turkish fighter pilots have multiplied over the Aegean Sea and the eastern Mediterranean.”
“A Turkish and a Greek frigate collided last month, reportedly causing minor damage to the Turkish frigate but no injuries,” the report adds.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jUTvvV Tyler Durden
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has all but accused the Russian government of attempted murder in the strange case of Alexei Navalny, the dissident figure who reportedly remains comatose in a Berlin hospital.
Merkel spoke after a German military laboratory announced earlier this week it had “unequivocal proof” that Navalny had been poisoned with “Novichok”, a Soviet-era military-grade nerve agent.
“It raises serious questions that only the Russian government can and must answer,” Merkel told media reporters.
The chancellor’s assertions were immediately reinforced by the United States, Britain and the head of NATO, each demanding Moscow to be held to account.
The Russian government rejected the accusations, saying they were being made improperly. It noted that the German authorities did not inform Moscow of its claims directly, but rather communicated first with its Western allies. There is more than a suggestion that the Western response is being coordinated to railroad accusations against Russia without Moscow being afforded due process. There is a presumption of guilt which violates due process and diplomatic protocol. And, of course, this is not for the first time when it comes to Western contemptuous relations with Russia.
Contrary to Western assertions about Russia having to answer questions about the Navalny case, the onus is very much on the German authorities to explain their “findings” and to back them up with verifiable evidence. Otherwise it amounts to hearsay and innuendo.
First of all, the Germans say they have “unequivocal proof” that Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, reportedly from tests carried out on his blood samples. But the German military laboratory and doctors in Berlin have not provided any biomaterials to Russia for the latter to independently verify the alleged detection of Novichok.
Secondly, the Russian doctors who first treated Navalny after he suddenly fell ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow on August 20 have affirmed that they carried out comprehensive toxicology tests on his biological fluids and organs, and they detected no traces of toxins. Specifically no traces of organophosphate nerve agents. The Russian medics concluded that Navalny may have become ill from a metabolic disorder, such as extremely low blood sugar.
The Russian doctors who treated Navalny, and possibly saved his life by their quick intervention, said they detected the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors which affect the nervous system, but such substances can be caused by a wide range of clinical pharmaceuticals, including those used for the treatment of diabetes which Navalny reportedly suffers from.
However, the crucial point is this: the Russian toxicology tests found no presence of Novichok or any other such nerve poison in Navalny’s body. The Russian medics reportedly still possess the original body samples taken when Navalny was being treated in Russia. It is the Germans who are claiming they have detected Novichok, but so far they have not provided verifiable proof. It is their word for it, that’s all.
There are more questions needing answers.
Navalny was airlifted from Russia to Berlin on August 22 under heavy pressure from Germany and other Western states for Moscow to permit his relocation. Why the urgency to do so? Why did Moscow relent in allowing this strange foreign intervention in its internal affairs?
If, for argument sake, the Kremlin had in some way plotted to cause Navalny harm with Novichok or some other poison, why would Moscow permit his relocation to Berlin where toxicology tests would uncover the purported plot? That scenario is illogical.
Navalny’s aides immediately claimed he was poisoned when he fell ill. They said he may have been poisoned from drinking tea at Tomsk airport before his flight. But CCTV footage shows Navalny being handed the drink by an aide. So, if anyone intended Navalny’s intoxication from the beverage, they wouldn’t have known he was to be the person who received the drink.
Furthermore, the Russian scientists who invented Novichok have stated categorically that if the nerve agent was somehow involved in the Navalny case, then he would most likely be dead by now and not in a coma. Also, they say, his aides and those who treated Navalny onboard the flight from Tomsk, would inevitably have been contaminated and sickened, so deadly is this chemical weapon.
Let’s recap. Navalny did not have toxins in his body and specifically not organophosphate nerve agents of the Novichok type, according to the Russian toxicologists. Let’s give them benefit of doubt. The poison was only detected – allegedly – by the German military laboratory five days after Navalny was received at the Berlin hospital last weekend. Yet the Germans – and this is crucial – are not sharing their bio-evidence with Russia. They have instead rushed to make grave accusations against Moscow, along with their Western allies. Without a chain of verifiable evidence, this is a travesty of due process.
