Month: October 2018

Authored by Andrew Spannaus via ConsortiumNews.com,

A Genoa bridge that collapsed last month killing 43 people is privately owned, but a key factor that has slowed basic infrastructure investment in Italy in recent years is the fault of the EU…

A little over a month ago, on August 14, a highway bridge collapsed in the middle of the Italian city of Genoa, killing 43 people, damaging the populated areas below, and interrupting a major traffic artery connecting the two sides of the city. The bridge had been built in the 1960s, with a construction technique that had been criticized by some experts over the years, and its decay was obvious; it had already undergone various repairs, and a new round of extraordinary maintenance was planned for this fall.

The maintenance didn’t come in time. As heavy rain fell in the area, cars and trucks dropped from a height of 150 feet, causing death and injury, and marking a national tragedy that has gripped the country.

Why did this happen? Italy’s highway company was privatized in 1999, and concessions were then granted to operate the roads. The largest concession-holder (with about 50% of the network) is currently Autostrade per l’Italia S.p.A., controlled by the Benetton family, founders of the eponymous fashion brand. They make a handsome profit off of highway tolls – among the highest in Europe – and they are responsible for maintenance and investments, which have stagnated even as tolls have more than doubled in the past 25 years.

Autostrade’s defense in regard to the disaster is that while concerns had been raised about the bridge, there was no indication of imminent danger. It’s a weak argument, considering that in Genoa the bridge had been the subject of public debate for years, with some seeing it as “a disaster waiting to happen.” After initial resistance, Autostrade ultimately responded to public pressure by allocating 500 million Euros (575 million dollars) to compensate the families of the victims and rebuild the bridge.

Collapsed Bridge: Privately owned. (Wikimedia Commons)

The first response from Italy’s populist government led by the Five-Star Movement (M5S) and the League, was to channel rage against the private company, using popular arguments against the neoliberal policies of privatization and budget-cutting. They are right, of course, that the disaster came on the watch of a private company, which is claimed to be more efficient than the public sector. Italy’s highway system works fairly well, but there’s no ignoring the need for upgrades to the parts of the infrastructure that were built during the economic boom of the 1950s and 60s, which have reached the end of their useful life.

Yet tolls are already high, and the private concessionaire wants to guarantee its profits; who’s going to pay for all the work that needs to be done?

The two Deputy Prime Ministers of the Italian Government, Luigi Di Maio of M5S and Matteo Salvini of the League, have led the charge against Autostrade. Di Maio has threatened to revoke the concession and re-nationalize the highways, although the institutional pushback has been strong. Salvini, on the other hand, immediately pointed the finger at European Union (EU) budget constraints: “Investments that save lives… must not be calculated by the strict, cold rules imposed by Europe”, he said on Aug. 15.

EU Hinders Infrastructure Funding 

The disaster in Genoa was not a direct consequence of cuts to the public budget, since the section of the highway is run by a private company, as centrist politicians and much of the major media jumped to point out. But Salvini’s broadside pinpointed an essential issue for Italy – and many other European countries – today: massive public investment is needed, but EU budget constraints prevent it.

Salvini: Leading the charge against Autostrade. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Italian government is responsible for the public welfare, but it is unable to guarantee that public welfare. There are many reasons for this, starting with the country’s massive public debt – 131 percent  of GDP, among the highest in the world – and the inefficiency of public spending. The construction tender process is slow and complicated, and tangled bureaucracy means that even money allocated is often left unspent for years.

These are long-term problems that require legislative reforms and the reorganization of priorities. The current government has promised to streamline the tender system, and also to direct available funds to the most urgent projects.

Yet the key factor that has slowed down basic infrastructure investment in Italy in recent years has been the EU budget rules, which after originally setting a maximum deficit of 3 of GDP, now make it mandatory to fully balance the budget, although countries are allowed to move gradually towards that goal.

The Italian government is constantly under pressure to cut public spending in order to get closer to a zero deficit every year. This, despite the fact that Italy has run a primary budget surplus (i.e. before interest on the public debt) practically every year since 1992. Public investment has fallen continually over the years; by more than one-third at the national level, down to 2% of GDP, and by as much as one-half over the past ten years when it comes to local governments.

