iftttwall

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker Blog

Rostislav Ishchenko is arguably the leading international analyst focused on the extraordinarily turbulent Russia-Ukraine relations. He posts regularly on Ukraina.ru, with frequent English translations here.

In contrast to the 24/7 “Russian aggression” demonization campaign effective on all corners of the Beltway and spreading towards selected European capitals, Ishchenko’s analysis, for instance of the information war deployed on all fronts of the Russia-Ukraine saga comes as a breath of fresh air.

Although we were not able to meet in person during my recent visit to Moscow, due to conflicting schedules (the meeting will take place later in the winter), Ishchenko graciously accepted to answer my most pressing questions regarding what could happen next on the Russia-Ukraine front, with translation by Scott Humor.

Ishchenko’s answers on the situation in Donbass should also be expanded to Crimea, after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed he had information about Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko planning an armed provocation on the border with Crimea in the last ten days of December.

Considering the terrain in winter is usually propitious for tank advance, would Poroshenko, in desperation, go for a major provocation in the Donbass, perhaps between Christmas and New Year’s Eve? 

First of all, this winter is too warm and the area is not yet favorable for an offensive. Second, even if frost strikes and an attack becomes possible, it is too big of a risk for Poroshenko. He does not have enough military power to defeat the DPR/LPR forces, without even mentioning that surprises are still possible as it happened in August 2008 in South Ossetia. After all, the Minsk peace agreement has not been canceled yet, and it is unlikely that the West will be able to stand against Russia in a consolidated manner at the moment when Russia is conducting a peace coercion of the confectioner, who is out of his mind with fear, and whom the West has already written off. The West requires a mandatory holding of elections, and any war would mean a cancellation of elections. If the war is facilitated by Poroshenko, he will be blamed for the cancellation of the elections and there will be no need to protect him.

Is there any possibility of the Minsk agreements being fulfilled in case of a slightly less anti-Russian government in place in Kiev after the next elections? 

No, it’s not possible. Kiev is unable to implement the Minsk agreements because this would imply the federalization of Ukraine, while the Kiev elites are able to rule only within the rigid vertical of the unitary state. They basically do not imagine a different system of relationships. Since 2014, the internal resources which could satisfy appetites of oligarchic groups were exhausted, and there is no material basis for compromise. Therefore, they are doomed to fight among themselves for the dominance. Even if Russia, Crimea, Donbass and the whole world would suddenly vanish, the civil war in Ukraine, no longer restrained from the outside, would only intensify.

Is Kiev aware that in case of a military attack on Donbass, the Russian response would be devastating? And that in Brussels, as I confirmed with many diplomatic sources, nobody really cares about Poroshenko’s fate anymore? 

I think that he knows this very well. That’s exactly why he organized his provocations in the Kerch Strait and also in Kiev (attacking the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate), but not in Donbass.

*  *  *

And in response to this interview, one comment from The Saker blog – by Larchmonter – stood out in its clarity of the situation:

It is very important to recall, or learn, that Putin and the Kremlin did not start the Militia or launch an armed resistance against Kiev. That was Strelkov’s plan. In open defiance of Putin and the Kremlin.

So, once the war began, the Kremlin and the General Staff had to create a means to support the defense of Donbass.

That led to several systemic operations. Voentorg supplied the militia with the logistics of warfare. North Wind supplied the volunteers with military experience and expertise. Strategy and maneuvering of forces was commanded by top officer advisers (Generals and Colonels) who made certain the Militia was not defeated.

The Ukies and Kiev supplied the stupidity and incompetence that led to their devastating losses in boilers.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin welcomed the other stakeholders from the West—Germany and France. The basis of the Normandy Group was formed, four heads of state, including Kiev’s Porky.

From the initial Minsk Accord came failure. But Debaltsevo brought back to life the device for freezing the conflict. Kiev lost thousands of men, NATO had 600 or more men trapped in the boiler with the Ukies, so the three sides facing Putin had to accept what he constructed in Minsk 2.

It froze the conflict, freed the NATO troops, and finished with the utter debacle of Debaltsevo for the Ukies.

The 13 milestones were almost all exclusive steps that Kiev had to take in order to fulfill the Minsk 2 agreement.

There would be a federal government, Donbass would be safeguarded.

This is where the reality and the roadmap diverged.

Kiev could not obey, the government would be overthrown by the nazi battalions.
The US began to step in and manipulate the contact line separation of forces and all-for-all exchange of prisoners, while demonizing the Militia, the two Republics, Putin, the Kremlin and Russia.

But Putin had bigger fish to fry. He had three years of GRU and SVR reports on the war in Syria and intended to rescue Assad. He had Crimea to support, rejuvenate and clean out the corruption. He had secret weapons to complete and test and then surprise the US and the West with Russian military superiority.

Freezing the war in Donbass (even at the cost of a few hundred people per year) was imperative.
His Generals had the militia rotate to Russia for better training, many thousands of them. Training has been ongoing since 2015.

What is in the cards for Donbass is really a product of Kiev and the U.S. If the U.S. wants to, it can keep control of the Ukraine government through financing its survival. Ukraine will remain a basket case for decades. No one wants to reconstruct, invest in, or underwrite any sector of the society. As long as this occurs, the Ukies will be used to terrorize Donbass and threaten the Russian border with irrational military thrusts. One mistake and the U.S. will lose that military proxy. Even FM Lavrov spoke of that yesterday. The MOD presented proof of us of Iskander missiles in Syria. Lavrov indicated such weapons would be used to stop any attack by Kiev.