What this all relies on is presumption of guilt, as well as large prejudice stemming from Russophobia, and the invocation of dubious past unproven cases such as the 2018 alleged poisoning of British double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury. The whereabouts of Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a Russian citizen, remains a mystery which only the British authorities can reveal, yet their strange case is thrown at Moscow to answer for, just like the current Navalny case.
The timing of the Navalny case is also significant. There are several current geopolitical factors at play.
First there is the isolation of Washington at the United Nations in its attempt to force the reimposition of sanctions on Iran over the nuclear accord. This week saw Russian, Chinese, British, French and German diplomats meeting in Vienna in a bid to save the international nuclear deal in spite of American sabotage efforts. The Navalny case “poisons” diplomatic unity to defend the nuclear accord.
Another geopolitical factor is the political upheaval in Belarus. Washington and the European Union appear to be exploiting the unrest to destabilize relations between Russia and its neighbor. The Navalny case fits an agenda of undermining Moscow and impeding its relations with Minsk.
A third factor – and this may be the most significant – is the Nord Stream 2 gas supply project from Russia to Germany. The $11 billion, 1,200-kilometer pipeline has been targeted intensely by the Trump administration for derailment. There are also pro-Washington politicians in the ruling German Christian Democrat party who have been persistent in their opposition to the ambitious boost to energy trade between Russia and Europe.
The New York Times headlined on September 3: “Navalny Poisoning Raises Pressure on Merkel to Cancel Russian Pipeline”.
Last week, Merkel was insisting that the Navalny case did not impinge on the Nord Stream 2 project’s completion. This week, German military intelligence is claiming that Novichok was used to poison Navalny, and now Merkel is under intensified pressure to abandon the Nord Stream 2 project. As ever, the old criminologist question of who gains should be foremost here.
Indeed, there are several serious questions to answer in the Navalny case. But it is Germany and its Western allies who are best placed to provide answers, not Russia.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3573MAZ Tyler Durden
Man Catches Fire After Comrade Throws Molotov In Portland; Riot Declared, Tear Gas Deployed Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/06/2020 – 01:45
A Portland protester rioter caught fire after running through a molotov cocktail thrown by a comrade Saturday night, during the city’s 100th straight of protests.
The man attempted to douse the flames as one onlooker shouted “stop, drop and roll!“
Portland police worked with state troopers to force the crowd to disperse, thwarting their attempts to march to the nearby East Precinct, where dozens of police officers were waiting for them, according to Oregon Live.
Dozens of officers arrived to block the crowd’s path on Stark Street. Around 9:20 p.m., some people in the crowd threw at least three Molotov cocktail-like devices toward the police line. Another person lit a firework. One of the devices appeared to wound the foot of a bystander.
The series of explosions prompted police to immediately declare the gathering a riot and order people to leave. Police forced the crowd east and, within minutes, released tear gas onto the crowd. –Oregon Live
Fire bombs were thrown at officers, injuring at least one community member. Police are trying to restore peace and order for the safety of this neighborhood. https://t.co/V3UOCR6Bc4
Portland PD deployed tear gas as protesters tossed fireworks in the street.
Extremely heavy smoke in SE Portland tonight as #antifa riot using Molotov cocktails. One person was already set on fire. BLM-antifa are celebrating more than 100 days of violence in the city. #PortlandRiotspic.twitter.com/hqA5lF9gao
A group of “bipartisan” neoconservative Republicans and establishment Democrats have been “simulating” multiple catastrophic scenarios for the 2020 election, including a simulation where a clear victory by the incumbent provokes “unprecedented” measures, which the Biden campaign could take to foil a new Trump inauguration.
A group of Democratic Party insiders and former Obama and Clinton era officials as well as a cadre of “Never Trump” neoconservative Republicans have spent the past few months conducting simulations and “war games” regarding different 2020 election “doomsday” scenarios.
Per several media reports on the group, called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), they justify these exercises as specifically preparing for a scenario where President Trump loses the 2020 election and refuses to leave office, potentially resulting in a constitutional crisis. However, according to TIP’s own documents, even their simulations involving a “clear win” for Trump in the upcoming election resulted in a constitutional crisis, as they predicted that the Biden campaign would make bold moves aimed at securing the presidency, regardless of the election result.