This happened in particular because in order to meet the EU budget criteria, Italy adopted something called the “Internal Stability Pact,” to go along with the European “Stability and Growth Pact.” The internal version used the budgets of municipalities, provinces and regions to help reach national budget goals. In essence, the local authorities were required to cut spending even if they had money in the bank, so that the government in Rome could count those funds to meet the EU rules.

The harsh austerity implemented from 2011 to 2014 made things even worse. After the spread between Italian and German bonds on the financial markets spiked in the summer of 2011, leading to fears of financial catastrophe for Italy and the Euro system as a whole, technocratic governments rapidly moved to slash spending even more.

This policy, dictated by the European Central Bank and the European Commission and enthusiastically implemented by neoliberals in Italy, led to a true disaster. The result was a 25% drop in industrial production, and a sharp rise in unemployment and poverty. And not surprisingly – at least to rational people – the economic contraction ended up making the public debt even larger.

Who Should Decide?

When after the bridge disaster in Genoa the government promised to rebuild the country’s road infrastructure no matter what the cost, the reaction was swift. On the one hand, EU officials such as budget commissioner Guenther Oettinger denied Europe is responsible for lack of investment in Italy, and on the other, financial markets rapidly increased the risk premium on Italy’s state bonds.

The question is: why should financial markets or technocrats decide whether Italy’s roads are safe? The populist government was elected on the promise of challenging EU austerity policies, and the coalition agreement between M5S and the League sets two main priorities in this field: increasing public aid to the poor, through a form of universal income, and simplifying and lowering the country’s high tax rates, to help both businesses and individuals.

The main fight in the government right now is if they will actually carry through on these promises, despite the pressure to toe the line on the budget criteria. Economics Minister Giovanni Tria seems cowed by the pressure from the bond markets, and clearly fears antagonizing the EU. Di Maio and Salvini insist on keeping their promises, touting the heretical, but true, argument that productive investment actually produces growth. Something has to give. The hope is that it won’t be another bridge.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DOONiT Tyler Durden

Housing prices in the world’s premier markets – London, New York and Hong Kong, all of which were recently highlighted on the latest UBS ranking of cities with the largest housing bubble risk…

…. have finally started to retreat after years of unprecedented growth (a trend that can be attributed both to the stupefying price-to-income ratios facing local buyers and the Chinese government’s crackdown on capital outflows, among other factors).

But these pullbacks, which have mostly manifested over the past year, have had little, if any, impact on rates of homelessness, which have jumped in most urban centers (just look at Seattle). Given the tremendous public pressure for the government to do something to alleviate financial burdens on renters and aspiring buyers, UK Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday became the latest politician to declare that something must indeed be done.

And that something, as Bloomberg and the Financial Times reported, is a proposed stamp tax on foreign buyers who don’t pay taxes in the UK, with the proceeds going to initiatives for rough sleepers (a slightly more dignified term for “the homeless”). The London proposal comes one week after officials in British Columbia promised a crack down on the “dirty money” (read Chinese buyers) that has helped make Vancouver’s housing market the most unaffordable in North America.

Meanwhile, in 2018 house prices in London declined more quickly than the broader UK market, a sign that property prices across high-end markets have peaked, and that homeowners are in for a punishing pullback.

FTSE-listed homebuilder stocks including Berkeley, Barratt and Taylor Wimpey were among the biggest losers on the first trading day of the quarter since their operations are concentrated in London, one of the most popular markets for foreigners. 

Here’s the FT with more:

Speaking at the Conservative Party conference on Sunday, Mrs May announced plans for buyers of UK property who do not pay tax in Britain to be subject to a new stamp duty surcharge of up to 3 per cent, with the proceeds going towards a scheme for tackling rough sleeping. The proposed tax would be levied on both individuals and companies.

While London house prices have been falling this year, they have risen at a rapid clip in recent years. The high number of luxury housing developments and of homes bought as investments that stand empty, particularly in the capital but also elsewhere in the country, have prompted calls for the government to tackle what is seen as a UK-wide housing crisis and build more affordable housing to accommodate the rising population.

Mrs May said there was evidence that foreign buyers who do not pay UK taxes had helped push up prices and reduce the rate of home ownership in the UK. When she became prime minister in 2016, she made solving Britain’s housing crisis a priority.

Of course, housing costs aren’t the only factor contributing to homelessness in the UK (austerity-related cutbacks have also played a role). But some analysts worry that May’s tax might be ill-timed as Britain tries to signal to the world that it’s still “open” to foreigners as Brexit looms.