Donbass’s fate is attached to Putin. They have half a decade of support in all forms coming their way. After that, no one yet can see a solution of any kind.

It is as likely as not that something will happen to change this fate.

Russia will not decide this matter for itself. Russia’s military will not decide this matter as an aggressor.

The initiative is in the hands of the US, or Germany or Ukrainians.

However, what any of these three face is the Russian military and Kremlin, as well as the straightjacket of Minsk 2 which is the legal bondage Kiev cannot escape except through suicidal military action.

They (Ukies) cannot fight their way out of Minsk 2 and prevail.
They cannot bait the Russians into a war.
They cannot walk away from Donbass and leave it to Russia. The nazis will execute them.
They cannot win while trying, because they will lose.

They can only give in to whatever Putin decides he wants. (Of course, such an outcome is unacceptable to U.S.)

So, for five more years, they won’t do anything different. They will try to wait out Putin’s presidency.

You can see the policy in Syria as prototype for Ukraine.
The U.S. has no intention of allowing a full Syrian victory for Assad and Russia.
They will stay for as many years as they can.
And the near term is five more years. They will try to wait out Putin’s presidency.
And they have the Kurds, al Nusra, ISIS proxies to use, like they use the nazis and conscripts in Ukraine.

It is almost painless for the U.S. to follow this policy in both hotspots.
Trump has bought into it for both fronts.

This is why Putin did not want an armed resistance to the Maidan Putsch in early 2014.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2Sigfsn Tyler Durden

Authored by Kai Weiss via The Mises Institute,

“Everything is happening, nothing has changed,” Alex Massie wrote over at CapX last week, perhaps summing up best the political situation in the UK right now. What has happened in the Brexit debate in the last few months, but in the last week in particular, has caused much astonishment around the globe – indeed, it has left almost everyone with the question of what in the world is going on in Britain.

Just looking back at the at the beginning of last week, Parliament was still debating on Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement from the EU. Should the House of Commons accept the Prime Minister’s deal in the so-called “meaningful vote” on Tuesday, or rebuke what May sees as the best she can get from Brussels? Instead, the Prime Minister, having been cornered from all sides, called off the vote, which subsequently led to the threshold of 48 Conservative Members of Parliament needed for a no-confidence vote being reached. May won her party’s confidence, but a shocking 117 MPs turned against her. In the end, May’s position has mostly stayed the same, though, having neither been particularly strengthened nor weakened, since her leadership can’t be challenged again for the next year.

The same might be true for her deal with the EU, which will now be voted on in the Commons in January. By some described as the best compromise that was possible, by (most) others however described as a disaster which would, say the critics, chain the UK to Brussels as a vassal state, it has undoubtedly been a controversial agreement.

Critics have mostly pointed to the so-called “backstop.” That the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland stays undeterred for movement and trade has been essential for all parties involved — risking a hard border could lead to conflict at a border which has often been wrecked by strife. At the same time, though, one of the major goals of Brexiteering has been to leave the EU’s customs union, which would enable Britain to decide on its own trade policy (and thus, make its own trade agreements). This vision has often been called one of a “Global Britain.”

With the current agreement, the UK would stay in the customs union for the remainder of the transition period, which currently is set to end in December 2020. Not only that this deems it impossible for Britain to pursue its own course until then, the backstop could cause havoc in the Kingdom afterwards. The concept is as follows:

When Britain finally leaves in 2020, there will hopefully be in place a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU. But if not, there would once more be border controls between Britain and mainland Europe (and, importantly, Ireland). To prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, through the backstop, Northern Ireland would stay both in the common market as well as the customs union, while island Britain merely leaves the common market, while staying in the customs union.

There are two major consequences from this: while the backstop is in place, the UK could still not do anything on its own as of trade policy. In addition, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would be separated, and there would then be border controls between Northern Ireland and Britain, splitting apart the union (in return for there not being any controls on the Irish island). Worst for many pro-Brexit voices, the Withdrawal Agreement does not say whether the backstop is only temporary or indefinitely. Indeed, they fear, the EU could trap the UK in this middle-of-the-road state in which Britain is sort of outside the EU, but in many respects still part of it (like trade policy).

The EU has played a rather precarious role in all of this: while ensuring in public again and again that the backstop is temporary, it has also refused (so far) to revise the agreement to include this little detail.

For Theresa May, this has created a complicated situation to say the least: the agreement cannot be passed in Parliament — that is also why she cancelled the vote, hoping that the EU will give her a little more leeway. For one, so-called “hard Brexiteers,” mostly Tory backbenchers, want to leave the customs union once and for all — and as soon as possible. They argue that a good deal with the EU would be beneficial — but if they can’t get one, then Britain should just leave. This is the “no deal” scenario, where Britain would fall back on WTO rules. The backstop then is the reason why they are completely opposed to May’s deal.

Then there is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) from Northern Ireland. The Tories are only in government at the moment because they are supported by the DUP. And for the DUP, as its party name already says, the further existence of the union has first priority. For them, the backstop is a grave danger for Northern Ireland staying in the union. This is why they are completely opposed (to put it mildly) to May’s deal (and May needs them stay in power).

