iftttwall

Russian President Vladimir Putin may have openly shamed 16-year-old environmental activist Greta Thunberg in early October for selectively guilting everyone except China over pollution, but one German politician has suggested the Kremlin may have actually “financed and steered” her eco movement. 

In a letter to the European Commission, Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) MEP Jörg Meuthen questioned the measures Europe has taken to “avert hybrid threats” that may “influence decision-making, to weaken societies and undermine unity.” 

Meuthen then points to several campaigns, such as Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future” school protest movement, along with those by Greenpeace and NGO rescue boats in the Mediterranean. He then inquires whether the EU has investigated said campaigns, and if so, he would like to know what they have concluded. 

And lastly, he asks if the Commission can “rule out the possibility that these campaigns are being financed and steered by Russia.” 

Shirley you must be joking…

If Thunberg is a Putin puppet, he must have clearly been drumming up sympathy for the autistic eco-avenger. After she shamed the UN earlier this month for “ruining her childhood,” Putin shamed her back – saying “Sure, Greta is kind, but emotions should not control this issue.” 

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg at #UNGA: “This is all wrong…You all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words—and yet, I’m one of the lucky ones.” https://t.co/YTVSvKxTkg pic.twitter.com/px90HghuQd

— ABC News (@ABC) September 23, 2019

“Go and explain to developing countries why they should continue living in poverty and not be like Sweden,” he added, before saying that it was deplorable how some groups are using Thunberg to achieve their own goals. 

Authored by Alain Destexhe via The Gatestone Institute,

On October 3, 2019, a knife-wielding Muslim employee of the Paris Police Department Intelligence Directorate stabbed to death four other employees at police headquarters in the center of Paris, before a trainee police officer shot and killed him. While it was not the deadliest terror attack France has experienced in recent years, the fatal stabbings that took place at the Paris police headquarters were perhaps the most worrisome. Its author (a French public servant employed by the police), its highly sensitive target, and the catastrophic handling of the aftermath of the attack reveal the failure of the French institutions.

As it was the case for all recent terror attacks, French media and authorities first tried to downplay what happened. The attacker was initially described through potentially mitigating factors, such as his handicap (the killer is partly deaf and mute). It took 24 hours before it was eventually revealed that he was an Islamist militant who had carefully planned his attack.

That a radicalized militant had been able to remain undetected in a critical security institution for years sent shockwaves throughout the country. Members of the parliamentary opposition asked for the resignation of Home Affairs Minister Christophe Castaner, who at first had said that the attacker “had never shown any warning signs or behavioral difficulties.”

For the record, this “very normal behavior” included cutting down to a bare minimum communication with women (he had for months being avoiding all women but his wife), attending a notoriously radical mosque, and having a phone full of Islamist contacts. His colleagues reported that already in January 2015, he had cheered the murderous Islamist terror attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in front of other police employees. In many countries, a mistake of this scale would be enough for a government minister to resign, but not in France.

The whole picture of the attack, which is still not clear, demonstrates an incredible failure of internal control inside the French police. The French Parliament is now asking how the murderer managed to fly under the radar when everything in his behavior clearly signaled an increasing radicalization.

Notably, this is the first time that the French state and its institutions were directly targeted. Also for the first time, the victims were not journalists (as was the case for the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015), Jews (who have been targeted several times in recent years) or civilians (such as the massive coordinated attacks in Paris on November 2015 that caused more than 131 deaths and 413 wounded).

This latest attack also demonstrates how inadequately prepared France is to tackle the problem. The killer was not just any civil servant: his security clearance allowed him to have access to sensitive files such as the personal details of police officers and individuals monitored by the department, including several individuals suspected of terrorism.

After Charlie Hebdo, the Bataclan in Paris, the truck-ramming massacre in Nice, and countless other attacks, French institutions have failed repeatedly. However, instead of recognizing this failure and assuming a share of responsibility, instead of hitting the problem of religious radicalization head-on, French President Emmanuel Macron regularly describes it as a “societal problem,” that “institutions alone will not be able to solve.” It is necessary first to recognize and name a problem in order to tackle it. In the current state of affairs, French political institutions are a long way from success in the fight against terrorism.