This is particularly troubling given that TIP has considerable ties to the Obama administration, where Biden served as Vice President, as well as several groups that are adamantly pro-Biden in addition to the Biden campaign itself. Indeed, the fact that a group of openly pro-Biden Washington insiders and former government officials have gamed out scenarios for possible election outcomes and their aftermath, all of which either ended with Biden becoming president or a constitutional crisis, suggest that powerful forces influencing the Biden campaign are pushing the former Vice President to refuse to concede the election even if he loses.
This, of course, gravely undercuts the TIP’s claim to be ensuring “integrity” in the presidential transition process and instead suggests that the group is openly planning on how to ensure that Trump leaves office regardless of the result or to manufacture the very constitutional crisis they claim to be preventing through their simulations.
Such concerns are only magnified by the recent claims made by the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary Clinton, that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.”
“I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton continued during an interview with Showtime a little over a week ago. The results of the TIP’s simulations notably echo Clinton’s claims that Biden will “eventually” win if the process to determine the election outcome is “dragged out.”
The Uniparty’s “war games”
Members of the TIP met in June to conduct four “war games” that simulated “a dark 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day” in which “Trump and his Republican allies used every apparatus of government — the Postal Service, state lawmakers, the Justice Department, federal agents, and the military — to hold onto power, and Democrats took to the courts and the streets to try to stop it,” according to a report fromThe Boston Globe.However, one of those simulations, which examined what would transpire between Election Day and Inauguration Day in the event of a “clear Trump win,” shows that the TIP simulated not only how Republicans could use every option at their disposal to “hold onto power”, but also how Democrats could do so if the 2020 election result is not in their favor.
While some, mostly right-leaning media outlets, such as this article from The National Pulse, did note that the TIP’s simulations involved the Biden campaign refusing to concede, the actual document from TIP on the exercises revealed the specific moves the Biden campaign would take following a “clear win” for the Trump campaign. Unsurprisingly, these moves would greatly exacerbate current political tensions in the United States, an end result that the TIP claims they were created to avoid, gravely undercutting the official justification for their simulations as well as the group’s official reason for existing.
In the TIP’s “clear Trump win” scenario (see page 17), Joe Biden – played in the war game by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton – retracted his election night concession and subsequently convinced “three states with Democratic governors – North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan – to ask for recounts.” Then, the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan “sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature” to the Electoral College, which Trump had won, in an attempt to undermine, if not prevent, that win.
Next, “the Biden campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms. (emphasis added)” Subsequently, “with advice from [former] President Obama,” the Biden campaign laid out those “reforms” as the following:
Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico
Divide California into five states “to more accurately represent its population in the Senate”
Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70
Eliminate the Electoral College
In other words, these “structural reforms” involve the creation of what essentially amounts to having the U.S. by composed 56 states, with the new states set to ensure a perpetual majority for Democrats, as only Democrat-majority areas (DC, Puerto Rico and California) are given statehood. Notably, in other scenarios where Biden won the Electoral College, Democrats did not support its elimination.
Also notable is the fact that, in this simulation, the TIP blamed the Trump campaign for the Democrats’ decision to take the “provocative, unprecedented actions” laid out above, asserting that Trump’s campaign had “created the conditions to force the Biden campaign” into taking these actions by doing things like giving “an interview to The Intercept in which he [Trump] stated that he would have lost the election if Bernie Sanders had been nominated” instead of Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate.
The TIP also claimed that the Trump campaign would seek to paint these “provocative, unpredecented actions” as “the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup,” despite the fact that that is essentially what those actions entail. Indeed, in other simulations where the Trump campaign behaved along these lines, the TIP’s rhetoric about this category of extreme actions is decidedly different.
Yet, the simulated actions of the Biden campaign in this scenario did not end there, as the Biden campaign subsequently “provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress [on January 6th] by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden,” adding that this was “based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors.” The Republican party obviously did not consent, noting that Trump had won the election through his Electoral College victory. The “clear Trump win” election simulation ended with no president-elect being inaugurated on January 20, with the TIP noting “it was unclear what the military would do in this situation.”