Finally, even Labour, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), as well as the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the deal. There are different reasons here. Many are hoping that by the agreement being blocked, the exit on March 29, 2019, would have to be postponed, thus opening up the possibility for a second referendum – a “People’s Vote,” as they call it (regardless of how undemocratic it would be). But especially Labour is of course also hoping that if the deal falters, the current government would, too; potentially triggering new elections – elections, they hope, which would put Chavismo Jeremy Corbyn in power.

What is a possible way out? Free-marketeers have often pointed out that simple unilateral free trade from the UK’s side could be the solution (I have argued this, too, on several occasions). But regardless of whether this is the best idea in theory, one also needs to realize that it is detached from political reality at the moment: next to the major disruptions it would cause at first and that it could possibly completely destroy any relationship the UK still has with Europe (which is still, yes, important for its economy), this vision also simply has nowhere close to a majority in the population. Pulling this off could easily lead to a Corbyn administration, leading the UK down the dumpster.

The same is true for those arguing for a “People’s Vote:” there is simply no majority for this, and it would put the final nail in the coffin for the British political class by ignoring the momentous vote of 52 percent of the country in 2016. Meanwhile, for those wanting the “Norway option” — i.e., a membership in the EEA or EFTA like Norway or Switzerland, time is running out (and once again, it is not clear whether there is a majority in Parliament for this either).

Thus, all opponents of May’s deal have one more thing in common other than thinking her deal is a disaster: namely, that none of them has a majority and for now, a realistic chance to implement their own vision (and subsequently still win elections for a while). Could May’s deal not be the worst of all worlds, but maybe the only world which could realistically lead the UK out of the EU then (which it does)?

At this point, no one seems to know anymore – I certainly don’t. What I know is that the Brexit vote shows one thing ever clearer: that simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes veiled as supposedly democratic referendums have some major problems. In 2016, there was a vote asking the people of the UK whether they, ‘yes,’ want to leave the European Union, or, ‘no,’ want to remain. But as the aftermath of this vote shows ever more clearly by the day, it is much more difficult than that: there are a thousand ways to Brexit. Which one Britain will ultimately take, still no one knows yet – and the vote in 2016 doesn’t give an answer to that.

To repeat Massie’s quote from the start, in the last few months “everything has happened, nothing has changed.” In 2019, everything will continue to happen. Just how much will actually change at some point will determine the future relationship between Britain and the EU.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2LxFEf5 Tyler Durden

How much happier would you be if were given a 10% raise?

While money can be a crucial indicator of happiness at lower income levels, Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh notes that studies have found that as incomes rise, money becomes a less important part of the overall happiness equation.

In fact, researchers see happiness as a complex measure that involves many variables outside of material wealth, including social support, freedom, and health.

MEASURING GLOBAL HAPPINESS

Today’s chart uses data from the World Happiness Report 2018 to measure and understand which countries report feeling the most and least happy.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO HAPPINESS?

The six key variables used by researchers in this report on global happiness include:

1. GDP per capita

2. Healthy life expectancy

3. Social support

4. Freedom of choice

5. Generosity

6. Perceptions of corruption

While average income and life expectancy definitely carry their weight in explaining happiness levels, what’s more interesting are the Gallup World Poll (GWP) questions about the other, more subjective variables.

• Social support
  “If you were in trouble, do you have relatives or friends you can count on to help you whenever you need them?”

• Freedom to make life choices
  “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your life?”

• Generosity
  “Have you donated money to a charity in the past month?”

• Perceptions of corruption
  “Is corruption widespread throughout the government or not?”
  “Is corruption widespread within businesses or not?”

HOW HAPPY IS THE WORLD?

The top tier of happiest countries happen to be Nordic, with Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland making it into the top five. Aside from having a common geographic location, these countries are also well-known for their social safety nets, using a high tax burden to fund government services such as education and healthcare.

A surprising entry near the top of the list might be Costa Rica. It’s the happiest country in the Latin American region, despite persisting income inequality issues. Although it has a lower GDP per capita than other high-ranking entries, the country has more than made up for it through social support; Costa Rica has invested significantly in education and health as a proportion of GDP, and the nation is also known for housing a culture that forms solid social networks of friends, families and neighborhoods.

On the other hand, 18 of the least happy countries are concentrated on the African continent. GDP per capita varies intensely among the bottom countries, and many report a lack of freedom overall. A silver lining is that social support is relatively stable, and there have been steady improvements over time.

Finally, the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis has had a ripple effect on global happiness. The report demonstrates where the most and fewest advances have been made.

• Togo
  Happiness is on the upswing, as the West African nation climbs 17 places to demonstrate the most improvement.

• Venezuela
  Meanwhile, the South American country plummeted even further, in part from socio-political changes and dramatic hyperinflation.

Where does your country fare on this scale?

Eudaimonia [happiness] is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.

-Aristotle

via RSS http://bit.ly/2EJw08z Tyler Durden

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington’s contribution to the confict and to criticize only the Soviet contribution. Cohen’s interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan’s first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.

In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the “Russian threat,” Wohlstetter’s accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA’s assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to attack the US.

The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team B caused.

Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using “low yield” nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia of demonization, villification, and transparant lies, while installing missile bases on Russia’s borders and while talking of incorporating former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia?, which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a convincing case that Washington is asking for war.