Beyond the political sphere, there is also a culture a denial of the Islamist threat in the French media. Journalists, academics and politicians, with a few exceptions, have consistently played down not only the risk of terrorist attacks but also the threat of growing Salafist radicalization in the country. A growing number of Muslims, while not advocating the use of violence, desire to live under Sharia law, separate from the rest of French society.

According to a study by the Montaigne Institute, 29% of Muslims in France believe that Sharia law is more important than French law. This means that almost one-third of French Muslims live according to values that are fundamentally incompatible with French or Western standards.

Although France is the European country most targeted by Islamists (263 killed since 2012), politicians are paralyzed by the fear of being accused by the mainstream media of discrimination against Muslims, of creating an amalgam between terrorists and Muslims or of “fueling tensions.” Senior figures acknowledge a major problem only when they are no longer in charge. In a book published after he stepped down, the socialist former president François Hollande wrote:

“Islam? Yes, there is indeed a problem with Islam. Nobody doubts this. The Islamic veil is a form of enslavement. We cannot continue welcoming migrants without any form of control in the context of increased terror attacks.”

Hollande never would have said such a thing when he was president. Like others, he sheepishly ignored the problem.

The same happened with Christophe Castaner’s predecessor, Gerard Collomb, after he resigned as Interior Minister. He warned against no less than the risk of civil war in France.

“In some suburbs (…) it is the rule of the strongest, of drug dealers and radical Islamists that prevails instead of the laws of the Republic… Today we live side by side, next to each other, but tomorrow, I fear that we might end up facing each other.”

It is important to note that theses quotes are not from right-wing thinkers or activists. Both François Hollande and Gerard Collomb were long-time eminent figures of the Socialist Party.

These are typical examples of what some call “la démission des élites” (the abdication of the elites): refusing to act on a situation of which they are perfectly aware but afraid to mention because of the dominant ideology of political correctness.

In the meantime, France’s police officers are increasingly unmotivated and demoralized. Since the start of the year, more than 50 police officers have committed suicide. They face increasingly difficult working conditions, in particular, rioters in the suburbs of cities like Paris, Marseille, Lille or Lyon — suburbs that are progressively escaping the control of the French authorities.

Attack after attack, the ritual is the same. There are flowers, tributes and words for the victims, political leaders affirm their resolve to act to protect the people. But after a few days, the news cycle ends and things go back to normal — until the next terrorist attack.

London has become the first city in the world to ban environmental alarmist group Extinction Rebellion just one day after reports that they were targeting Blackrock offices in the progressive city. 

Any assembly linked to the Extinction Rebellion ‘Autumn Uprising’ must now cease their protest(s) within London (Metropolitan Police Service, and City of London areas) by 2100 hours on Monday 14th October 2019.https://t.co/f3e0sozVAG pic.twitter.com/kYA7NOYwmX

— MPS Events (@MetPoliceEvents) October 14, 2019

Supporters of the group – which made headlines last week for causing gridlock in New York’s Times Square when they superglued themselves to a boat – call London’s decision massive “overreach,” according to CNN. 

#ExtinctionRebelion Mob rocking up outside Blackrock Offices. Looks like a lost Drama School Trip. pic.twitter.com/NhBNJdXTrf

— Matthew Jones (@the_mjones) October 14, 2019

“There have been draconian policing methods e.g. (in) Brisbane, and water cannons and violence used by police in Belgium. But this is the first ban,” extiction rebellion spokeswoman Zion Lights told CNN, adding “We are worried by this erosion of democracy while the real criminals continue to destroy the health of our planet.” 

According to the report, the ban is intended to prevent “ongoing serious disruption to the community.”

That said, activists do not appear to be backing down. 

But, by Tuesday morning, the environmental campaigners had made it clear that they wouldn’t back down. Many activists returned to Trafalgar Square in defiance of the ban and the group said it would be pursuing legal action against the police force’s decision.

The movement’s co-founder, Gail Bradbrook, staged a demonstration at the UK Department of Transport, climbing atop the entrance as other activists glued themselves to the building below.

Referring to trees that are scheduled to be felled in the building of the UK’s HS2 high-speed rail project, Bradbrook said: “I do this for the beautiful pear tree at Cubbington Woods, 250 years old they have no rights… I do this in fierce love of the 108 ancient woodlands threatened by HS2, this climate crime of a project. I do this in the spirit of what Emmeline Pankhurst called ‘the noble art of window smashing.'”