Of course, some TIP members, including its co-founder Rosa Brooks – a former advisor to the Obama era Pentagon and currently a fellow at the “New America” think tank, have their preference for “what the military would do in this situation.” For instance, Brooks, writing less than 2 weeks after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, argued in Foreign Policythat “a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders” was one of four possibilities for removing Trump from office prior to the 2020 election.
Full TIP document below:
Who is behind the TIP?
The TIP was created in late 2019, allegedly “out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process.” It was co-founded by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman and its current director is Zoe Hudson. Brooks, as previously mentioned, was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of the Open Society Foundations (OSF), a controversial organization funded by billionaire George Soros. Zoe Hudson, who is TIP’s director, is also a former top figure at OSF, serving assenior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.
OSF ties to the TIP are a red flag for a number of reasons, namely due to the fact that OSF and other Soros-funded organizations played a critical role in fomenting so-called “color revolutions” to overthrow non-aligned governments, particularly during the Obama administration. Examples of OSF’s ties to these manufactured “revolutions” include Ukraine in 2014 and the “Arab Spring,” which began in 2011 and saw several governments in the Middle East and North Africa that were troublesome to Western interests conveniently removed from power.
Subsequent leaked emails revealed the cozy ties between Soros and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including one email where Soros directed Clinton’s policy with respect to unrest in Albania, telling her that “two things need to be done urgently,” which were to “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” and “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” Both “urgent” tasks were subsequently performed by Clinton, presumably at Soros’ behest.
In addition to her ties to the Obama administration and OSF, Brooks is currently a scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute, where she focuses on “the relationship between the military and domestic policing” and also Georgetown’s Innovative Policing Program. She is a currently a key player in the documented OSF-led push to “capitalize” off of legitimate calls for police reform to justify the creation of a federalized police force under the guise of defunding and/or eliminating local police departments. Brooks’ interest in the “blurring line” between military and police is notable given her past advocacy of a military coup to remove Trump from office and the TIP’s subsequent conclusion that the military “may” have to step in if Trump manages to win the 2020 election, per the group’s “war games” described above.
Brooks is also a senior fellow at the think tank New America. New America’s mission statement notes that the organization is focused on “honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create.” It is largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Google), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Jeffrey Skoll and Pierre Omidyar (eBay). In addition, it has received millions directly from the U.S. State Department to research “ranking digital rights.” Notably, of these funders, Reid Hoffman was caught “meddling” in the most recent Democratic primary to undercut Bernie Sanders’ candidacy during the Iowa caucus and while others, such as Eric Schmidt and Pierre Omidyar, are known for their cozy ties to the Clinton family and even ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
The Never Trumpers
Aside from Brooks, the other co-founder of TIP is Nils Gilman, the current Vice President of Programs at the Berggruen Institute and, prior to that, worked for Salesforce, a major tech company and government contractor. Gilman is particularly focused on artificial intelligence and transhumanism, recently telling the New York Times that his work at the Berggruen Institute is focused on “building [a] transnational networks of philosophers + technologists + policy-makers + artists who are thinking about how A.I. and gene-editing are transfiguring what it means to be human.” Nicholas Berggruen, for whom the Berggruen Institute is named, is part of the billionaire-led faction, alongside Blackstone’s Steve Schwarzman and Eric Schmidt, who seek to develop A.I. and the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in conjunction with the political leaders and economic elite of China.
They are critics and rivals of those in the “nationalist” camp with respect to A.I. and China, who instead prefer to aggressively “leapfrog” China’s A.I. capabilities in order to maintain U.S. global hegemony as opposed to a “new order” promoted by Berggreun, Schmidt, Schwarzman and Henry Kissinger, another key member of the “cooperation” faction. The battle over the U.S.’ future A.I. policy with respect to China appears to be a major yet widely overlooked reason for some of the antipathy towards Trump by those in the “cooperation” faction, including those who employ TIP’s founders, given Trump’s tendency to, at least publicly, support “America First” policies and increased tensions with China. In contrast, the Biden family is invested in Chinese A.I. companies, suggesting that Biden would be more willing to pursue the interests of the “cooperation” faction than Trump.