I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: “You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition.”

Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach?

The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.

The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex’s resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA’s successful use of the CIA’s media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA’s use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte’s “Bought Journalism,” the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.

The demonization of Russia is also aided and abeted by the Democrats’ hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary’s loss of the presidential election to the “Trump deplorables.” The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin’s interference in the presidentail election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can’t let go of it.

Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies, and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen’s scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.

I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.

As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.

Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.

If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying to lift, read his book.

If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen’s accounts of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.

If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom truth is inconsequential, read Cohen’s book.

If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen’s book.

Enough said.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2Afgs8v Tyler Durden

Forbes has published its annual list of America’s wealthiest celebrities, and “Star Wars creator George Lucas leads this year’s ranking of America’s richest celebrities with a net worth of $5.4 billion thanks largely to the fortune he pocketed when his Lucasfilm production company sold to Disney for $4.1 billion in 2012.”

Lucas ranks higher than filmmaker Steven Spielberg (No. 2; $3.7 billion) and media mogul Oprah (No. 3; $2.8 billion). Michael Jordan (No. 4; $1.7 billion) has been steadily climbing the list with a $400 million net worth increase derived from his sneaker empire and a 90% stake in the Charlotte Hornets.

Forbes says America’s ten wealthiest celebrities hold a combined wealth of $18.7 billion, more than the GDP of Iceland. On a year-over-year basis, the net worths of the most powerful celebrities collectively jumped 4% from 2017’s $18 billion.

The new addition for 2018 was Kylie Jenner, whose $900 million net worth places her on course to become the youngest billionaire ever. The millennial operates Kylie Cosmetics, “which has shifted more than $630 million in makeup since its launch two years ago by targeting her 168 million-plus social media followers,” said Forbes.

“Social media is an amazing platform,” Jenner says of the medium that granted her success. “I have such easy access to my fans and my customers.”

The largest wealth increase among existing listees is Jay-Z ($900 million), who ties with Jenner for the fifth spot. His net worth jumped $90 million from last year’s figures after his investment stakes in businesses including Armand de Brignac champagne and D’Ussé cognac, and holdings in his entertainment empire Roc Nation and streaming service Tidal, have exploded in value. 

“That was the greatest trick in music that people ever pulled off, to convince artists that you can’t be an artist and make money,” Jay-Z told Forbes in 2010, foreshadowing the success of his ancillary businesses. “When you’re in the studio, you’re an artist, you make music, and then after you finish, you market it to the world. I don’t think anything is wrong with that. In fact, I know there’s nothing wrong with that.”

The list is comprised only of celebrities who are American citizens, and only people who have become wealthy thanks to their fame. 

“This list uses net worth earnings previously published for the Forbes 400, Billionaires list and ranking of America’s Richest Self-Made Women. Celebrities not on those lists were valued through private company stakes and publicly traded assets. Real estate, art and other assets were also factored in where applicable. For entertainers without such holdings, we based estimates on net lifetime earnings after taxes and spending. Eligibility was limited to American citizens who’ve gotten rich off their fame, rather than become famous for their wealth,” Forbes explained.

Here is the full list of America’s Wealthiest Celebrities 2018: 

1. George Lucas

Net worth: $5.4 billion

2. Steven Spielberg

$3.7 billion

3. Oprah Winfrey

$2.8 billion

4. Michael Jordan

$1.7 billion

5. (tie) Kylie Jenner

$900 million

5. (tie) Jay-Z

$900 million

7. David Copperfield

$875 million

8. Diddy

$825 million

9. (tie) Tiger Woods

$800 million

9. (tie) James Patterson

$800 million

via RSS http://bit.ly/2T88ghw Tyler Durden

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

This has been an extraordinary week…

After two years of getting rolled by the Washington establishment, it seems that President Donald Trump woke up and suddenly realized, “Hey – I’m the president! I have the legal authority to do stuff!”

• He has announced his order to withdraw US troops from Syria.

• His Defense Secretary James Mattis has resigned. There are rumors National Security Adviser John Bolton may go too. (Please take Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with you!)

• He announced a start to withdrawing from Afghanistan.

• He now says he will veto a government funding bill unless he gets $5 billion for his Wall, and as of 12:01 AM Washington time December 22 the federal government is officially under partial shutdown.

All of this should be taken with a big grain of salt. While this week’s assertiveness perhaps provides further proof that Trump’s impulses are right, it doesn’t mean he can implement them.

The Syria withdrawal will be difficult. The entire establishment, including the otherwise pro-Trump talking heads on Fox News, are dead set against him – except for Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham.

Senator Lindsey Graham is demanding hearings on how to block the Syria pullout.  Congress hardly ever quibbles with a president’s putting troops into a country, where the Legislative Branch has legitimate Constitutional power. But if a president under his absolute command authority wants to pull them out – even someplace where they’re deployed illegally, as in Syria – well hold on just a minute!

We are being told our getting out of Syria and Afghanistan will be a huge “gift” to Russia and Iran. Worse, it is being compared to Barack Obama’s “premature” withdrawal from Iraq (falsely pointed to as the cause of the rise of ISIS) and will set the stage for “chaos.” By that standard, we can never leave anywhere.