Bradbrook was arrested shortly afterwards. –CNN

In a report released over the summer, a former head of counterterrorism for Scotland Yard warned that Extinction Rebellion should be treated as an extremist anarchist group.  

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

German Chancellor Angela Merkel ignored an EU risk assessment and allows Huawei’s 5G technology.

The Wall Street Journal reports EU Warns of 5G Risks Amid Scrutiny of Huawei.

The European Union has identified a series of specific security threats posed by foreign vendors of telecommunications equipment, significantly heightening the bloc’s scrutiny of suppliers like Huawei Technologies Co., according to officials familiar with the matter and a privately circulated risk assessment prepared by European governments.

Earlier in the week, the EU released a public report warning that hostile states or state-backed actors posed a security threat to new 5G mobile networks being rolled out around the world. 5G promises faster connection speeds and the ability to link lots of devices—from cars to pacemakers—to the internet.

“These vulnerabilities are not ones which can be remedied by making small technical changes, but are strategic and lasting in nature,” said a person familiar with the debate inside the European Council, the bloc’s top political policy-making body.

The analysis also said member states had reported the risk of “uncontrolled software updates, manipulation of functionalities, inclusion of functions to bypass audit mechanisms, backdoors, undocumented testing features left in the production version, among others.”

The report says vendors or operators that were linked to a nation-state “with a high geopolitical risk profile would increase the risk of espionage, especially where there were no democratic and legal restrictions in place.”

Huawei and China

The report did not specifically name Huawei or China but it’s clear what the report was all about.

It seems everyone is afraid of incurring the wrath of China, especially Angela Merkel.

Germany Won’t Ban Huawei or any 5G Supplier Up Front

Please consider Germany Won’t Ban Huawei or any 5G Supplier Up Front

Germany is resisting US pressure to shut out Chinese tech giant Huawei from its 5G networks — saying it will not ban any supplier for the next-gen mobile networks on an up front basis, per Reuters.

“Essentially our approach is as follows: We are not taking a pre-emptive decision to ban any actor, or any company,” government spokesman, Steffen Seibert, told a news conference in Berlin yesterday.

German business newspaper Handelsblatt, which says it has reviewed a draft of the incoming 5G security requirements, reports that chancellor Angela Merkel stepped in to intervene to exclude a clause which would have blocked Huawei’s market access — fearing a rift with China if the tech giant is shut out.

Does Merkel’s Position Make Sense?

Actually, I believe it does, for several reasons.

1. Trump

2. Germany’s Infrastructure

3. US Spying

Trump: Trump calls Huawei a security threat but is willing to allow it’s technology as part of a trade agreement. Either Huawei is a security threat or it isn’t. If it is, then it should not be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Trump says one thing and does another.

Infrastructure: Germany’s infrastructure is already highly dependent on Huawei’s 4G technology. It has a smooth transition to Huawei’s 5G. Switching vendors would make a mess of things for years.

US Spying: Who can trust the US anyway?

New Security Threat

Edward Snowen, the hero who disclosed US spying on allied including Angela Merkel, reports Without Encryption, We Will Lose All Privacy. This is Our New Battleground.

In the midst of the greatest computer security crisis in history, the US government, along with the governments of the UK and Australia, is attempting to undermine the only method that currently exists for reliably protecting the world’s information: encryption. Should they succeed in their quest to undermine encryption, our public infrastructure and private lives will be rendered permanently unsafe.

I know a little about this, because for a time I operated part of the US National Security Agency’s global system of mass surveillance. In June 2013 I worked with journalists to reveal that system to a scandalised world. Without encryption I could not have written the story of how it all happened – my book Permanent Record – and got the manuscript safely across borders that I myself can’t cross.

When I came forward in 2013, the US government wasn’t just passively surveilling internet traffic as it crossed the network, but had also found ways to co-opt and, at times, infiltrate the internal networks of major American tech companies.

Donald Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, who authorised one of the earliest mass surveillance programmes without reviewing whether it was legal, is now signalling an intention to halt – or even roll back – the progress of the last six years. WhatsApp, the messaging service owned by Facebook, already uses end-to-end encryption (E2EE): in March the company announced its intention to incorporate E2EE into its other messaging apps – Facebook Messenger and Instagram – as well. Now Barr is launching a public campaign to prevent Facebook from climbing this next rung on the ladder of digital security. This began with an open letter co-signed by Barr, UK home secretary Priti Patel, Australia’s minister for home affairs and the US secretary of homeland security, demanding Facebook abandon its encryption proposals.

