Tag: news

Authored by Egon von Greyerz via GoldSwitzerland.com,

Will gold be confiscated? Yes, of course, it could be. Desperate governments will take desperate actions. And as the world economy is now slumping into a hyperinflationary depression, unlimited money printing will cause currencies to collapse, leading to a surge in the gold price measured in worthless paper money. 

So the first question we must ask is: Why would governments punish prudent savers who have taken protection in gold against the irresponsible mismanagement of the economy and the currency?

GOLD IS 0.5% OF GLOBAL ASSETS

Global financial assets are estimated by Credit Suisse to be $360 trillion. Of that stocks are $85 trillion or 24%. The global bond market is $100 trillion (28%). Investment gold is around 35,000 tonnes or $1.9 trillion. This represents a mere 0.5% of global financial assets.  

With investment gold representing only 0.5% of global assets whilst stocks are 24%, you can ask why the US government, are doing all they can do drive up the value of stocks by printing money and at the same time suppressing the price of gold. Why are shareholders supported to become rich whilst gold holders are penalised?

Governments are clearly supporting ever higher stock since this buys votes. But with so few investors holding gold, the government will lose very few votes by manipulating the gold price down.  

WILL THE US CONFISCATE GOLD

Since we are now entering a period of major currency debasement and potential hyperinflation, you could ask why governments would stop investors from preserving wealth in the form of gold. So would the US government, instead of encouraging thrift and prudent wealth preservation in the form of gold, confiscate the savings of the Americans? Well, some observers like Jim Sinclair – “Mr. Gold” – thinks this is possible also for US gold mines. He does believe though that coins of the Realm like Eagles would be excluded.

But the confiscation by Roosevelt in 1933 was a totally different situation and not comparable with today. At that time, the US was in a depression and the dollar was tied to gold. The economy was under pressure and the US government decided that the dollar needed to be devalued. A dollar devaluation automatically meant a revaluation of gold since the two were totally interlinked. But FDR decided that the US holders of gold should not get the benefit of a revaluation. Thus gold was confiscated and then revalued from $20.67 per ounce to $35. Gold in bank safe deposit boxes was taken but many Americans hid their gold at home. Gold held outside the US was not confiscated.

AMERICANS HOLD GOLD IN MANY COUNTRIES 

Today gold ownership is global. US investors for example are legally storing gold in many countries – Canada, Singapore, Australia, UK, and Switzerland to mention a few. Substantial  amounts of gold are stored by US citizens in these countries. Switzerland is a major gold hub where gold is stored in the big banks as well as in many private banks. In addition, there are many private vaults outside the banking system in Switzerland storing considerable amounts of gold. 

It would be totally impractical to require Americans to ship the gold back to the US. Also, many countries would not cooperate. I have heard people criticising Switzerland for giving in to the US authorities and revealing the names of Americans who held undeclared accounts in Switzerland at UBS and other banks. As a Swiss I also consider that the Swiss government should not have succumbed as they did this in contravention of the Swiss constitution. Banking secrecy was holy and law in Switzerland at the time. But there was pressure from many European countries also that the Swiss were complicit in tax fraud. In Switzerland, not declaring funds or income was not a criminal event. 

TODAY THERE IS AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF ALL FINANCIAL INFORMATION

So Switzerland gave in at the time and the banks had to open up their books. And today all banks in the world exchange information based on the OECD Common Reporting Standard. This is an Automatic Exchange Of Information (AEOI) between virtually all countries. Gold held within the financial system is included in this reporting. 

The reason Switzerland gave in was the enormous pressure the US authorities put on them, which supposedly included freezing all the assets of the UBS US branch. But also morally the Swiss government had to give in since it was hard to justify actions that were allowed in Switzerland but fraudulent in the US and most other countries. 

Gold or other precious metals held in private vaults is at the present not reportable by Americans in their tax returns. The same goes for property. But based on the strict compliance and AML (Anti Money Laundering) regulation, no serious company involved in precious metal storage would accept undeclared funds or metals. Thus no respectable company dealing with gold would accept client funds or gold which are not tax compliant in the country of the client. 

So today, gold or other precious metals held in Switzerland by Americans are totally tax compliant. For that reason, I doubt that the Swiss government would cooperate with the US tax authorities if they required the gold to be returned. 

GOLD IS A STRATEGIC INDUSTRY IN SWITZERLAND 

Gold confiscation in Switzerland is very unlikely. Refining and storing gold in Switzerland is a strategic industry. Switzerland refines 70% of the gold bars in the world. This makes our country a very important party in the global gold industry that could not be replaced elsewhere. In addition, gold is 29% of Swiss exports which is very significant. Also, Switzerland stores a major part of the private gold in the world. 

Saving in gold as well as giving gold to children or as a wedding present is a long-standing Swiss tradition. The Swiss will normally buy the Swiss Vreneli coin.

The gold stored in Swiss private vaults is growing significantly every year. The stable political system, rule of law, being a very old democracy and neutrality all contribute to this. Gold confiscation would also be against the constitution. A senior Swiss politician friend of mine told me that if the Swiss government confiscated gold, the people would revolt. For these reasons, I believe that Switzerland will become an even more important gold hub and the best place in the world to store gold.

DOES THE US HOLD 8,000 TONNES OF GOLD?

The US declares holding 8,000 tonnes of gold. This gold has not had an official physical audit since Eisenhower’s days in the mid 1950s. There is clearly a reason for a country not properly auditing their stated $450 billion gold holding. Almost all countries are in the same position. Nobody has an official physical audit of their gold. Since they are all declaring how much gold they hold, they clearly have a responsibility to their people to publicly audit their alleged gold holding. 