This will be a critical time for the Trump presidency. (And if God is really on his side, he soon might get another Supreme Court pick.) If he can get the machinery of the Executive Branch to implement his decision to withdraw from Syria, and if he can pick a replacement to General Mattis who actually agrees with Trump’s views, we might start getting the America First policy Trump ran on in 2016.

Mattis himself said in his resignation letter, “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these [i.e., support for so-called “allies”] and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.”

Right on, Mad Dog! In fact Trump should have had someone “better aligned” with him in that capacity from the get-go. It is now imperative that he picks someone who agrees with his core positions, starting with withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, and reducing confrontation with Russia.

Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel complains that “our government is not a one-man show.” Well, the “government” isn’t, but the Executive Branch is. Article II, Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Him. The President. Nobody else. Period.

Already the drumbeat to saddle Trump with another Swamp critter at the Pentagon is starting: “Several possible replacements for Mattis this week trashed the president’s decision to pull out of Syria. Retired Gen. Jack Keane called the move a “strategic mistake” on Twitter. Republican Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) signed a letter demanding Trump reconsider the decision and warning that the withdrawal bolsters Iran and Russia.” If Trump even considers any of the above as Mattis’s replacement, he’ll be in worse shape than he has been for the past two years.

On the other hand, if Trump does pick someone who agrees with him about Syria and Afghanistan, never mind getting along with Russia, can he get that person confirmed by the Senate? One possibility would be to nominate someone like Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney specifically to run the Pentagon bureaucracy and get control of costs, while explicitly deferring operational decisions to the Commander in Chief in consultation with the Service Chiefs.

Right now on Syria Trump is facing pushback from virtually the whole Deep State establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as the media from Fox News, to NPR, to MSNBC. Terror has again gripped the establishment that the Trump who was elected president in 2016 might actually start implementing what he promised. It is imperative that he pick someone for the Pentagon (and frankly, clear out the rest of his national security team) and appoint people he can trust and whose views comport with his own. Just lopping off a few heads won’t suffice – he needs a full housecleaning.

In the meantime in Syria, watch for another “Assad poison gas attack against his own people.” The last time Trump said we’d be leaving Syria “very soon” was on March 29 of this year. Barely a week later, on April 7, came a supposed chemical incident in Douma, immediately hyped as a government attack on civilians but soon apparent as likely staged. Trump, though, dutifully took the bait, tweeting that Assad was an “animal.” Putin, Russia, and Iran were “responsible” for “many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack” – “Big price to pay.” He then for the second time launched cruise missiles against Syrian targets. A confrontation loomed in the eastern Med that could to have led to war with Russia. Now, in light of Trump’s restated determination to get out, is MI6 already ginning up their White Helmet assets for a repeat?

Trump’s claim that the US has completed its only mission, to defeat ISIS, is being compared to George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” banner following defeat of Iraq’s army and the beginning of the occupation (and, as it turned out, the beginning of the real war). But if it helps get us out, who cares if Trump wants to take credit? Whatever his terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team told him, the US presence in Syria was never about ISIS. We are there as Uncle Sam’s Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and Saudis to block Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria and Iran (the so-called “Shiite land bridge” to the Mediterranean).

For US forces the war against ISIS was always a sideshow, mainly carried on by the Syrians and Russians and proportioned about like the war against the Wehrmacht: about 20% “us,” about 80% “them.” The remaining pocket ISIS has on the Syria-Iraq border has been deliberately left alone, to keep handy as a lever to force Assad out in a settlement (which is not going to happen). Thus the claim an American pullout will lead to an ISIS “resurgence” is absurd. With US forces ceasing to play dog in the manger, the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis will kill them. All of them.

If Trump is able to follow through with the pullout, will the Syrian war wind down? It needs to be kept in mind that the whole conflict has been because we (the US, plus Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, the United Kingdom, etc) are the aggressors. We sought to use al-Qaeda and other jihadis to effect regime change via the tried and true method. It failed.

Regarding Trump’s critics’ claim that he is turning over Syria to the Russians and Iranians, Assad is nobody’s puppet. He can be allied with a Shiite theocracy but not controlled by it; Iran, likewise, can also have mutually beneficial ties with an ideologically dissimilar country, like it does with Christian Armenia. The Russians will stay and expand their presence but unlike our presence in many countries – which seemingly never ends, for example in Germany, Japan, and Korea, not to mention Kosovo – they’ll be there only as long and to the extent the Syrians want them. (Compare our eternal occupations with the Soviets’ politely leaving Egypt when Anwar Sadat asked them, or leaving Somalia when Siad Barre wanted them out. Instead of leaving, why didn’t Moscow just do a “Diem” on them?) It seems that American policymakers have gotten so far down the wormhole of their paranoid fantasies about the rest of the world – and it can’t be overemphasized, concerning areas where the US has no actual national interests – that we no longer recognize classic statecraft when practiced by other powers defending genuine national interests (which of course are legitimate only to the extent we say so).

What happens over the next few days on funding for the Border Wall – which is fully within the power of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deliver – and over the next few weeks over Syria and Afghanistan may be decisive for the balance of the Trump presidency. If he can prevail, and if he finally starts assembling an America First national security team beginning with a good Pentagon chief, he still has a chance to deliver on his 2016 promises.