The true explanation for why the US, UK and Australian governments want to do away with end-to-end encryption is less about public safety than it is about power: E2EE gives control to individuals and the devices they use to send, receive and encrypt communications, not to the companies and carriers that route them. This, then, would require government surveillance to become more targeted and methodical, rather than indiscriminate and universal.

US Seeks a Backdoor

Snowden disclosed US spying on allies, including Angela Merkel.

Now, the US wants Google, Facebook, WhatsApp and everyone else to put in a backdoor that it can exploit. And it will. And backdoors are not secure, on purpose, by definition.

If the US can exploit a backdoor, so can others, as soon as they figure it out, and someone will.

Can anyone trust the US to not put in 5G backdoors?

Of course not.

But we can trust the US, UK, and EU to keep a very close eye on what Huawei is doing.

That does not solve all the issues, but as long as the US cannot be trusted, Merkel may as well trust but monitor Huawei instead of totally not trusting the US at all.

Sadly, the US is nothing but the very surveillance state we accuse others of being.

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

Forget an independent Kurdistan: They may have to do a deal with Damascus on sharing their area with Sunni Arab refugees

In the annals of bombastic Trump tweets, this one is simply astonishing: here we have a President of the United States, on the record, unmasking the whole $8-trillion intervention in the Middle East as an endless war based on a “false premise.” No wonder the Pentagon is not amused.

Trump’s tweet bisects the surreal geopolitical spectacle of Turkey attacking a 120-kilometer-long stretch of Syrian territory east of the Euphrates to essentially expel Syrian Kurds. Even after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan cleared with Trump the terms of the Orwellian-named “Operation Peace Spring,” Ankara may now face the risk of US economic sanctions.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The predominant Western narrative credits the Syrian Democratic Forces, mostly Kurdish, for fighting and defeating Islamic State, also known as Daesh. The SDF is essentially a collection of mercenaries working for the Pentagon against Damascus.

But many Syrian citizens argue that ISIS was in fact defeated by the Syrian Arab Army, Russian aerial and technical expertise plus advisers and special forces from Iran and Hezbollah.

As much as Ankara may regard the YPG Kurds – the “People’s protection units” – and the PKK as mere “terrorists” (in the PKK’s case aligned with Washington), Operation Peace Spring has in principle nothing to do with a massacre of Kurds.

Facts on the ground will reveal whether ethnic cleansing is inbuilt in the Turkish offensive. A century ago few Kurds lived in these parts, which were populated mostly by Arabs, Armenians and Assyrians. So this won’t qualify as ethnic cleansing on ancestral lands. But if the town of Afrin is anything to go by the consequences could be severe.

Into this heady mix, enter a possible, uneasy pacifier: Russia. Moscow previously encouraged the Syrian Kurds to talk to Damascus to prevent a Turkish campaign – to no avail. But Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov never gives up. He has now said: “Moscow will ask for the start of talks between Damascus and Ankara.” Diplomatic ties between Syria and Turkey have been severed for seven years now.

With Peace Spring rolling virtually unopposed, Kurdish Gen. Mazloum Kobani Abdi did raise the stakes, telling the Americans he will have to make a deal with Moscow for a no-fly zone to protect Kurdish towns and villages against the Turkish Armed Forces. Russian diplomats, off the record, say this is not going to happen. For Moscow, Peace Spring is regarded as “Turkey’s right to ensure its security,” in the words of Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. As long as it does not turn into a humanitarian disaster.

No independent Kurdistan

From Washington’s perspective, everything happening in the volatile Iran-Iraq-Syria-Turkey spectrum is subject to two imperatives:

1) geopolitically, breaking what is regionally regarded as the axis of resistance: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah; and

2) geostrategically, breaking the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative from being incorporated in both Iraq and Syria, not to mention Turkey.

When Erdogan remarked that the trilateral Ankara summit last month was “productive,” he was essentially saying that the Kurdish question was settled by an agreement among Russia, Turkey and Iran.

Diplomats confirmed that the Syrian Constitutional Committee will work hard towards implementing a federation – implying that the Kurds will have to go back to the Damascus fold. Tehran may even play a role to smooth things over, as Iranian Kurds have also become very active in the YPG command.