The answer is simple of course. They don’t have the gold they say that they hold. That can be the only reason why it is never audited. In my view many central banks, including the Fed have covertly reduced their official gold holding. In addition, all central banks are lending or leasing a major part of their gold and most probably also lending the same gold many times over. We know for example that HSBC and JP Morgan hold a major amount of central bank gold. They are also custodian for the biggest gold ETF – GLD. When the gold holdings by GLD increases, there is no gold bought from the Swiss refiners. Instead, the custodians just lend them the central bank gold they hold which has probably been lent many times over. 

CENTRAL BANK AND BULLION BANK GOLD IS LOST TO THE EAST

In the past when central banks leased out gold, it would stay with the bullion banks in  London or New York. Today, the big buyers are China and India. They buy gold from the bullion banks in London or New York. These 400 oz bars are shipped to Switzerland to be broken down into kilo bars by the Swiss refiners. The kilo bars are the desired size both in India and China. These bars are then shipped on to the East. The bullion banks lease the 400 oz bars from a central bank and then sells them on the buyers in the East. 

So instead of staying in London or New York, the central bank has now leased the gold to a bullion bank which has sold it to China or India. The result is that the bullion bank no longer has the physical gold and all the central bank has is an IOU from the bullion bank. This means that the physical gold is permanently lost by both the bullion bank and the central bank. It will never return. The bullion bank will default because they can’t deliver the gold to the central bank which in turn has lost its physical gold forever. This is why central banks don’t have a fraction of the physical gold they declare to have. 

JIM SINCLAIR $87,000 GOLD 

Jim Sinclair and Bill Holter, two of the most respected individuals in the gold industry, have calculated the real value of the US gold based on 8,000 tonnes allegedly held by the US and balancing the balance sheet of the US. The projected value is $50,000 to $87,000. And as Jim says, that assumes the US holds 8,000 tonnes. Let’s say that the US only holds 4,000t, then the gold price would be double these estimates. And assume that virtually all the US gold has been sold or leased, that would be a gold price going to infinity.  But 4,000t or slightly less seems more realistic. 

CHINESE GOLD

China has been accumulating gold for decades. Their official holdings are 2,000 tonnes. But it is widely assumed that their real holding is over 10x that. Insiders who have been working with the Chinese confirm that they are likely to hold over 20,000t. All the domestic Chinese gold production, currently 400t p.a. goes to the government. 

When China announces a gold-backed yuan, which is not unlikely, they will declare their 20,000+ tonnes and then challenge the US to prove they have the 8,000t. This will lead to some interesting exchanges of aggression, hopefully only verbal. 

GOLD CONFISCATION – EVG VIEW

As I said initially, it is possible that some governments attempt to confiscate gold. But in my view, it is an extremely difficult exercise to both legally and logistically conduct. Also, if the gold is held abroad many countries will resist or refuse to ship gold to the US. 

Also, the gold market is today global. In China, 1.4 billion people are encouraged by the state to own gold. In India, it is a tradition for most families to hold gold and to give gold as wedding presents. And in Russia, gold reserves have gone from 400 tonnes in 2006 to 2,300 today, a fourfold increase. These countries understand the vital importance of gold.

In today’s global markets, it would be almost impossible to stop companies or individuals to trade gold outside the US or Europe in Shanghai, Singapore or Zurich. 

With the epicentre of the gold market moving to China and the East, it is very unlikely for the US and the West to confiscate gold. This would precipitate the fall of the dollar and the Euro and substantially weaken the US and EU positions and their economies. 

Remember:

“HE WHO HOLDS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES”

Thus I believe that confiscation is very unlikely. Governments have a much simpler way of getting at the assets of the wealthy through high taxation. And this is what I believe will happen and not just for gold. As government deficits surge, all assets of the rich will be taxed heavily and not just gold which today represents only 0.5% of global financial assets. 

Therefore, tax planning including various jurisdictions is as important as wealth planning. 

MARKETS

Stocks

Stock markets are in the course of finishing a correction up. It could take another week or two. Once finished, we will see rapid falls across the globe to new lows. 

Metals

The precious metals are in a strong uptrend. The 2011 high for gold in dollars will soon be reached. All other currencies have surpassed the 2011-12 high in gold in the last two years and so will gold in dollars. Remember that corrections are always part of a sound uptrend. 

It is totally irrelevant what price gold reaches in worthless paper money whether it is Sinclair’s $58,000 or my 18-year-old prediction of $10,000 in today’s money. Time will tell. 

But it is critical to hold physical gold as protection against a currency system and a financial system which are in the process of falling apart.

*  *  *

Want to learn more? Join MAMinar #1

Please join Grant Williams, Ronni Stoeferle, and myself in MAM’s first live MAMinar (webinar).

We will obviously cover our views on the global economy as well as gold. None of us is a goldbug but all three have a deep understanding of gold as protection against a rotten financial system.

Please join us on 8th of June, 6pm Zürich (5pm London, 12 noon NY) time.

It should be both thought-provoking and fun.

A study published in the Lancet on Friday which prompted the World Health Organization to halt global trials of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 has fallen under scrutiny over a data discrepancy, The Guardian reports.

According to the study – a data analysis of nearly 15,000 patients who received HCQ alone or with antibiotics (and conspicuously without zinc – the key ingredient), COVID-19 patients who received HCQ reportedly died at higher rates and experienced more cardiac complications than those without. As a result, the WHO halted all its trials involving the drug, which has been promoted by dozens of prominent doctors, and recently ordered by Indian health officials for use as a prophylactic against the disease.