“This policy, with its uncomfortable echoes of blaming foreigners for every ill, may make good headlines, but it sends an uncomfortable message to the rest of the world and will do nothing to create more homes for those unable to buy or to rent today,” said Henry Pryor, a U.K.-based luxury real estate broker.

Back when he was mayor of London, Boris Johnson said it would be “nuts” to deter foreign ownership in London, warning that it could trigger a precipitous collapse in home prices.

Still, there’s no denying that policies to beat back foreign buyers who have helped inflate property prices are politically popular. And with May’s grip looking increasingly tenuous thanks to her “Chequers plan” and her European partners unwillingness to give an inch in their negotiations over a Brexit deal, the timing of this announcement is hardly surprising.

Moving forward, if London cracks down on foreign buyers, other property markets like New York City could feel the sting as foreigners worry that “progressive” mayors like Bill de Blasio, who has already pushed through new disclosure laws applying to foreign property buyers, could follow suit. Such measures could risk exacerbating this latest decline in luxury markets, turning it into a full-fledged selloff with echoes of 2007.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2NWgRW9 Tyler Durden

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The Russian-Indian time-tested partnership has experienced an upward trend in all areas of cooperation in recent years. Last year, the two great powers marked the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations. The leaders meet regularly and hold phone conversations to discuss acute problems. A very important event has just taken place to bring the two nations even closer.

The Indian Cabinet Committee on Security, chaired by PM Narendra Modi, approved the $6.2 billion S-400 Triumf deal with Russia on Sept.26. It’s rather symbolic that the final decision to purchase the five cutting-edge air defense systems to protect Indian critical infrastructure sites was taken just a few days before the Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India scheduled on Oct.4-5. The Indian government defied the US threats to impose sanctions for buying Russian weapons in accordance with the 2017 “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” (CAATSA) the way it did to “punish” China for buying the same systems and Su-35 combat planes.

The law allows making a waiver for India but US officials do not guarantee New Delhi will be exempt. It takes a risk by dealing with Russia. India has signed multiple multi-billion deals with US weapons producers. Defense Secretary James Mattis and State Secretary Mike Pompeo tried to talk India out of the S-400 deal during the 2+2 talks in September. Randall G. Schriver, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, has warned that a waiver is not a slam dunk decision. Indeed, if an exemption is made, others will demand waivers too, but with no sanctions imposed, the CAATSA will be deprived of any purpose. The US has put itself into an awkward situation and has to make a hard choice.

Russia and India are in talks on the way to make non-dollar payments. They could resort to clearing options, another currency, such as the Singapore dollar, or a go-between based in a third country. The US uses go-betweens to sell arms to the Syrian Kurds.

The two nations have a 60-year history of military cooperation, with Russia being the single largest supplier of hardware. The sides joined together to develop the BrahMos supersonic anti-ship and land-attack cruise missile. India also fields Russia’s S-300 air-defense system, and its INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier is made in Russia and uses Russian aircraft.

The list of Russian weapons used by the Indian military is really long. India is finalizing negotiations with Russia to purchase 48 additional Mi-17-V5 utility helicopters. The agreement on the purchase of four frigates may be signed during the upcoming Russian-Indian October summit. New Delhi also wants to lease a Russian nuclear submarine

Moscow accounts for 62 per cent of New Delhi’s arms imports. The Russian weapons and equipment in the Indian inventory have to be maintained, modernized, and spare parts have to be supplied. India just couldn’t all of a sudden suspend the military cooperation with Russia even if it wanted to. But it doesn’t. It’s widely believed that the S-400s are the best in the world. Nobody else could offer India a system with comparable specifications. And no American sanctions can prevent the great power, such as India, from buying what serves better its national security interests.

The Indian government has been already criticized by opposition for getting too close to the United States. The general elections are in April-May 2019. Signing the deal during President Putin’s upcoming visit will be the right step to win voters’ support. India defies the US sanctions anyway by buying Iran’s oil. New Delhi continued to trade with Tehran during previous rounds of restrictions. The EU, Russia, China, and Iran have recently agreed to create a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to bypass US sanctions against Iran. Russia and India could do the same.