While the identities of the TIP’s founders and current director have been made public, the full member list of the TIP has not. However, the TIP’s “sister” organization, called The National Task Force on Election Crises (NTFEC), does have a public membership list and several of its members are also known to be part of the TIP. Some of these overlapping members include Michael Chertoff, former head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael Steele, former chairman of the RNC and Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Chertoff, Steele and Wilkerson, though Republicans, are part of the so-called “Never Trump” Republican faction, as are the TIP’s other known Republican members. Thus, while the “bipartisan” nature of TIP may be accurate in terms of party affiliation, all of known TIP’s members – regardless of party – are united in their opposition to another term for the current president.
Other known members of the TIP include David Frum (the Atlantic), William Kristol (Project for a New American Century, The Bulwark), Max Boot (the Washington Post),Donna Brazile (ex-DNC), John Podesta (former campaign manager – Clinton 2016), Chuck Hagel (former Secretary of Defense), Reed Galen (co-founder of the Lincoln Project) and Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute).
Of their known members, the most outspoken is Lawrence Wilkerson, who has fashioned himself the group’s “unofficial” spokesperson, having done the majority of media interviewspromoting the group and its “war games.” In an interview in late June with journalist Paul Jay, Wilkerson notes that the TIP lacks transparency and that, aside from their “war games,” their other activities are largely confidential.
He specifically stated that:
“There is some confidentiality about what we agreed to, and what we’ve put out publicly, and who’s responsible for that, and other aspects of our doing that. The Transition Integrity Project is to this point very, very close, whole, and confidential.”
In that same interview, Wilkerson also noted that the current “combination of events” involving the recent unrest in several U.S. cities, the coronavirus crisis, the national debate over the future of policing, the economic recession and the 2020 election was the foundation for a revolution in the U.S. He told Jay that:
“I want to say this is how things like 1917 and Russia, like 1979 and Tehran, and like 1789 in France. This is how these sorts of things get started. So we’ve got to be very careful about how we deal with these things. And that worries me because we don’t have a very careful individual in the White House.”
Pre-planned chaos – who benefits?
While it certainly is possible that, in the event of a clear Biden win, President Trump could refuse to leave the White House or take other actions that would challenge the faith of many Americans in the national election system. However, while the TIP claims to be specifically concerned about this eventuality and about “safe guarding” democracy without favoring either candidate, that is clearly not the case, as their simulation of a clear Trump win shows that extreme, “undemocratic” behavior, in their view, is permissible if it prevents another four years of Trump. Yet, this clear double standard reveals that an influential group of “bipartisan” insiders are intent on creating a “constitutional crisis” if Trump wins and are planning for such a crisis regardless of the 2020 election’s results.
Well before the TIP or any of their affiliated groups emerged to conduct these doomsday election simulations, other groups were similarly engaged in “war games” that predicted complete chaos in the U.S. on election day as well as the imposition of martial law in the U.S. following the emergence of unprecedented unrest and disarray in the country.
Several of these I detailed in a series earlier this year, which mainly focused on the “Operation Blackout” simulationsconducted by the U.S.-Israeli company, Cybereason. That company has considerable ties to the U.S. and Israeli intelligence and its largest investor is Softbank. Notably, Softbank is named by the Eric Schmidt-led National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI) as forming the “backbone” of a global framework of A.I.-driven companies favored by the “cooperation” faction as a means of enacting the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in cooperation with China’s economic and political elite.
In addition to Cybereason, several mainstream media reports and a series of suspect “predictions” from U.S. intelligence and other federal agencies released last year had seeded the narrative that the 2020 election would not only fail spectacularly, but that U.S. democracy “would never recover.” Now, with the TIP’s simulations added to the mix and the advent of the previously predicted chaos throughout the country with the 2020 election just two months away, it is clear that the November 3rd election will not only be a complete disaster, but a pre-planned one.
The question then becomes, who benefits from complete chaos on and following the 2020 election? As the TIP suggested in several of their simulations, the post-election role of the military in terms of domestic policing, incidentally the exact expertise of the TIP’s co-founder Rosa Brooks, looms large, as most of the aforementioned doomsday election simulations ended with the imposition of martial law or the military “stepping in” to resolve order and oversee the transition.