The study, led by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Disease in Boston, examined patients in hospitals around the world, including in Australia. It said researchers gained access to data from five hospitals recording 600 Australian Covid-19 patients and 73 Australian deaths as of 21 April.

But data from Johns Hopkins University shows only 67 deaths from Covid-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April. The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April. The data relied upon by researchers to draw their conclusions in the Lancet is not readily available in Australian clinical databases, leading many to ask where it came from. –The Guardian

In short, the accuracy of the Brigham and Women’s study has been called into question. Meanwhile, Australia’s federal health department confirmed to Guardian Australia that data collected on COVID-19 in the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System was not the source for informing the trial. The news outlet also contacted the New South Wales and Victoria health departments, both of which said they did not provide researchers with data for the study.

“We have asked the authors for clarifications, we know that they are investigating urgently, and we await their reply,” the Lancet told Guardian Australia. Meanwhile, lead author Dr. Mandeep Mehra said he had contacted Surgisphere – which provided the data, to reconcile the discrepancies with “the utmost urgency,” according to the report.

Surgisphere founder Dr. Sapan Desai, an author on the Lancet paper, said that the discrepancy was caused by an Asian hospital which had been erroneously included in the Australian data.

“We have reviewed our Surgisphere database and discovered that a new hospital that joined the registry on April 1, and self-designated as belonging to the Australasia continental designation,” said a spokesman. “In reviewing the data from each of the hospitals in the registry, we noted that this hospital had a nearly 100% composition of Asian race and a relatively high use of chloroquine compared to non-use in Australia. This hospital should have more appropriately been assigned to the Asian continental designation.”

Desai claims that the error does not alter the overall study findings, and that just the Australia data would need to change.

That said, Melbourne epidemiologist Dr. Allen Cheng has questions. For example, he said that the four Australian hospitals involved in the study should be named, that he’s never heard of Surgisphere, and that nobody from his hospital, The Alfred, has provided Surgisphere with data.

“Usually to submit to a database like Surgisphere you need ethics approval, and someone from the hospital will be involved in that process to get it to a database,” said Cheng, adding that the dataset should be made public.

“If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?” he said, noting that it was also a “red flag” that the study has just four authors.

“Usually with studies that report on findings from thousands of patients, you would see a large list of authors on the paper,” he said, adding “Multiple sources are needed to collect and analyse the data for large studies and you usually see that acknowledged in the list of authors.”

He stressed that even if the paper proved to be problematic, it did not mean hydroxychloroquine was safe or effective in treating Covid-19. No strong studies to date have shown the drug is effective. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have potentially severe and even deadly side effects if used inappropriately, including heart failure and toxicity. Other studies have found the drug is associated with higher mortality when given to severely unwell Covid-19 patients.

In a statement Surgisphere said it stood by the integrity of its data, saying all information from hospitals “is transferred in a deidentified manner” but could not be made public. 

“This requirement allows us to only maintain collaborations with top-tier institutions that are supported by the level of data-integrity and sophistication required for such work,” the statement said. “Naturally, this leads to the inclusion of institutions that have a tertiary care level of practice and provide quality healthcare that is relatively homogenous around the world. As with most corporations, the access to individual hospital data is strictly governed. Our data use agreements do not allow us to make this data public.” –The Guardian

Chang believes it would be a big mistake to halt “strong, well-designed clinical trials examining the drug” over questionable data. His hospital, The Ascot, is currently recruiting patients in over 70 hospitals in every Australian state and territory, along with 11 hospitals in New Zealand for a randomized control trial which explores whether HCQ – on its own or in combination with other drugs, can successfully treat COVID-19.

The leader of The Ascot trial, Prof. Josh Davis, has written to the authors of the Lancet study to ask for an explanation. Until then, patient recruitment has been placed on hold, according to an Ascot spokeswoman.

“Following an observational study published in the Lancet Ascot has paused patient recruitment pending deliberations by the governance and ethics committees overseeing the trial,” she said. “We expect these deliberations to occur rapidly and will provide further information as they arise.”

Via AlMasdarNews.com,

European Union officials have confirmed their intention to extend sanctions against the Syrian government, despite the COVID-19 outbreak across the world.

A high-ranking European official told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday that extending the sanctions against the Syrian government “will send a strong message that the current approach, which includes violence, the deterioration of the humanitarian situation and the use of chemical weapons, is totally unacceptable,” the TASS News Agency reported.

The official, whose identity was not revealed, again called for a political solution to the conflict in Syria.

Another official from the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Authority said, “The sanctions will be extended soon.”

Indeed in an EU announcement the sanctions were extended later on Thursday:

The Council today extended EU restrictive measures against the Syrian regime for one additional year, until 1 June 2021. In line with the EU strategy on Syria, the EU decided to maintain its restrictive measures against the Syrian regime and its supporters, as the repression of the civilian population continues.

During the 73rd session of the World Health Assembly, the Syrian Minister of Health, Nizar Yazigi, announced that “harsh and unjust” U.S. and European sanctions hinder efforts to combat the spread of the coronavirus in Syria.

NEW – the #EU extended its sanctions against #Syria‘s #Assad regime for another year — to June 2021.

In sum, #EU sanctions are on 273 persons & 70 entities.https://t.co/JuNKC5PPj7 pic.twitter.com/FB0rY2RejM

— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) May 28, 2020

The Syrian Foreign Ministry demanded in April that the West lift all sanctions against the backdrop of the danger of the spread of the new virus in the country.