The bottom line: there will be no independent Kurdistan – as detailed in a map previously published by the Anadolu news agency.

From Ankara’s point of view, the objective of Operation Peace Spring follows what Erdogan had already announced to the Turkish Parliament – that is, organizing the repatriation of no fewer than two million Syrian refugees to a collection of villages and towns spread over a 30km-wide security zone supervised by the Turkish army.

Yet there has been no word about what happens to an extra, alleged 1.6 million refugees also in Turkey.

Kurdish threats to release control of 50 jails holding at least 11,000 ISIS/Daesh jihadis are just that. The same applies to the al-Hol detention camp, holding a staggering 80,000 ISIS family members. If let loose, these jihadis would go after the Kurds in a flash.

Veteran war correspondent and risk analyst Elijah Magnier provides an excellent summary of the Kurds’ wishful thinking, compared with the priorities of Damascus, Tehran and Moscow:

The Kurds have asked Damascus, in the presence of Russian and Iranian negotiators, to allow them to retain control over the very rich oil and gas fields they occupy in a bit less than a quarter of Syrian territory. Furthermore, the Kurds have asked that they be given full control of the enclave on the borders with Turkey without any Syrian Army presence or activity. Damascus doesn’t want to act as border control guards and would like to regain control of all Syrian territory. The Syrian government wants to end the accommodations the Kurds are offering to the US and Israel, similar to what happened with the Kurds of Iraq.

The options for the YPG Kurds are stark. They are slowly realizing they were used by the Pentagon as mercenaries. Either they become a part of the Syrian federation, giving up some autonomy and their hyper-nationalist dreams, or they will have to share the region they live in with at least two million Sunni Arab refugees relocated under Turkish Army protection.

The end of the dream is nigh. On Sunday, Moscow brokered a deal according to which the key, Kurdish-dominated border towns of Manbij and Kobane go back under the control of Damascus. So Turkish forces will have to back off, otherwise, they will be directly facing the Syrian Arab Army. The game-changing deal should be interpreted as the first step towards the whole of northeast Syria eventually reverting to state control.

The geopolitical bottom line does expose a serious rift within the Ankara agreement. Tehran and Moscow – not to mention Damascus – will not accept Turkish occupation of nearly a quarter of sovereign, energy-rich Syrian territory, replacing what was a de facto American occupation. Diplomats confirm Putin has repeatedly emphasized to Erdogan the imperative of Syrian territorial integrity. SANA’s Syrian news agency slammed Peace Spring as “an act of aggression.”

Which brings us to Idlib. Idlib is a poor, rural province crammed with ultra-hardcore Salafi jihadis – most linked in myriad levels with successive incarnations of Jabhat al-Nusra, or al-Qaeda in Syria. Eventually, Damascus, backed by Russian airpower, will clear what is in effect the Idlib cauldron, generating an extra wave of refugees. As much as he’s investing in his Syrian Kurdistan safe zone, what Erdogan is trying to prevent is an extra exodus of potentially 3.5 million mostly hardcore Sunnis to Turkey.

Turkish historian Cam Erimtan told me, as he argues in this essay, that it’s all about the clash between the post-Marxist “libertarian municipalism” of the Turkish-Syrian PKK/PYD/YPG/YPJ axis and the brand of Islam defended by Erdogan’s AKP party:

“The heady fusion of Islamism and Turkish nationalism that has become the AKP’s hallmark and common currency in the New Turkey, results in the fact that as a social group the Kurds in Syria have now been universally identified as the enemies of Islam.”

Thus, Erimtan adds, “the ‘Kurds’ have now taken the place of ‘Assad’ as providing a godless enemy that needs to be defeated next door.”

Geopolitically, the crucial point remains that Erdogan cannot afford to alienate Moscow for a series of strategic and economic reasons, ranging from the Turk Stream gas pipeline to Ankara’s interest in being an active node of the Belt & Road as well as the Eurasia Economic Union and becoming a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all geared towards Eurasian integration.

‘Win-win’

And as Syria boils, Iraq simmers down.

Iraqi Kurdistan lives a world apart, and was not touched by the Iraqi protests, which were motivated by genuine grievances against the swamp of corrupt-to-the-core Baghdad politics. Subsequent hijacking for a specific geopolitical agenda was inevitable. The government says Iraqi security forces did not shoot at protesters. That was the work of snipers.