The domestic framework for imposing martial law in the U.S., via “continuity of government” protocols, was activated earlier this year under the guise of the coronavirus crisis and it remains in effect. Now, a series of groups deeply tied to the Washington establishment and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies have predicted the exact ways in which to engineer a failed election and manipulate its aftermath.
Who would stand to benefit the most from the imposition of martial law in the United States? I would argue that one need look no further than the battle within Washington power factions over the future of AI, which has been deemed of critical importance to national security by the public sector, the private sector and prominent think tanks. The Schmidt-led NSCAI and other bodies determining the country’s AI policy plan to implement a series of policies that will be deeply resisted by most Americans – from the elimination of individual car ownership to the elimination of cash as well as the imposition of an Orwellian surveillance system, among other things.
All of these agendas have advanced under the guise of combatting coronavirus, but their advance can only continue to use that justification for so long. For groups like the NSCAI, Americans must welcome these AI-driven advances or else, even if it means Americans face losing their jobs or their civil liberties. Otherwise, these groups and their billionaire backers argue, the U.S. will be “left out” and “left behind” when it comes time to set the new global standards for AI technology, as the U.S. will then be left in the dust by China’s growing AI industry, which is fed by its own implementation of these technologies.
By keeping Americans angry and distracted by the partisan divide through pre-planned election chaos, a “New America” waits in the wings – one that is coming regardless of what happens on election day. That is, of course, unless Americans quickly wake up to the ruse…
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Dwp27E Tyler Durden
“In Complete Shock”: China’s Lead Chip Maker Denies PLA Military Ties As Trump Mulls Blacklisting Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/05/2020 – 23:20
Executives of Chinese companies which produce chips — vital in every device that stores data from computers to mobile phones to barcode scanners — are increasingly worried their industry is next on the Trump sanctions hit list, also after widespread reports that Beijing plans to in desperation ramp up its lagging domestic semiconductor development over the next decade as continued outside access to the most advanced chips looks increasingly in doubt.
Some are speaking out, attempting to make crystal clear to Washington that they are not puppets of either the Chinese state or PLA military. The country’s largest and leading homegrown chipmaker, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), is vehemently denying its technology is for military use after Reuters on Friday said Trump is mulling adding the publicly traded company to a US blacklist.
Via DigiTimes
The Shanghai-based company expressed that it is “in complete shock” over contents of the report, which said earlier this past week that “the Pentagon made a proposal to place SMIC on the entity list to the End User Committee, a panel led by the Commerce Department that also includes the State and Energy Departments and makes decisions about entity listings.”
A follow-up official Semiconductor Manufacturing International statement said Saturday:
“The company manufactures semiconductors and provides services solely for civilian and commercial end-users and end-uses. We have no relationship with the Chinese military.”
The statement added, “Any assumptions of the company’s ties with the Chinese military are untrue statements and false accusations.”
At moment there’s an inter-agency review underway in Washington over whether to add the company to the list, which would immediately require American suppliers to obtain a specially approved license in order to ship materials to the company. If it goes on the list, SMIC would go the way of Huawei in facing huge hurdles and intense scrutiny any time it does business with Western companies.
Meanwhile some are counter-threatening various nuclear option scenarios, a rapid downward spiral:
US/China tit-4-tat horror.
“The suggestion from econ prof Li Daokui that China curb exports of medicines as a means of countering US economic curbs on Chinese access to semiconductor products is plainly wrong, dangerous…”https://t.co/2jIKw0CoJv
Consider the dire warnings issued at the World Semiconductor Conference held in Nanjing at the end of August of the fragile early state of China’s domestic capabilities.
Bloomberg relates of one of the more revealing conference moments:
“The entire chip industry is too fragile to defend itself. We are at least 20 years behind comparing to Silicon Valley from scale and quality of talent to size of the ecosystem,”said Wang Xuguang, chief executive officer of AINSTEC, a Suzhou-based company that develops 3D visual chips. “If we can prosper (with the U.S.), that’s the best, but if the situation doesn’t allow this to happen, we need to think what we have on our hands.”
Crucially, China remains the world’s largest importer of chips, and will spend some $300 billion to import semiconductors this year.