“In the past six months, 1.4m more Syrians lost sure access to adequate food—bringing the total number of ‘food insecure’ people in Syria to 9.3m, more than half the whole population… more and more families are cutting down to two meals a day.” https://t.co/mPTR4U03sI

— Gregg Carlstrom (@glcarlstrom) May 26, 2020

European sanctions have been imposed on Damascus since 2011; these include the ban on exporting oil from Syria and the export of energy and oil products to it, in addition to restrictions imposed on investments, the freezing of assets of the Syrian Central Bank and the ban on trade with the Syrian authorities with dual-use technologies and means to monitor and prevent telephone and Internet connections.

The European Union also included 255 people and 67 Syrian entities on its blacklist.

The attack of a right-wing extremist on the synagogue in Halle, Germany last year marked a new peak of anti-Semitic violence in Germany. According to Josef Schuster, President of the Central Jewish Council in Germany, the brutality of the attack exceeded “everything that has existed in recent years” and was “a deep shock for all Jews in Germany”.

But this attack didn’t come out of nowhere. Anti-Semitic crimes have increased each year since 2015 in Germany.

According to the latest report by the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI), 2019 saw the highest number of such police-recorded crimes since the country started recording them in 2001.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Interior Minister Horst Seehofer called the rise in anti-Semitic crimes a “great concern,” according to a report by ABC.

” The largest threat, as in the past, is the threat from the right,” Seehofer said. “Extreme-right politically motivated cases make up more than half of all of such recorded crimes — it is an order of magnitude that causes us concern, great concern.”

He also said the country’s domestic intelligence last year increased surveillance of the Alternative for Germany party, focusing attention on its youth arm along with a faction known as “The Wing,” which has a history of downplaying the country’s Nazi past, according to the report.

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

During the summer of 1215 in a riverfront meadow near London, some of England’s top barons gathered to confront King John and force him to sign a contract guaranteeing their rights and freedoms.

The contract became known as the Magna Carta. And one of its key provisions (#43) gave the Barons protection against something called ‘escheat’.

In medieval times, ‘escheat’ referred to the property being forcibly passed to the King if its original owner died without heirs.

So if a Baron passed away without a son, his domain would pass by escheat back to the crown.

Over time, kings vastly expanded the use of escheat; anyone convicted of a crime would have their property seized by escheat. Occasionally someone’s son or daughter could be pressed into servitude by escheat.

It was like a medieval version of Civil Asset Forfeiture: the King took whatever he wanted, for any reason, and people had no rights.

By 1215, England’s noblemen were sick and tired of it, and they successfully forced King John to sign the Magna Carta.

Unfortunately for the other 99.9% of England’s population, most of the Magna Carta’s guarantees only applied to Barons and other noblemen.

Plain ole’ regular serfs still had their meager property plundered by the King, and by the noblemen themselves who had just fought to preserve their own rights at the expense of everyone else’s.

So if a feudal serf in England died without an heir, or was convicted of a crime, all his property was escheated to the local Lord, or to the King.

This became such big business in England that the government appointed special agents called ‘escheators’ in every single English county to oversee property confiscation every time someone passed away.

If there was any doubt at all whether or not the deceased had valid heirs, the escheator would seize the property immediately.

Amazingly enough, this ridiculous feudal custom still exists. And not just in England – in many countries around the world.

In just about every state in the Land of the Free, for example, your possessions, real estate, etc. are forfeited to the government if you die without heir.

Even bank accounts that are left dormant for some period of time – usually a few years – can be confiscated by the government.

But this is totally bizarre, because ‘dormant bank account’ rules can be incredibly loose. In many jurisdictions, for example, simply having some savings stashed away in a bank account that doesn’t have any other activity can put your funds at risk of being seized.

They actually still use the same word– escheat. So money in dormant bank accounts is escheated to the state.

To be fair, this practice has been relatively rare… until Covid. But now governments are starting to look at every source of funding they can get their hands on, including the medieval ones.

The British government recently announced that they had “unlocked” £150 million from dormant bank accounts, with cooperation from some of the biggest banks in the UK, all to help fight World War Covid.

And now the UK is looking to expand the practice beyond bank accounts; they’d like to be able to seize unclaimed financial assets (including stocks and bonds), insurance proceeds, and even dormant pension accounts.

As one UK government official put it, “I look forward to the potentially millions more we can unlock for good causes through expanding the Dormant Assets Scheme.”

This is a practice that literally dates back to the feudal system. And it reinforces a simple truth: you don’t really own anything if the government has the authority to take it.

I have no doubt the bureaucrats who came up with this idea have very good intentions.

After all, what nobler cause is there in this bizarre world of ours but to wage an endless crusade against the Coronavirus, no matter the cost?

They’re willing to do whatever it takes, spend whatever it takes, print as much money as it takes, and yes, even confiscate people’s private property, to rid the world of the virus.

This is our new reality: medieval serfdom.

*  *  *

And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

As American and Russian military jets operate dangerously close to each other earlier this week, for the third time in months, Russia has just announced, it will launch the Poseidon submarine drone, dubbed the “Doomsday Drone” and or a “Nuclear Torpedo,” with an impressive range that could autonomously traverse the Atlantic Ocean and cause quite a stir in Washington. 

Several Russian media outlets are reporting the developments. RIA Novosti said a military source has confirmed the unmanned underwater vehicle, which can carry a nuclear warhead, is scheduled to launch this fall. The source said the launch would be conducted from a K-329 Belgorod nuclear submarine. There was no indication of where the launch site would be.