The two great powers are expected to conclude an ‘action plan’ for expanding civil nuclear energy partnership during the upcoming top-level meeting. It will focus on a second site for Russian nuclear plant in the country. Russia’s Rosatom is currently the only foreign investor in India’s civilian nuclear energy sector, with the first two 1,000W units of the Kudankulam power plant already commissioned. The site is scheduled to have six VVER-1000 reactors with an installed capacity of 1,000 MW each. In March, the trilateral agreement was signed by India, Russia and Bangladesh on nuclear energy-related cooperation in personnel training, experience sharing and consulting support.

Russia played a key role in facilitating India’s entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), or Shanghai Pact, last year. It strongly supports India’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

No doubt, the October summit will re-affirm the fact that the traditionally close relationship has been upgraded to a “special privileged strategic partnership” as the world is shifting from a unipolar order to a possible multipolar structure. The decision to purchase the S-400 and defy the US exerting outright pressure proves the Indian government is adamant in its desire to boost cooperation with the old partner and friend. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IwJBz1 Tyler Durden

China’s Shadow-banking system is collapsing (and with its China’s economic-fuel – the credit impulse), it’s equity market has become a slow-motion train-wreck, its economic data has been serially disappointing for two years, and its bond market is starting to show signs of serious systemic risk as corporate defaults in 2018 hit a record high.

But, if you were to read the Chinese press, none of that would be evident, as The New York Times reports a government directive sent to journalists in China on Friday named six economic topics to be “managed,” as the long hand of China’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ have now reached the business media in an effort to censor negative news about the economy.

The New York Times lists the topics that are to be “managed” as:

• Worse-than-expected data that could show the economy is slowing.
• Local government debt risks.
• The impact of the trade war with the United States.
• Signs of declining consumer confidence
• The risks of stagflation, or rising prices coupled with slowing economic growth
• “Hot-button issues to show the difficulties of people’s lives.”

The government’s new directive betrays a mounting anxiety among Chinese leaders that the country could be heading into a growing economic slump. Even before the trade war between the United States and China, residents of the world’s second-largest economy were showing signs of keeping a tight grip on their wallets. Industrial profit growth has slowed for four consecutive months, and China’s stock market is near its lowest level in four years.

“It’s possible that the situation is more serious than previously thought or that they want to prevent a panic,” said Zhang Ming, a retired political science professor from Renmin University in Beijing.

Mr. Zhang said the effect of the expanded censorship strategy could more readily cause people to believe rumors about the economy. “They are worried about chaos,” he added. “But in barring the media from reporting, things may get more chaotic.”

The directive didn’t appear to affect run-of-mill daily coverage of economic data, which could still be widely found online in China on Friday. Instead, the directive appeared to be aimed at easing the overall tone. Indeed, another notice sent on Friday instructed online news outlets to remove comments at the bottom of news articles that “bad-mouth the Chinese economy.”

One wonders if any “badmouthers” will automatically be accused of working for the Kremlin as is the case in the US, or simply arrested and never heard from again.

The topics that are now non grata pertain to “China’s economic downturn,” “China’s stagflation,” “new refugees,” “consumption downgrading” and “other harmful remarks that criticize the development prospects of China,” according to a copy of the notice reviewed by The Times. Consumption downgrading refers to Chinese consumers looking for ways to spend less.

What is ironic is that even before the crackdown, China’s data was already very much suspect. Mark Williams, chief Asia economist of Capital Economics, said the firm expects the Chinese economy to slow down to 5 to 5.5 percent from 6.9 percent last year. Despite the lower forecast, he stressed that it was “not a weak number” for the Chinese economy.

“One of the problems is there’s a lot of doubt about official Chinese data,” Mr. Williams said. “And when they come out with these directives, it just raises more questions.”

Censors have also erased online commentary that contained the phrases “consumption downgrade,” taxes, debt and unemployment, according to the Journalism and Media Studies Center at the University of Hong Kong, which monitors censorship on Weibo, China’s Twitter-like social media service.

One post that was removed by censors said: “The bad news in the market is exploding, pessimistic viewpoints are spreading, many retail investors are in despair.” Another read: “Will the emergence of robots free up labor or cause unemployment and poverty?”

And, as NYT notes, China is wasting no time in implementing the new directive.  On Wednesday, Phoenix News Media, a Hong Kong-based outlet with big operations in mainland China, said the Chinese authorities had instructed it to “rectify” its news portal, ifeng.com. The Cyberspace Administration of China, the country’s main internet regulator, said that Phoenix had “disseminated illegal and harmful information, distorted news headlines and shared news information in violation of rules.”