The country still faces a huge technology gap in this area which Chinese developers have struggled to close over and ahead of more advanced industry rivals in the US, Japan, and Europe.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lXpHQQ Tyler Durden
With rising integration among China, Iran and Pakistan, India is integrated only with its own inconsistencies…
There was a time when New Delhi was proudly selling the notion of establishing its own New Silk Road – from the Gulf of Oman to the intersection of Central and South Asia – to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Now it looks like the Indians have stabbed themselves in the back.
In 2016, Tehran and New Delhi signed a deal to build a 628-km rail line from strategic Chabahar port to Zahedan, very close to the Afghan border, with a crucial extension to Zaranj, in Afghanistan, and beyond.
The negotiations involved Iranian Railways and Indian Railway Constructions Ltd. But in the end nothing happened – because of Indian foot-dragging. So Tehran has decided to build the railway anyway, with its own funds – $400 million – and completion scheduled for March 2022.
The railway was supposed to be the key transportation corridor linked to substantial Indian investments in Chabahar, its port of entry from the Gulf of Oman for an alternative New Silk Road to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Upgrading rail/road infrastructure from Afghanistan to its neighbors Tajikistan and Uzbekistan would be the next step. The whole operation was inscribed in a trilateral India-Iran-Afghanistan deal – signed in 2016 in Tehran by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and then Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.
The unofficial New Delhi excuse revolves around fears that the project would be slammed with US sanctions. New Delhi actually did get a Trump administration sanctions waiver for Chabahar and the rail line to Zahedan. The problem was to convince an array of investment partners, all of them terrified of being sanctioned.
In fact, the whole saga has more to do with Modi’s wishful thinking of expecting to get preferential treatment under the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which relies on a de facto Quad (US, India, Australia, Japan) containment of China. That was the rationale behind New Delhi deciding to cut off all its oil imports from Iran.
So far all practical purposes, India threw Iran under the bus. No wonder Tehran decided to move on its own, especially now with the $400 billion, 25-year “Comprehensive Plan for Cooperation between Iran and China”, a deal that seals a strategic partnership between China and Iran.
In this case, China may end up exercising control over two strategic “pearls” in the Arabian Sea/Gulf of Oman only 80 km away from each other: Gwadar, in Pakistan, a key node of the $61 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and Chabahar.
Tehran, so far, has denied that Chabahar port will be offered on a lease to Beijing. But what is a real possibility, apart from Chinese investments in an oil refinery near Chabahar, and even, in the long run, in the port itself, is an operational link between Gwadar and Chabahar. That will be complemented by the Chinese operating the port of Bandar-e-Jask in the Gulf of Oman, 350 km to the west of Chabahar and very close to the hyper-strategic Strait of Hormuz.
How corridors attract
Not even a Hindu deity on hangover could possibly imagine a more counter-productive “strategy” for Indian interests in case New Delhi backs off from its cooperation with Tehran.
Let’s look at the essentials. What Tehran and Beijing will be working on is a de facto massive expansion of CPEC, with Gwadar linked to Chabahar and further onwards to Central Asia and the Caspian via Iranian railways, as well as connected to Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean (via Iraq and Syria), all the way to the EU.
This game-changing progress will be at the heart of the whole Eurasian integration process – uniting China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and of course Russia, which is linked to Iran via the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
For the moment, for all its hefty reverberations in multiple areas – upgrade of energy infrastructure, refurbishing of ports and refineries, construction of a connectivity corridor, investments in manufacturing, and a steady supply of Iranian oil and gas, a matter of national security for China – there’s no question that the Iran-China deal is being effectively downplayed by both sides.
The reasons are self-evident: not to raise the Trump administration’s ire to even more incandescent levels, considering both actors are considered “existential threats”. Still, Mahmoud Vezi, chief of staff for President Rouhani, guarantees the final Iran-China deal with be signed by March 2021.
CPEC, meanwhile, is on a roll. What Chabahar was supposed to do for India is already in effect at Gwadar – as transit trade to Afghanistan started only a few days ago, with bulk cargo arriving from the UAE. Gwadar is already establishing itself as a key transit hub to Afghanistan – way ahead of Chabahar.
For Kabul, the strategic factor is essential. Afghanistan essentially depends on overland routes from Pakistan – some can be extremely unreliable – as well as Karachi and Port Qasim. Especially for southern Afghanistan, the overland link from Gwadar, through Balochistan, is much shorter and safer.