Powered by a small nuclear reactor, Poseidon has a top speed estimated at between 60 and 100 knots, with an impressive range of 6,200 miles, and when launched from the Barents Sea or somewhere in the Arctic, can autonomously traverse the North Atlantic, an area where Russia, China, and the US are each trying to stake a claim, due mostly to the trillions of dollars of natural resources beneath the ocean floor.

On Radio Sputnik this week, a military expert, the head of the Center for the Study of Public Applied Problems of National Security, retired Colonel Alexander Zhilin, called Poseidon a “powerful weapon” and spoke about its features:

“A drone has several advantages. A submarine with a crew on board is, of course, a powerful weapon, but there are certain restrictions on the human factor. Poseidon can practically be on alert and perform assigned tasks at any time. The appearance of drones This class, of course, requires a lot of responsibility, because management is through software. It is clear that there are certain risks when, by convention, hackers can try to take control. But, talking with our engineers, designers, I came to the conclusion that protection against external interference is colossal,” said Zhilin.

We first noted the development of the Poseidon when Russian President Vladimir Putin officially confirmed the weapon’s existence in his annual address to the Federal Assembly in 2018.

“We have developed unmanned submersible vehicles that can move at great depths – I would say extreme depths – intercontinentally, at a speed multiple times higher than the speed of submarines, cutting-edge torpedoes and all kinds of surface vessels,” said Putin.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense released a video of Poseidon’s strike capabilities 

We noted last year the underwater nuclear drones are capable of devastating enemy coastlines with a tsunami wave up to 1,600 feet that can leave behind radioactive isotopes.

“The U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Status-6 will carry a multi-megaton thermonuclear bomb payload. For comparisons’ sake the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 16 kilotons, several orders of magnitude smaller. A one megaton bomb is the equivalent of 1,000 kilotons—one one million tons of TNT. Reports from Russia indicate the bomb could be as large as 100 megatons.

“Status-6 is designed to attack enemy coastal cities, ports, shipyards, and naval bases. Once Status-6 arrives at its destination it detonates the bomb, causing an enormous amount of damage through blast and heat. A 100 megaton bomb would generate artificial tsunamis, carrying the destruction far inshore.” -Popular Mechanics

With 16 Poseidon drones ready to launch. There is no adversary of Russia that is capable of overtaking Poseidon at its operating depths and fast speeds. 

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

Richard Grenell is stepping down from his role as U.S. ambassador to Germany. The move ends one of the most effective American ambassadorships to Berlin in recent memory.

Grenell arguably has done more than any other American official, with the possible exception of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, to call out the duplicity, hypocrisy and recklessness of Germany’s foreign policy establishment.

On a wide range of geopolitical issues — from relations with China, Iran and Russia to anti-Semitism, climate change, defense spending (NATO), energy dependence (Nord Stream), globalism, Hezbollah, Huawei and mass migration — Grenell embarrassed German leaders by showing that their words and actions do not match.

The greatest point of contention in U.S. relations with Germany is Berlin’s refusal to honor its pledge to spend 2% of its GDP on defense. Germany, the largest and wealthiest country in the European Union, currently lacks a functioning Air Force and Navy and is completely dependent on U.S. security guarantees. Germany’s unwillingness to pay for its own defense has led to charges that it is “free-riding” on American security. Grenell consistently drew attention to this untenable arrangement, much to the anger of German elites.

Closely related to the defense spending issue is Germany’s increasing energy dependency on Russia. Despite opposition from the United States and 15 European countries, Germany is determined to complete the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which will further increase Russia’s leverage as an energy supplier to Europe. Grenell placed a spotlight on the inherent contradiction that while the United States is spending billions of dollars annually to defend Europe against growing threats from Russia, German energy policies are increasing Russia’s grip over Europe.

Grenell’s skillful use of Twitter enabled him to bypass Germany’s mainstream media and offer an alternative to the official narratives parroted by Germany’s political and media establishment. German elites frequently responded with ad hominem attacks; Grenell remained above the fray and stayed focused on the policy issues.

Grenell’s greatest achievement during his roughly two years as ambassador was his tireless pursuit of the American interest and his unwillingness to appease Germany’s anti-American establishment.

Cliff Sims, a former advisor to President Trump, encapsulated the essence of Grenell’s diplomatic style:

“The mandate of a diplomat is usually to be diplomatic. Trumpian foreign policy is obviously more confrontational. Ric is willing to be publicly confrontational with his host country if it’s in America’s national interest in a way that is not typical historically but directly reflects the way Trump operates.”

Thomas Jaeger, a political scientist at the University of Cologne, said that Grenell has had an important impact on shaping the public debate in Germany:

“He had no qualms about putting the German government under pressure in public, which might not have always been the smartest thing to do. But everyone knew Trump listened closely to him. I think they could have used that connection a lot better. In any case, Grenell has been highly effective in getting Germany to talk more about defense spending and about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The public opinion on those two issues has changed, and Grenell certainly had a role in that.”

Following is a brief selection of Grenell’s tweets, statements and interactions with Germany’s political establishment on a variety of issues:

Iran

On May 8, 2018, Grenell’s first day as U.S. Ambassador to Germany, he made a splash with a tweet that the Trump administration was serious about enforcing sanctions against Iran: “As @realDonaldTrump said, US sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy. German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.”

The tweet, which came after President Trump announced that he was pulling the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, was greeted with indignation:

• Former German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, tweeted: “Ric: my advice, after a long ambassadorial career: explain your own country’s policies, and lobby the host country – but never tell the host country what to do, if you want to stay out of trouble. Germans are eager to listen, but they will resent instructions.”

• Green Party lawmaker Omid Nouripour said: “Good cooperation means that one does not drive a highly aggressive, ruthless policy towards our security interests and before you even arrive here, you threaten the German economy. It’s simply not a tone of cooperation and we have to say so very clearly.”