Two weeks earlier, NetEase, an online news portal, said it had to suspend updating its financial platform “because of serious problems.”

All of which is funny because in America, one can bash the economy, the deep state and the dysfunctional status quo all they want… as long as they are ready to be blacklisted as “Russian operatives”, get banned from YouTube and Twitter and watch their advertisers flee as a result of peer pressure. Meanwhile, if anyone asks what the true state of the economy is, the answer every single time is “just look at the stock market.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2P3swyY Tyler Durden

Via TargetLiberty.com,

The below essay by long-time political operative Roger Stone is the most important essay I have come across detailing how the Deep State has run counter-operations against Donald Trump, before he was elected president and since. In the essay, Stone also provides suggestions on how Trump should battle the DS.

The lesson here for libertarians is how government Deep State operatives often use laws created “to protect us”  to instead protect sectors of central power. The only way to stop these power plays is to eliminate the power centers by shrinking government.
–RW 

By Roger Stone

During the Presidential Campaign for the 2016 election, then Candidate Trump responded to the anguished cries of The People when he promised to “Drain the Swamp”.  While Donald J. Trump knew instinctively that there was rampant corruption in Washington, D.C., it is entirely possible that he was surprised by the levels of vindictiveness and wrath he would eventually encounter.

In a prescient and possibly complicit statement, on January 3, 2017, mere days from Trump’s inauguration, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned the soon-to-be sworn-in President Elect. Schumer said that Donald Trump was being ”really dumb” to question US intelligence agency officials in their handling of the alleged “Russian Hacking” fabrications.  Schumer warned: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community – they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,”.  With the benefit of hindsight, we see that the Obama corrupted FBI with assistance from the Obama corrupted CIA tried more than six different ways, and are still trying even now.

The Russian Collusion Delusion is a fairly complicated bit of political machinery.  That was by design.  It doesn’t take very much complexity to make most people’s eyes glaze over, which is why we have specialists for almost all complicated endeavors.  Engineers, programmers, chemists, doctors, and a multitude of others makes the fabric of our complex society.  It simply isn’t possible for anyone to become an expert in everything, and this is the principle upon which the Deep State’s coup d’état relies upon.  In order to comprehend what they have done, how they did it, and who they brought in to help them one has to consider so many variables that it forces any who choose to fully understand it to become experts themselves.  Most people don’t have the time or energy to become experts in political machinations and International intrigue, leaving the culprits free to continue exploiting the system.

Secrecy is the currency of spycraft.  Without secrecy, spying is merely intrusion and can devolve into brute force thuggery. Secrecy is what allows “Covert Operations” to remain covert.  Secrecy can be a legitimate tool of the State for securing the safety of its citizens, but secrecy can also be abused.  Abused secrecy can destroy entire nations.

In the case of the Russian Collusion FISA warrants against Carter Page, abused secrecy seems clearly to be what happened.  The rational for beginning the overt spying on the Trump Presidential Campaign appears to have begun with a completely fabricated opposition intelligence dossier concocted by Christopher Steele, formerly of British Intelligence M.I.6.   This fabrication, commissioned and paid for by Team Hillary, the DNC, and a complicit FBI, was used to kick-off a FISA investigation against Carter Page.  Due to Carter’s proximity to the Trump Campaign, and the NSA ‘hops’ surveillance method of total information awareness on a ‘target’, everyone within three degrees of separation from the target was surveilled.  Every single person in the Trump Campaign was spied on using Carter Page as the first ‘link’.  Although Carter may not have ever communicated directly with then Candidate Trump, Donald J. Trump himself was under surveillance because he communicated with people who communicated directly with Carter Page, making him just two-degrees of separation.  Since Trump himself was considered only a second-degree separation from Cater Page, it means that EVERY SINGLE PERSON that President Trump communicated with from the time the first FISA warrant was issued in October 2016 WAS ALSO BEING SURVEILLED until the third and final extension expired in October of 2017.  A full year of illegal spying, kept as an abused secret.  Rod Rosenstein was involved every step of the way, and was the final arbiter of the last FISA renewal.  While others are guilty, the buck stops with Rosenstein.