For Beijing, the strategic factor is even more essential. For China, Chabahar would not be a priority, because access to Afghanistan is easier, for instance, via Tajikistan.
But Gwadar is a completely different story. It’s being configured, slowly but surely, as the key Maritime Silk Road hub connecting China with the Arabian Sea, the Middle East and Africa, with Islamabad collecting hefty transit funds. Win-win in a nutshell – but always taking into consideration that protests and challenges from Balochistan simply won’t disappear, and require very careful management by Beijing-Islamabad.
Chabahar-Zahedan was not the only recent setback for India. India’s External Affairs Ministry has recently admitted that Iran will develop the massive Farzad-B gas field in the Persian Gulf “on its own” and India might join “appropriately at a later stage”. The same “at a later stage” spin was applied by New Delhi for Chabahar-Zahedan.
The exploration and production rights for Farzad B were already granted years ago for India’s state company ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL). But then, again, nothing happened – due to the proverbial specter of sanctions.
Sanctions, by the way, had been in effect already under Obama. Yet at the time, India and Iran at least traded goods for oil. Farzad B was scheduled to be back on track after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. But then Trump’s sanctions iced it again.
It doesn’t take a PhD in political science to ascertain who may eventually take over Farzad B: China, especially after the signing of the 25-year partnership next year.
India, against its own energy and geostrategic interests, has in fact been reduced to the status of hostage of the Trump administration. The real target of applying Divide and Rule to India-Iran is to prevent them from trading in their own currencies, bypassing the US dollar, especially when it comes to energy.
The Big Picture though is always about New Silk Road progress across Eurasia. With increasing evidence of closer and closer integration between China, Iran and Pakistan, what’s clear is that India remains integrated only with its own inconsistencies.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2F3vpjx Tyler Durden
Reports Linking 30-35% Of Big-Ten Athletes With COVID To Myocarditis Were Inaccurate Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/05/2020 – 22:20
With the media poised to pounce on negative Covid headlines at any chance they are given, it is more important now than ever to make sure that those headlines are accurate.
Inaccurate headlines can cause an uproar, as we found out last week when it was falsely reported that an astonishing 30% to 35% of Big Ten college athletes that were positive for Covid also had myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle. It was an astonishing figure that may left the world thinking: if 30% to 35% of college athletes were getting it, surely everyone else was, too.
The reports generated sprawling headlines in national media over the next few days, like this one in USA Today:
“When we looked at our COVID-positive athletes, whether they were symptomatic or not, 30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles are inflamed … and we really just don’t know what to do with it right now. It’s still very early in the infection. Some of that has led to the Pac-12 and the Big Ten’s decision to sort of put a hiatus on what’s happening,” Penn State Doctor Wayne Sebastianelli said on Monday.
Reports like the one in USA Today read: “…cardiac scans of Big Ten athletes who contracted COVID-19 showed ’30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles’ indicated symptoms of myocarditis.”
The figured sounded enormous to us; in fact, we almost did a write up on the headline earlier this week but decided to hold off to see if more information would become available.
And, lo and behold, more information did become available. Turns out the earlier headlines simply weren’t true.
In what can only be described as a barrage of corrections from places like The Washington Post and CNN published less than 48 hours from the original report, it was revealed that the doctor was “unintentionally citing outdated numbers”.
A spokesman for the school’s health department clarified: “During his discussion with board members, (Sebastianelli) recalled initial preliminary data that had been verbally shared by a colleague on a forthcoming study, which unbeknownst to him at the time had been published at a lower rate.”
The continued: “Additionally, some have inferred his comments may have related directly to Penn State student athletes. At this time, there have been no cases of myocarditis in COVID-19 positive student-athletes at Penn State.”
Regardless, the Big 10 conference has already announced that it would be postponing fall sports as a result of the coronavirus. A conference spokesperson said:
“As time progressed and after hours of discussion with our Big Ten Task Force for Emerging Infectious Diseases and the Big Ten Sports Medicine Committee, it became abundantly clear that there was too much uncertainty regarding potential medical risks to allow our student-athletes to compete this fall.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QYfpBT Tyler Durden