Anyway, if this week’s developments are the result of someone putting something into Donald’s morning Egg McMuffin, America and the world owe him (or her) a vote of thanks. Let’s see more of the wrecking ball we Deplorables voted for!

via RSS http://bit.ly/2T6tnR4 Tyler Durden

Just because jobs data is coming in at what appears to be a great looking clip doesn’t mean that workers are not growing more and more disgruntled as wages lag inflation, number of hours worked rises and the quality of benefits deteriorates. Case in point is a group of several employees who decided to make notable public exits from their jobs, as was highlighted in a recent CNBC article.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 3.5 million Americans quit their job every month. As the article points out, some submit or tender a respectful and typical resignation – others, instead, simply don’t.

For example, on December 6 of this year, 17 year old Jackson Racicot posted a video to a social media site called “How I Quit My Job Today”. The post has gone viral and has been viewed over 700,000 times so far. The video is of him quitting his job at the Walmart in Alberta, Canada by reading a speech that he had prepared over the store’s intercom.

After making it clear that he didn’t like his benefits being cut – and being treated as a part time worker despite working 40 hours a week, he stated:

“Attention all shoppers, associates and management, I would like to say to all of you today that nobody should work here, ever. Our managers will make promises and never keep them. I’m sick of all the bullshit, bogus write-ups and my job. Fuck management, fuck this job and fuck Walmart.”

Another public resignation that went viral was in 2010, when Steven Slater left his job as a flight attendant for JetBlue. You may remember the story of him arguing with a passenger before getting on the plane intercom and exclaiming “I’ve been in this business for 28 years! I’ve had it! That’s it!”.

He then took two beers from the plane’s beverage cart and exited the plane in grand fashion – on its emergency slide. The incident garnered him respect from his peers in the business despite eventually resulting in him being charged with criminal mischief, reckless endangerment and trespassing.

A fellow flight attendant told the Washington Post at the time: “He took a stand for not only flight attendants but everyone.”

And then there’s the story of Marina Shifrin, who gained popularity on the internet after she quit her job as a video producer by making a video of her self dancing to the song “Gone” by Kanye West in 2013.

The text on the screen of the video read:

“It’s 4:30 a.m. and I am at work. For almost two years I’ve sacrifice my relationships, time and energy for this job. And my boss only cares about quantity and how many views each video gets. So I figured, I’d make ONE video of my own. To focus on the content instead of worry about the views. Oh, and to let my boss know… I quit.”

The video of her resignation, which was eventually removed by YouTube for including copyrighted material, wound up with 19 million views before being taken down.

Then there was the Twitter employee who wound up deleting Donald Trump‘s Twitter account before leaving his job at the company. Bahtiyar Duysak recalled his last day at work as uneventful up until his final hour, when he received a notification that President Trump’s Twitter account had been reported for violating Twitter’s terms of service. He put the wheels in motion to deactivate the account before shutting down shop and leaving the building one last time.

After the incident, Duysak was remorseful:

“It was definitely a mistake, and if I am involved in this I really apologize if I hurt anyone. I didn’t do anything on purpose. I love Twitter and I love America.”

And finally there was the story of Charlo Greene, who was a local news reporter in Anchorage, Alaska that had decided to leave her position to become an advocate for the cannabis industry. After having the station run footage of an edited news package about the debate regarding legalizing recreational marijuana in the state of Alaska, she then revealed herself as the leader of the Alaska Cannabis Club and quit her job live on the air.

While live, she stated: 

“I, the actual owner of the Alaska Cannabis Club will be dedicating all of my energy toward fighting for freedom and fairness which begins with legalizing Marijuana here in Alaska. And as for this job, well, not that I have a choice, but fuck it. I quit.”

View this post on Instagram

September 22, 2018 is the 4 year anniversary of “F it, I quit.” To celebrate, I’m giving away 5,000 copies my bestselling book “F It: A Guide to Letting Go & Living Free” from Sept 21 – Sept 25. Link in bio/head to charlogreene.com/giveaway to grab your free copy. AND tag a friend you shared this video with when you first saw it. Boy has it been a loooooong four years!

A post shared by Charlo x Business Inspiration (@charlogreene) on Sep 21, 2018 at 12:29pm PDT

via RSS http://bit.ly/2QLkekk Tyler Durden

Authored by Selco via Daisy Luther’s Organic prepper blog,

After reading a couple of articles about magazines/weapon news from New Jersey – actually, after reading a lot of comments from people on that news-  I have the urge to write this article. It is written from the survivalist point of view. There is, of course, the possible danger to get comments like “What the hell do you know Selco? You are not American, shut up!” Because I am going to be “poking” a few sacred cows here.

So…

Right now, this is not the rise of communism.

“Stalin is coming.”

I do not think this all news is about “rise of communism” in the US, and also I do think that you still live in a land with a lot of great rights and liberties, which is very cool.

What is not cool is the fact that you are moving in the direction of slowly “shrinking” of those rights. But it is still very far away from a “communistic evil empire”, so I do not see sense in having big headlines about Nazis and such other than scaring people for whatever reason.

Weapon rights and the government

I see here something which is much more dangerous than the fear of communism.

It is how people react to news or new laws about any weapon limitation. It’s how they talk about what the majority of them are planning to do.

Government at its core has the urge to control people in whatever way they can.  If you are more armed that means you are less controllable.

But if you are acting in a way that you are screaming from the rooftops how you “will defend your right to have (whatever) weapon (contrary) to the newest law” and how you’ll “be proud to own i, and to show it”  you eventually are not doing yourself any favors.