But spying wasn’t enough.  Spying is only useful for digging up dirt when the target of the spying is dirty.  No such dirt came up on President Trump, and any smaller fish caught up in Mueller’s drag nets had nothing to do with Russia, Collusion, or Team Trump.

When the initial fabrication fell flat, it became time for Plan B.  In this case, Plan B for the Deep State entailed entrapment.  Using a variety of lures and attack vectors, Team Deep State attempted to set-up and frame Trump campaign members like George Papadopoulos.  Knowing that their actions were highly illegal, the Coup Plotters opted to enlist their allies in British Intelligence to help them conduct operations on British soil, thereby skirting United States law.

It is easy to see that releasing the unredacted FISA applications and renewals will hurt Team Deep State.  We know how much pain they are in by the way they squeal.  It seems to physically cause them distress that they were ordered to release unredacted testimony from Bruce Ohr, and even more painful, the unredacted text messages of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page.

Already the talking heads are making excuses for the Deep State and saying “oh, out of privacy some names will surely be redacted” or “we need to make sure their sources and methods are not compromised”. News Flash! Rampant criminal corruption which is plain as day to any and all sober minded patriots stares us in the face. It tells us clearly that “their sources and methods” are already gravely compromised and it requires bright sunshine and transparent clarity to fix it.

The old adage about sunshine being the best disinfectant definitely holds merit.

President Trump had the right instinct when he ordered the immediate declassification of the Russian Collusion Delusion documents.  He only agreed to delay the release because the DOJ threatened the President that releasing the unredacted documents could harm the Mueller Russia collusion investigations. To Team Deep State, harming the Mueller investigation is tantamount to committing the heinous crime of obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice, as defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, provides that “whoever corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).”  Whoever corruptly influences the due administration of justice shall be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Cornell Legal Library notes that persons are usually charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or interfering with the duties of jurors or court officers.  While defendants are usually the target of obstruction of justice charges, prosecutors can be equally guilty.

Other activities that also fall under the purview of obstruction of justice:  using the full force of United States Government law enforcement to create and disseminate fraudulent documentation which is then used to support a phony criminal investigation into a political opponent.  THAT is obstruction of justice, and worse, politicizing the entirety of the DOJ, FBI, and the CIA.  If this is what happened, and it appears increasingly likely that it is, then the guilty are multitude and the crimes almost beyond measure.

President Trump must stand strong on his original ultimatum:  the FISA and investigation documents must be released to the public!  The text messages must be revealed, without redactions!

A cornered animal is most dangerous. Removing the veil on Team Deep State’s secrecy is a mortal threat to their ability to continue their slow-motion soft coup against President Trump.  A successful coup is the only hope Team Deep State has at regaining control over the leavers of power wrested away from them by the President, so make no mistake, they are “All-In”.  They have even reached out to their partners in crime across the Atlantic at British Intelligence, who dutifully squealed “Grave Concerns” against releasing the unclassified and unredacted documents.  They know that within those documents are details on how Christopher Steele was involved in a brazen attempt to oust the duly elected President of the United States of America.  It is only natural that the British don’t want their M.I.6 guy named, or their frame-job set-up artist Stefan Halper revealed, but alas for them, it is too late.  Certainly, they don’t want it known that the British Government, at behest of the Obama Administration, allowed US directed agents to use British soil to conduct their skullduggery so as to circumvent US Law.  Should this prove to be the case, that is far beyond obstruction of justice, in the worst possibly way. It is conspiracy to defraud the US Government and US People, in addition to horrific rights violations of everyone victimized by this plot.   It also happens to be Treason and Seditious Conspiracy against the Duly Authorized United States Government, which are crimes carrying the potential for the highest of all penalties:  DEATH.

            18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

            18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

This cat is not going back into the bag and the public awaking will soon be ‘fait accompli’.

It has often been said that history repeats itself, so turning to history we find a quote from FDR’s first inaugural address, who may have found sardonic humor in our use of his quote today:

“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.”    March 4, 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt

via RSS https://ift.tt/2zL7YWQ Tyler Durden

White South African farmers aren’t the only ones who are fearing for their lives in the face of persecution by the African National Congress. Increasingly, members of the party have been struggling to survive amid a surge in violent retribution. As the New York Times reports, South African politicians are being assassinated with alarming frequency as party members hire mercenary assassins to eliminate rivals (or, more often, anti-corruption whistleblowers). Even as murders proliferate and public outrage intensifies, prosecutions are rare. Killings soared under former President Jacob Zuma, but Cyril Ramaphosa, the “reform” candidate who ousted Zuma, has ignored calls to try and stop them, fostering suspicions that these lethal intraparty feuds extend all the way to the party’s leadership.