Gunmen in balaclavas did attack the offices of plenty of TV stations in Baghdad, destroying equipment and broadcast facilities. Additionally, Iraqi sources told me, armed groups targeted vital infrastructure, as in electricity grids and plants especially in Diwaniyah in the south. This would have plunged the whole of southern Iraq, all the way to Basra, into darkness, thus sparking more protests.

Pakistani analyst Hassan Abbas spent 12 days in Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala. He said heavily militarized police dealt with the protests, “opting for the use of force from the word go – a poor strategy.” He added: “There are 11 different law enforcement forces in Baghdad with various uniforms – coordination between them is extremely poor under normal circumstances.”

But most of all, Abbas stressed: “Many people I talked to in Karbala think this is the American response to the Iraqi tilt towards China.”

That totally fits with this comprehensive analysis.

Iraq did not follow the – illegal – Trump administration sanctions on Iran. In fact it continues to buy electricity from Iran. Baghdad finally opened the crucial Iraq-Syria border post of al-Qaem. Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi wants to buy S-400 missile systems from Russia.

He also explicitly declared Israel responsible for the bombing of five warehouses belonging to the Hashd al-Shaabi, the people mobilization units. And he not only rejected the Trump administration’s “deal of the century” between Israel and Palestine but also has been trying to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

And then there’s – what else? – China. On a state visit to Beijing on September 23, Mahdi clinched a proverbial win-win deal: plenty of oil supplies traded with investment in rebuilding infrastructure. And Iraq will be a certified Belt & Road node, with President Xi Jinping extolling a new “China-Iraq strategic partnership”. China is also looking to do post-reconstruction work in Syria to make it a key node in the New Silk Roads.

It ain’t over till the fat (Chinese) lady sings while doing deals. Meanwhile, Erdogan can always sing about sending 3.6 million refugees to Europe.

What’s happening is a quadruple win.

1. The US performs a face saving withdrawal, which Trump can sell as avoiding a conflict with NATO alley Turkey.

2. Turkey has the guarantee – by the Russians – that the Syrian Army will be in control of the Turkish-Syrian border.

3. Russia prevents a war escalation and keeps the Russia-Iran-Turkey peace process alive. 

4. And Syria will eventually regain control of its oilfields and the entire northeast.

Auto sales in China have fallen for the 15th month out of 16 months in September. It’s the “worst slump in a generation”, according to Bloomberg, as the key Asian market continues to be the poster child for the global automotive recession. 

The market fell 6.6% to 1.81 million total units, according to the China Passenger Car Association. The auto industry continues to be weighed down by a slowing global economy, the trade war and stricter emissions rules. The China Association of Automobile Manufacturers is forecasting a drop in vehicle deliveries to dealers in 2019, despite China trying several types of stimulus to drum up demand.

Both local manufacturers and global manufacturers have experienced these headwinds in China.

General Motors said late last week that third quarter deliveries in China were down 18% and local Chinese manufacturer BYD said sales were lower in September by 15%. 

Additional data from Marklines shows that names like Mitsubishi, Mazda and Nissan continued mid-single digit declines, while Toyota and Honda were able to (barely) buck the trend. 

• Nissan announced on October 10 that it sold 134,713 units in September in China, reflecting a 4.6% y/y decrease in sales. September sales of the 7th-generation Altima, Lannia, Tiida, Kicks and Qashqai increased. Year-to-date (YTD) sales from January to September totaled 1,090,983 units, reflecting a 0.4% y/y decrease.

• Toyota sold 143,100 units in September, reflecting a 1.6% y/y increase. YTD sales totaled 1,181,300 units, reflecting an 8.4% y/y increase.

• Honda announced that its September sales were 138,056 units, reflecting a y/y increase of 4.0%. Sales of the Civic and Accord exceeded 20,000 units. Sales of the Accord, Odyssey, CR-V, Inspire and Elysion, all of which are equipped with the SPORT HYBRID, a highly efficient double-motor hybrid power system, totaled 13,270 units. YTD sales totaled 1,123,570 units, reflecting a 16.4% y/y increase.

• Mazda announced that sales in September reached 20,619 units, reflecting a 5.9% y/y decrease. YTD sales totaled 161,742 units.

Additional data on Chinese auto numbers for September will be forthcoming, and we will update this post when applicable.