• The then leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, Andrea Nahles, added: “It’s not my task to teach people about the fine art of diplomacy, especially not the U.S. ambassador. But he does appear to need some tutoring.”

Grenell responded by tweeting that what he wrote was “the exact language sent out from the White House talking points & fact sheet.”

After former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel insinuated that the United States was no a friend of Germany, Grenell tweeted:

“Gabriel is now in Iran meeting with the regime to talk about doing more trade deals…. this after an Iranian ‘diplomat’ was arrested in Germany for giving an explosive device to 2 people on their way to blow up a convention in Paris.”

Grenell also said that months of pressure from the United States led Germany finally to ban Iran’s Mahan Air, which is linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). German officials countered that they took the initiative on their own.

Hezbollah

Grenell was tireless in his efforts to pressure the German government to outlaw Hezbollah — Arabic for “The Party of Allah” — in Germany. On December 19, 2019, the German parliament, known as the Bundestag, approved a three-page resolution — “Effective Action against Hezbollah” — that called on the German government to ban the activities of the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group on German territory. According to the Bundestag, a complete organizational ban of Hezbollah is (supposedly) impossible because the group’s structures in Germany are “not currently ascertainable.”

On April 30, 2020, after years of equivocating, the German government announced a compromise measure between German lawmakers who want to take a harder line against Iran and those who do not. The ban falls far short of a complete prohibition on Hezbollah and appears aimed at providing the German government with political cover that allows Berlin to claim that it has banned the group even if it has not.

The ban does not require the closure of Hezbollah mosques or cultural centers, nor does it require that members of the group be deported. The ban also does not prohibit Hezbollah operatives from travelling to Germany.

Israel

Grenell has been an indefatigable supporter of Israel. Germany claims that the security of Israel is a fundamental element of its Staatsräson, or “reason of state.” German foreign policy, however, is decidedly anti-Israel. Grenell frequently reminded German leaders that their words and actions regarding Israel do not match.

In recent years, Germany has approved scores of anti-Israel UN resolutions. In May 2016, Germany voted in favor of an especially disgraceful UN resolution, co-sponsored by the Arab group of states and the Palestinian delegation, that singled out Israel at the annual assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) as the world’s only violator of “mental, physical and environmental health.”

Much of Germany’s political establishment appears to be fundamentally anti-Israel. In March 2019, for instance, the Bundestag overwhelmingly rejected a resolution by the Free Democratic Party (FDP) to urge Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government to reverse its anti-Israel voting record at the United Nations.

In February 2019, on the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier congratulated, “also in the name of my compatriots,” the Iranian regime, which openly seeks Israel’s destruction. The move was defended by much of the German establishment as “diplomatic custom.”

In February 2020, Grenell rebuked the German government for its plans to celebrate the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

“Germany has a moral responsibility to say to Iran very firmly and clearly that it is unacceptable to deny basic human rights to your people, or kill protesters in the streets or push gay people off buildings. Celebrating the regime’s ongoing existence sends the opposite message.”

In response, Steinmeier’s office announced that it would not send the Iranian regime a congratulatory email on the anniversary of the revolution — but then “accidentally” sent it anyway.

President Trump’s Middle East Peace Plan

On January 28, 2020, the Trump administration unveiled its Middle East peace plan. The proposal was widely criticized in Germany. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said: “Only a negotiated two-state solution, acceptable to both sides, can lead to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

• Bundestag member Norbert Röttgen tweeted: “The so-called #PeacePlan is to the detriment of #Palestine and presented as an ultimatum depicts a setback in the conflict. It is primarily a contribution to the ongoing election campaigns in the #USA & #Israel and a welcome diversion from domestic crises in both states.”

  Grenell replied: “Abbas is in his 15th year of a 4 year term. The US didn’t cause this conflict but we are trying to solve it. Maybe some help?”

• The director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Volker Perthes, tweeted: “#Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ is essentially a reflection of Netanyahu’s ideas for #Israel’s relation with Palestinians, packaged as a US ‘peace plan’. Don’t take it lightly though. It will shape developments on the ground, as well as international law debates and practice.”

  Grenell replied: “Europeans who criticize this good initiative from the sidelines, while failing to offer any ideas of their own should be dismissed and ignored for wanting the failing status quo. Less talk, more action.”

Conservatism

In June 2018, a month after assuming his ambassadorship, Grenell, in an interview with Breitbart, said that he wanted to empower European conservatives:

“I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders. I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left.

“There’s no question about that and it’s an exciting time for me. I look across the landscape and we’ve got a lot of work to do but I think the election of Donald Trump has empowered individuals and people to say that they can’t just allow the political class to determine before an election takes place, who’s going to win and who should run.

“That’s a very powerful moment when you can grasp the ability to see past the group-think of a very small elitist crowd telling you you have no chance to win or you’ll never win, or they mock you early on.”

Grenell’s seemingly innocuous comments stoked hyperbolic outrage:

• Martin Schulz, a former leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, said: “Grenell does not behave like a diplomat, but like a far-right colonial officer.”
• Left Party lawmaker Sahra Wagenknecht called for Grenell’s expulsion: “Anyone who, like US Ambassador Richard Grenell, thinks that he can determine who governs Europe, can no longer remain in Germany as a diplomat.”
• A parliamentarian for the Social Democrats, Johannes Kahrs, tweeted: “If this is how it was said, then this man should leave the country.”
• Sevim Dagdelen of the opposition Left party described Grenell as Trump’s “regime change envoy.”