Do you really think that when the time comes that the government will send two pale clerks to search your home looking for whatever weapon?

Nope.

Here’s how confiscation might actually go down.

Here is how it might actually go down. This is one possible scenario:

First, you’ll be labeled as a terrorist, some weird guy who wants to overthrow the government. Maybe your photo will be posted somewhere stating that you are very sick, and that you pose a danger to society.

If you are a member of some group, let’s say a prepper group, you all will be labeled as terrorists first, and through the media, you can be portrayed as a domestic terror cell, to the point that your next door neighbor will help police to get you.

Do not underestimate the power of the government machine. You may truly be a fighter for constitutional rights and a real patriot, but in 3 days you can become a crazy terrorist that citizens will actually hunt down and shoot like a mad dog.

The point here is there is no point of publicly “yelling” about what you own and what are your rights to own.

Of course, you need to own weapons that you think it makes sense to own.

But why does everybody else need to know that, including government and government services?

The 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment is very cool, and I like it very much, but here is the ugly truth:

It works only if the government wants it to work.

One day, when the government does not want it to work anymore it will be out of order, illegal, or even terrorist to practice it.

Sorry, it is not your inalienable right. The government lets you THINK  it is your inalienable right.

Actually, you do need to protect that right. You need to defend it.

But again not in a way that you gonna portray yourself as a terrorist. I mean, I will own what I want to own, and only I am gonna know that untill the day when I need it very badly.

Owning weapons

There used to be a law about weapons here, where I live, before the war. And yes, you could own a weapon but it was such a hard law that actually not too many people owned legal weapons.

And right when the SHTthe F, first thing that happened was the confiscation of legal weapons, based on lists of who own legal weapons.

Now what people could do then was to say, “This is my legal weapon. I have a right to own it, by the law.” And those who did that usually got shot.

There were 20 heavily armed guys at your door asking nicely for your weapon, to be turned over to them in the name of “law” as an effort of a government that wanted to calm down a chaotic situation.

Sometimes if you said no, those guys would simply destroy the whole house with RPGs and bombs.

And guess what that meant?

Folks who owned legal weapon lost them even before the big SHTF. And a lot of guys who owned them in an illegal way hidden somewhere still own them when SHTF.

Illegal and legal have different meanings in different times and based who says those words, so think about it.

I am not saying that it will go like that there where you are. What I do say is you that you need to think a bit outside the box when it comes to owning things.

My thoughts on this

For many years I found it ridiculous not to have an illegal (not traceable) weapon stored somewhere safe for the bad times.

When SHTF and when (if) guys show up on my doorstep to confiscate my weapon what will I do?

I will give them the weapon that they know about. What else I should do?

Practice my rights?

Nope.

I have more of that stuff. It’s not worth it to fight over the one they know about.

What could be coming for the future?

Again I do not really see the government taking away all rights of owning a weapon as a possibility there. The tradition of firearms is simply way too big, and also the number of weapons is too big, too.

But what is possible is the rapid shrinking of that right through some big event, in an effort of getting things back to normal.

When something big happens and there is big fear and terror, people are ready to “give away” a lot of rights and liberties in exchange for the feeling of safety and security. This is wrong of course but it is how things work.

So actually you never know, anything is possible.

One bad side of having rights and freedoms for a long time (in owning weapon) is thinking it is always gonna be like that.

Or thinking it must be like that.

The “good side” of not having good gun rights is having a tradition of having ALWAYS hidden somewhere an illegal weapon. Always.

And only you know about it and maybe your family.

There is no need to brag about that anywhere else.

*  *  *

About Selco:

Selco survived the Balkan war of the 90s in a city under siege, without electricity, running water, or food distribution.

In his online works, he gives an inside view of the reality of survival under the harshest conditions. He reviews what works and what doesn’t, tells you the hard lessons he learned, and shares how he prepares today.

He never stopped learning about survival and preparedness since the war. Regardless what happens, chances are you will never experience extreme situations as Selco did. But you have the chance to learn from him and how he faced death for months.

Read more of Selco’s articles here.

Buy his PDF books here. 

via RSS http://bit.ly/2EL6EqU Tyler Durden

Media group Reporters Without Borders said Tuesday it has observed a terrifying trend in the number of journalists killed and imprisoned worldwide, in 2018.

For the first time, the US is one of the world’s deadliest countries for journalists after six were killed.

The Paris-based group, also known as RSF, said the US ranked sixth on the list for most dangerous countries for journalists, behind Afghanistan, Syria, Mexico, Yemen, and India.

Four journalists, as well as a sales manager, were killed in June when a deranged gunman opened fire at the Annapolis, Maryland offices of the Capital Gazette. Two more reporters, a North Carolina television anchor and cameraman, were killed by a tree while covering a hurricane in May. 

“Non-professional journalists play a fundamental role in the production of news and information in countries with oppressive regimes and countries at war, where it is hard for professional journalists to operate,” RSF said in the report.

The big picture: The group states there is an “unprecedented” level of worldwide hostility against members of the press, than in any other period on record. 

Murder, imprisonment, hostage-taking, and disappearances of journalists all increased on a year-over-year basis.

In total, 80 journalists were killed in 2018, with 49 murdered while 31 were killed in the act of reporting.

