iftttwall

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Market Finally Cracks

Over the last few weeks, we have discussed that while the markets were continuing their seemingly “unstoppable” advance, there were many “technical extremes” reached.

Here is the problem with watching media headlines rather than paying attention to what is happening in the underlying market.

On Wednesday was this headline:

On Thursday, it was this:

Thursday was not a surprise, As noted in “Winter Is Coming:”

“The market is currently at historic market extremes. I explained this concept in much more detail in today’s #Macroview.

However, the most critical point of that article was the extreme deviation from long-term means. As noted, trend lines and moving averages tend to act as ‘gravity.’ The further away the market moves from the trendline, the greater the pull becomes.

When markets are pushing extremes, it seems like it is a “no-lose” scenario for investors. It is at those moments when “selling high” becomes opportunistic, but is incredibly hard to do for the “Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO)”

The question now? Was it a one day blip, or the start of a more significant correction process.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs

Over the last three weeks, we have been publishing “signs of exuberance,” which have ranged from incredibly high options speculation to investor positioning. Some of these indicators are now at levels only seen in 1999.

If you have 3-minutes, this video covers quite a few of the current indications which suggest risk continues to outweigh the reward.

(We publish “3-Minutes” Monday-Thursday. Click here to subscribe to our YouTube channel for email notification of all of our video postings and live-streams.)

I shot that video Thursday morning before the market opened.

So, did the Thursday/Friday selloff reverse the majority of those excesses back to levels where reward now outweighs the risk?

The short answer is “no.”

On every level, the market remains overbought and extremely extended from intermediate moving averages. A one or two-day correction will not reverse those levels back to a “buying opportunity.” 

However, there is currently a tremendous amount of “bullish sentiment” in the market, which may lead to several attempts at “dip buying” before a correction is complete, which we saw on Friday.

Was that the 5% correction we talked about last week?

“None of this data means the market is about to crash.

What it does mean, as discussed in “Winter Approaches,” is that a correction of 5-10% has become increasingly likely over the next few weeks to two months. While a 5-10% correction may not seem like much, it will feel much worse due to the high level of complacency by investors currently.

All of the data suggests that “Winter Is Coming.” Therefore, this is why we are adding “value” to our portfolios to prepare for colder weather.”

Not surprisingly, the selloff on Thursday and Friday shocked a lot of inexperienced investors that thought it couldn’t happen.

Momentum Is Hard To Kill

There is one crucial aspect of the market, which you should not dismiss – “momentum” is extremely hard to kill. 

Many “retail” investors will immediately view the selloff on Thursday and Friday, and the media, as a reason to pick up “stocks on the cheap.” The general bias in the short-term is that you should buy every “dip,” and for a brief period, they may indeed be proved right.

We can validate that view by looking at speculative call buyers, who, despite the pullback, increased their leveraged market bets. (Chart via Sentiment Trader) Furthermore, this amount of speculation is historically unprecedented. The eventual outcome when this all unwinds is obvious.

However, in the short-term, the market has pulled back to very short-term support. We suspect the pullback will entice a lot of the momentum buyers, and those who “missed out,” to jump back in. A sellable bounce next week, in lighter post-holiday trading, is very likely.

Furthermore, as we noted previously in a “Tale of Two Bull Markets,” the deviations longer-term are still problematic. The extensions are so large it will require several days to weeks of a correction to work off the extremes. As shown, last week’s decline is barely noticeable and did little to reverse the longer-term overbought conditions.

Currently, we are trapped.

In the longer-term, markets are overbought, overvalued, and extended against a backdrop of weakening economics, a potential political upheaval, and poor earnings outlooks.

On the other hand, we have an exceedingly bullish market, extreme momentum,  and a shorter-term defined bullish uptrend.

So what do you do? The same as do you with a “porcupine.”

You deal with it very carefully.

…

If the short-term trend of the market changes from bullish to bearish, we too shall change our positioning accordingly. 

The problem for most investors is either a lack of a discipline to manage capital or an unwillingness to acknowledge that what was working no longer is.

We prefer to acknowledge change and have the discipline to deal with it.

Via TheZMan.com,

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.

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.

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

— Andy Netherwood (@AndyNetherwood) August 30, 2020

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

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) September 4, 2020

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.

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. 

Authored by Sam Jacobs via Ammo.com,

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:

• A de facto separatist nation or nations existing within the boundaries of their de jure territory, competing for the monopoly on legitimate use of physical force.

• 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 claims Olivenza, 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.

Uncomfortable for some to consider, it is an undeniable fact that most, if not all, of the No Go Zones in Europe coincide with large Muslim populations. In these areas, large radicalized immigrant populations are indifferent or hostile to the central government.

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.

• United Kingdom: President Donald Trump was ridiculed for suggesting the presence of No Go Areas in the UK, however, there is evidence to suggest he was correct. Raheem Kassam, a UKIP activist and former Breitbart UK Editor in Chief has written an entire book on the subject. Kassam is of Tanzanian extraction and was raised as an Ismaili Muslim, though he now identifies as an atheist. An anonymous London police officer went on popular British radio program LBC and stated that the British capital did in fact have “No Go Areas.” Councillors for Leeds suburb Bradford have similarly described areas of that city.

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.

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. 

The AP/New York Times cites Turkish media reports on Saturday:

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.

Approximately 40 tanks. pic.twitter.com/nnDrEegXsj

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) September 5, 2020

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.

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 The Strategic Culture Foundation,

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.