With political will to stamp out the killings within the ANC virtually nonexistent, they have become a potent reminder that the rule of law in one of Africa’s largest economies is virtually nonexistent. They’re also a sign of just how far the party has strayed from its roots. One politician who took a stand against corruption in a rural South African province told the NYT that he felt like he was being “hunted like an animal.” In its story, the NYT shares how one local politician, a man named Sindiso Magaqa, was ambushed in his red BMW by a hit squad who riddled him with bullets. He survived the attack, but died a few weeks later from his wounds.

Magaqa’s crime? He tried to expose ANC politicians involved in the construction of a public project to build a new Memorial Hall in Umzimkhulu after obtaining documents showing that the municipality had paid contractors more than $2 million with little to show for it. 

The documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times, showed that after the contractor won the renovation contract in 2013, worth $1.2 million, the municipality paid the company and its subcontractor nearly two-thirds of the money, even though the project was far behind schedule.

Two years later, after the company and its subcontractor failed to finish, the municipality hired a different contractor for another $1 million.

In all, the documents do not unequivocally prove corruption on their own, but they show the municipality spent nearly all of the money it had budgeted for the hall – and ended up with little to show for it.

Mr. Zulu said he had grabbed the files and promised to pursue the case with his contacts in the police. But over the following months, Mr. Magaqa brandished the documents in the council and challenged leaders of the dominant A.N.C. faction, leading Mr. Zulu to wonder whether his old friend was also trying to use the issue to his personal political advantage.

The attack that eventually killed Magaqa occurred several months later.

Meanwhile, a friend of Magaqa’s who is presently in hiding for fear he might be next on the ANC’s hit list compared the party to the Italian mafia.

All of the assassination targets had one thing in common: They were members of the African National Congress who had spoken out against corruption in the party that defined their lives.

“If you understand the Cosa Nostra, you don’t only kill the person, but you also send a strong message,” said Thabiso Zulu, another A.N.C. whistle-blower who, fearing for his life, is now in hiding.

“We broke the rule of omertà,” he added, saying that the party of Nelson Mandela had become like the Mafia.

One notable aspect of the recent spate of killings that differentiates them from the political violence of the past is that, today, ANC members are killing other ANC members as they struggle for turf and power. In the past, violence was confined mostly to members of rival political parties.

Political assassinations are rising sharply in South Africa, threatening the stability of hard-hit parts of the country and imperiling Mr. Mandela’s dream of a unified, democratic nation.

But unlike much of the political violence that upended the country in the 1990s, the recent killings are not being driven by vicious battles between rival political parties.

Quite the opposite: In most cases, A.N.C. officials are killing one another, hiring professional hit men to eliminate fellow party members in an all-or-nothing fight over money, turf and power, A.N.C. officials say.

Of all the trappings of corruption now borne by the ANC, the killings are perhaps the most serious, and the most difficult to ignore.

The party once inspired generations of South Africans and captured the imagination of millions around the world — from impoverished corners of Africa to wealthy American campuses.

But corruption and divisions have flourished within the A.N.C. in recent years, stripping much of the party of its ideals. After nearly 25 years in power, party members have increasingly turned to fighting, not over competing visions for the nation, but over influential positions and the spoils that go with them.

Since the beginning of 2016, the rate of killings has almost doubled, prompting police to release data about political killings for the first time earlier this year.

The death toll is climbing quickly. About 90 politicians have been killed since the start of 2016, more than twice the annual rate in the 16 years before that, according to researchers at the University of Cape Town and the Global Initiative Against Transnational Crime.

The murders have swelled into such a national crisis that the police began releasing data on political killings for the first time this year, while the new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, has lamented that the assassinations are tarnishing Mr. Mandela’s dream.

The wave of killings has done so much damage to the national psyche, that some believe the country was better off before it achieved democracy.

“It was better before we attained democracy, because we knew the enemy – that the enemy was the regime, the unjust regime,” said Mluleki Ndobe, the mayor of the district where Mr. Magaqa and five other A.N.C. politicians have been assassinated in the past year.