While the report blames warzones in Afghanistan for the increased deaths, 45% of those killed were not in conflict regions. 

Three hundred and forty-eight reporters have so far been detained this year and 60 were held hostage.

China leads the world in detentions, with 60 journalists held in state jails. Thirty-one journalists are currently being held in Syria. 

“Violence against journalists has reached unprecedented levels this year, and the situation is now critical,” Christophe Deloire, the group’s secretary general said. “The hatred of journalists that is voiced, and sometimes very openly proclaimed, by unscrupulous politicians, religious leaders and businessmen has tragic consequences on the ground, and has been reflected in this disturbing increase in violations against journalists.”

RSF highlights the case of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was allegedly killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

The report warned: The Khashoggi killing in October shows “how far some people will go to silence ‘troublesome’ journalists.”

via RSS http://bit.ly/2EKuin8 Tyler Durden

Submitted by Keith Decker of IceCap Asset Management

Asymmetrical Risk-Return Relationships

Want to know why the house always wins in Vegas? It’s because the odds, or probable outcomes are always in favour of the house, or put another way – the gambler always has the deck stacked against him. This concept is called the asymmetrical risk-return relationship, and it also exists in the investment world.

The average investor is told that stocks always go up over the long-run.

Although the long-run is rarely defined, and it’s never the same for every person or every market; this expression is effectively trying to describe an asymmetrical risk return relationship. This relationship is one where the expected positive returns from the stock market significantly exceed the expected negative returns from the stock market.

The same is also true for the bond market.

When bonds are paying you interest payments of 3% a year – you expect to receive at least 3% as your return, and never anything less than that – after all, it’s a BOND and bonds are safe.

And THIS is the key concept that the majority are missing, fail to understand, or are simply not allowed to discuss.

What we mean by this is that in the bond world, virtually every investor has been told that bonds are always safe, you’ll always get your money back, and they are meant for conservative investors, and investors who want to keep a little somethin’-somethin’ for a rainy day.

Of course – IceCap is telling you, this is wishful thinking. 2018 is not the same as 2008, 1999, 1989 or even 1982 for that matter.

The financial world we live in today is COMPLETELY different than any other moment in time ever experienced by anyone in the investment world.

For two reasons.

First over the last 38 years, long-term interest rates have steadily declined from nearly 20% all the way to 0%. This is important, because as long-term interest rates decline steadily – bond market returns increase steadily. This trend has reversed, and so too will the investment experience for everyone investing in the global bond market.

Second, the debt super cycle borrowing binge was all enabled by unchallenged, free wheeling governments fueled by low interest rates on borrowed money.

Yet these two, very easy to see and very easy to understand facts are completely missing from the investment industry, the investment media and most disappointing of all – the universities and colleges who are churning out CFA seeking millennials by the boat load. Recently, we’ve had several conversations with larger pension funds who all recounted how increasingly their bond fund managers have turned into 30 year olds. While there’s nothing wrong with a little youth movement every now and then – there is something wrong when these young guns are charging through fixed income presentations extorting their 10 years industry experience and pounding the table on the incredible opportunities they expect to occur in the land of bonds.

To be clear – there’s now an entire generation of investment professionals around the world who’s entire career (both professional and academic) has occurred during a period dominated by:

• 0% interest rates
• negative% interest rates
• QE and money printing
• bank bailouts
• and sovereign debt bailouts

Why is this important?

This is important because the industry as a group creates, forms and distributes risk-return expectations for every dollar in the investment universe.

When markets are charging dead ahead into an all-certain event, the investing public looks for leaders. It looks for dynamic wisdom. It looks for 5-dimensional thinking. Instead, the industry is increasingly being lead by fearless leaders who’ve earned exactly zero stripes, no investment scars, and who are not compensated to see the investment world for what it is – a complex, interconnected relationship between and amongst multiple factors which always move in sync (positive and negative correlations) during significant turning points.

While everyone today is closely watching equity markets – and justifiably so from a daily movement perspective, the majority do not realize the market magician is using the oldest trick in the book – distraction with the slight of hand. In the world of magic – there really isn’t any magic. Instead, the slight of hand, moves just enough to distract the audience from what is really happening.

And yes, corrections in equity markets are very unsettling and as described earlier, IceCap certainly does takes them seriously. Yet, unlike the majority, we have not taken our eye off the ball, nor have we become distracted by the emotional market churning noise. And we most certainly, have not been lulled into a sleeping comfort by the new generation of bond managers.

Instead, we share with you the market trick at hand – the asymmetrical risk-return relationship currently offered to every investor in the world.

Our diagram on this page illustrates the return expectations for the bond market.

The “A” column is representative of current global fixed income markets.

The upside to investing in low-risk bond strategies is approximately 3%. Yet, as IceCap’s expectation for a crisis in sovereign debt escalates, the expected losses will be 20% or more. We tell you with certainty – these are the kind of odds you normally would only find in Vegas. In bond markets today, the sellers of bonds are pulling the wool over the eyes of the buyers of bonds.

And we’re sorry to tell you, everyone today including mutual fund investors, target date funds, life cycle funds, and especially pension funds are set-up for long-term losses in their fixed income strategies. We’ll next show you why this fixed income market environment cannot be avoided. It will happen. That’s the bad news.

Read the full presentation below

via RSS http://bit.ly/2BzgEiQ Tyler Durden