Huawei

The Trump administration has repeatedly urged Germany against allowing the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei to participate in its next-generation mobile network. The U.S. government has warned that Beijing could use Huawei technology to conduct espionage or cyber sabotage.

The President of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, Bruno Kahl, also advised against a role for Huawei. “Infrastructure is not a suitable area for a group that cannot be trusted fully,” he said.

In February 2020, after China threatened to retaliate against German carmakers, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling conservatives announced a compromise measure that stopped short of banning Huawei.

In response, Grenell tweeted:

“@realDonaldTrump just called me from AF1 and instructed me to make clear that any nation who chooses to use an untrustworthy 5G vendor will jeopardize our ability to share Intelligence and information at the highest level.”

The tweet elicited a series of responses:

• Left Party lawmaker Steffen Bockhahn tweeted: “Mister Ambassador, you should know, that parliamentarians are free in mind and in decision. In old Europe we want it like that and we like diplomatic diplomats. It makes real and open-minded conversation much easier. Regards!”

  Grenell replied: “You want a US that doesn’t pressure you to pay your NATO obligation, looks the other way when you buy too much Russian gas, doesn’t demand you take back your Nazi prison guard living in NYC, accepts your higher car tariffs and still sends 50,000 troops to your country.”

• Bundestag member Alexander Graf Lambsdorff tweeted: “Is there a US vendor the President would care to recommend instead? Does he have a list of ‘trustworthy vendors’? Which criteria does he apply to determine ‘trustworthiness’?”

  Grenell replied: “It’s odd that you don’t think about European solutions. Do you take any responsibility or just blame the US?”

• A director of the French search engine Qwant, Guillaume Champeau, tweeted: “According to the U.S. ambassador to Germany, the U.S. is threatening to withhold [intelligence] information from states that have Huawei in their 5G infrastructure.”

  Grenell replied: “According to this guy, the US doesn’t get to react to policies we find dangerous. I find it offensive that you think the US cooperation must stay the same no matter what you do. We call that taking us for granted.”

• German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier, a close confident of Chancellor Angela Merkel, created a false equivalency between the United States, which guarantees Germany’s security, and China. On a television talk show, he suggested that American telecommunications companies posed just as much of a security threat as ones from China.

  Grenell responded that Altmaier’s comparison was “an insult to the thousands of American troops who help ensure Germany’s security and to the millions of Americans committed to a strong Western alliance. These claims are likewise an insult to the millions of Chinese citizens denied basic freedoms and unjustly imprisoned by the CCP [Communist Party of China].”

Defense Spending

At a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, members agreed to meet a goal of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense within the next decade.

On March 18, 2019, German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz announced that Germany would not be spending two percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. He said that the share of defense expenditure in GDP would rise to 1.37% in the short term, but decrease to 1.25% by 2023. Chancellor Angela Merkel had pledged to increase spending to 1.5% by 2024.

Grenell responded:

“NATO members have clearly committed to moving towards two percent by 2024 and not moving away from it. The fact that the Federal Government is even considering reducing its already unacceptable contributions to military readiness is a worrying signal from Germany to its 28 NATO allies.”

The deputy speaker of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Kubicki, called for Grenell to be expelled from Germany:

“If a U.S. diplomat acts like a high commissioner of an occupying power, he will have to learn that our tolerance has its limits. It is no longer tolerable that the US ambassador intervenes again in political questions of the sovereign Federal Republic. Germany should not tolerate this improper behavior for reasons of self-respect.”

The SPD parliamentary director, Carsten Schneider, also rejected Grenell’s criticism: “Mr. Grenell is a total diplomatic failure. With his repeated clumsy provocations, Mr. Grenell damages the transatlantic relationship.”

In November 2019, German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said that Germany would not meet its NATO defense spending target until 2031.

Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline

Grenell worked tirelessly to stop the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline directly linking Russia to Germany. The €9.5 billion ($10.5 billion) pipeline would double shipments of Russian natural gas to Germany by transporting the gas under the Baltic Sea. Opponents of the pipeline warn that it will give Russia a stranglehold over Germany’s energy supply.

On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual defense spending bill, which included Nord Stream 2 sanctions language. The measure previously cleared the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate by overwhelming margins. The American sanctions forced Switzerland’s Allseas Group SA, which was laying the sub-sea pipes, to abandon work, throwing the project into disarray.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas tweeted: “European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the US. We reject external interference and extraterritorial sanctions.”

Grenell, in an interview with Bild, the largest-circulation newspaper in Germany, responded:

“This is a longstanding US policy that goes back to the Obama administration. The goal has always been for diversification of Europe’s energy sources and to ensure that not one country or source can build up too much influence on Europe through energy….

“Fifteen European countries, the European Commission and the European Parliament have all expressed their concerns about the project. We have been hearing from our European partners that the United States should support them in their efforts. That is why the sanctions are a very pro-European decision. Currently, there is a lot of talk in Germany about being more for Europe and we believe that when it comes to Nord Stream 2, we have taken an extremely pro-European position. I’ve been hearing all day from European diplomats thanking me for taking this action.”

Richard Herzinger, political correspondent for Die Welt, wrote in support of Grenell:

“U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell said that the Washington sanction decision against the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was ‘a very pro-European decision.’

“American interest in the European gas market is certainly not entirely selfless. In principle, however, Grenell is absolutely right when he rejects the accusation that the sanctions are directed against Europe.

“The German government, most recently in the person of Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, incorrectly presents the U.S. punitive measures as an attack on pan-European energy sovereignty. In truth, it is more Berlin itself that isolates itself in Europe with its stubborn adherence to Nord Stream 2.

“A number of EU governments, especially Poland and the Baltic States, welcome U.S. intervention as a long-awaited step against the expansion of German-Russian energy cooperation, which they see as an eminent threat to their security. The German energy special route has also been met with great skepticism from the EU Commission and the European Parliament, which has spoken out explicitly against the construction of Nord Stream 2.

“Incidentally, the U.S. sanctions are by no means a further outflow of anti-European affectations from Donald Trump. Rather, they were imposed by the U.S. Congress — with an overwhelming majority that includes both Democratic and Republican members. Such punitive measures had already been considered at the time of Obama’s presidency.

“Today, many Europeans believe Washington’s intervention is the last hope of stopping the pipeline project that would dramatically increase Europe’s dependence on Putin’s Russia.”

On May 26, Grenell announced that the United States was preparing additional sanctions to prevent completion of the pipeline. “Germany must stop feeding the beast while at the same time it does not pay enough for NATO,” he said. The German financial newspaper Handelsblatt described the new sanctions as Grenell’s “farewell greeting” (Abschiedsgruß).

Nazi War Criminals

In August 2018, Jakiw Palij, a 95-year-old Nazi collaborator who had lived in New York City for decades, was deported to Germany. Despite a court ordering his deportation in 2004, past American administrations were unsuccessful in removing him. Under orders from President Trump, Grenell secured Palij’s deportation to Germany. Palij died six months later.

On January 10, 2019, Grenell tweeted:

“Former Nazi prison guard Jakiw Palij has died in Germany. I am so thankful to @realDonaldTrump for making the case a priority. Removing the former Nazi prison guard from the US was something multiple Presidents just talked about – but President Trump made it happen.”

In an interview, Welt am Sonntag asked Grenell: “You have introduced a very direct way of communicating with your German audience. Are you surprised by the critical reception?” Grenell replied:

“I’m not surprised at all. I think that the American style has always been different from the European one. And it’s OK to have different styles. I’ve always thought that I would be judged by the political class on the progress I make. For too long, we have ignored some problems.

“One example of this is over the Nazi prison guard Jakiw Palij, who had been living in the US and who we wanted to be returned to Germany for a very long time. I was told that the Germans simply didn’t want to make this happen, which I didn’t find to be true — after pushing harder on this topic and after raising it at every meeting across all levels of government. So, is my style more pushy? I believe it is. But it also helps to reform our relationship and make it deeper and stronger.”

In March 2020, a US immigration judge ordered Tennessee resident Friedrich Karl Berger, who served as an armed guard at a Nazi concentration camp during World War II, to be deported to Germany. With Grenell no longer ambassador, it remains unclear if Germany will take Berger back.

North Korea

Grenell was instrumental in closing a hostel in Berlin that is owned by the government of North Korea. The Cityhostel Berlin funneled approximately €450,000 ($500,000) a year into the coffers of the regime of Kim Jong Un in violation of UN Security Council sanctions.

On January 28, 2020, a Berlin Administrative Court ordered the hostel to be shut down. Grenell tweeted:

“US Embassy Berlin has been hard at work getting this hotel shut down. It seems like a no-brainer to us. North Korea is under UN sanctions and the Germans are the Chair of the UN enforcement committee.”

Farewell to Germany

On February 20, 2020, President Trump installed Grenell as the acting director of national intelligence. Grenell was to fulfill his new duties while continuing in his role as ambassador. Almost immediately, German leaders complained that the lack of a full-time ambassador signalled that the United States was downgrading its relationship with Germany.

Bundestag member Alexander Graf Lambsdorff said that the additional post was an “upgrade” for Grenell, but a “downgrade” for Germany: “Even with the greatest effort, it is not possible to coordinate 17 intelligence agencies while maintaining German-American relations.”

Johann Wadephul, Bundestag member for the Christian Democrats, added: “Especially in these times, the transatlantic relationship needs a full-time ambassador.”

A foreign policy spokesman for the Social Democrats, Nils Schmid, said that the fact that Grenell would continue the post of ambassador from Washington was “an expression of a disdain for Germany.” He added: “U.S. President Donald Trump should appoint a successor who does not make one-sided propaganda, but also campaigns for German positions in Washington.”

On May 24, the German newspaper Die Welt, citing the German Press Agency, reported that Grenell would be stepping down. The announcement generated a range of responses, including:

• A fellow at the German Marshall Fund, Noah Barkin, tweeted that Germany would breathe a “sigh of relief” at Grenell’s departure. Grenell replied: “You make a big mistake if you think the American pressure is off. You don’t know Americans.”

• German Bundestag member Andreas Nick, tweeted: “For a generation, each and every US Ambassador I got to know personally – career diplomat or political appointee alike – used to leave his post as a highly respected figure and trusted friend of Germany. Now someone leaves issuing threats as if he were representing a hostile power.”

  Grenell responded: “You always wanted me to stop asking you publicly to pay your NATO obligations and calling for an end to Nord Stream 2. But these are US policies. And I work for the American people.”

• Bundestag member Alexander Graf Lambsdorff admitted that Grenell will be missed because of his authenticity and closeness to President Trump: “In Ambassador Grenell, you knew what the American government thinks and how it acts.”

• Julian Röpke, political editor of Bild, Germany’s largest newspaper, tweeted: “With @RichardGrenell, Germany is losing one of the best US Ambassadors to our country ever. Whether it was pressure to stop NordStream2, rethink German-Iranian regime (love) affairs or increase our defense expenditure – he was always on point and acting in the best interest of the United States and Germany. THANKS SO MUCH!”