“Now, you don’t know who is the enemy,” he said.

In a sign that the people could soon act to unseat the corrupt ANC, dissatisfaction has festered even as Ramaphosa has pushed the expropriation of land from white farmers (while also tacitly endorsing violence against white farmers). Markets have lost confidence, too, sending the South African rand spiraling lower earlier this year, though it has begun to claw back some of its losses in recent days. But exactly one year from now, South Africans will have an opportunity to vote out the ANC during a general election in October 2019. But given this propensity for violence, we imagine it wouldn’t go peacefully.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Ret7PY Tyler Durden

Via Investing In Chinese Stocks blog,

Chinese homebuyers have demanded to return their housing in 2008, 2011 and 2014: each time the market price declined, but real estate rage first appeared in 2011. There was a report of real estate rage in Shanghai. The developer had slashed prices by one-third and homebuyers who purchased days or weeks responded by smashing up the sales office.

“My house’s value has dropped by as much as one-third, and we have lost some 10,000yuan,” a homeowner surnamed Yang told Shanghai Daily.

Real estate rage returned in early 2014. Angry homeowners in Hangzhou were upset for the same reason as those in Shanghai: the developer slashed prices. They flooded the developer’s office, but police were quickly on the scene.

“In 2008, 2011, 2014, there were three rounds of very obvious check-outs in the country. As long as the house price fell, the pre-purchasers began to reduce their prices.” Chongyuan Real Estate pointed out that the phenomenon of price reduction “rights” It has appeared from time to time, with 2011 being the most typical.

According to public information, since September 2011, Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Ningbo and other places have continued to reduce prices and defend their rights. The sales offices of various projects such as Vanke, Longhu and Hesheng have been destroyed, and some project owners have also physical conflict with security guards.

In September, there were several reports of “real estate rage” across the country. Instead of smashing offices, homeowners are protesting outside to “protect their rights” but the cause of their anger is the same: developers slashing prices to move inventory. While this evidence is anecdotal, there have been many reports about developers moving inventory to recoup cash. More importantly, both the 2011 and 2014 “real estate rage” incidents were coincident indicators of a housing market top.

Sohu: 房子降价业主就“维权”，房地产要凉透了

Here’s the most widely covered incident in Hefei. A project by the Taihe group is being protested by homeowners who paid 19,000 yuan per square meter after the company began selling homes at the promotional price of 15,000 yuan per sqm. 

The latest happening, the lively event is to count the Hefei yard under the Taihe Group. On September 20th, the news of the project “discount sale” was spread from the average price of 20,000/m2 to 15,000/m2, the lowest was 13,000/m2, and the discount range was 25% to 35%.

After the news came out, the owners collectively went to the sales office to defend their rights. This matter was also confirmed by the Taihe Group. “When the price was raised, the owner did not pay the money to us, but the owner of the price reduction came to defend the rights.” A person in charge of the Taihe Group reported to the 21st Century Business Herald on September 25.

The person in charge said that the price cuts really existed. Just in the past Mid-Autumn Festival, the Hefei Yard chose to reduce the price of a certain apartment by 4000 yuan/square, but then attracted the old owners to collectively defend their rights.

Because of the difference in floor plan, orientation and floor, the price of different units in Hefei Yard has a price difference. The average transaction price in the previous period is about 19,000. At present, only the individual units are used for promotion, which is reduced to about 15,000, but the full subscription is required…

Binjiang New City in Hangzhou was a similar scene.

This project is located in the Dajiangdong Industrial Cluster of Hangzhou City. The second-phase pre-sale certificate was announced in September. The first-phase owners found that some low-rise large-sized houses had a large price difference with the same room number, up to 350,000 yuan.

This project was previously purchased by Yaohao. It has launched two batches of lottery houses. The first phase is in late August, 36, 40, 41 buildings, 382 sets of houses, and the area of ​​90 square meters is 16,600 yuan/square meter. The average price of 90~140 square meters is 17,200 yuan / square meter.

The second phase of the recent registration is to launch 27 buildings and 28 buildings with a total of 155 suites. The number of units is 93~115 square meters, 90~140 square meters, and the average price is 16822 yuan/square meter.

From the average price point of view, the two opened 90~140 square meters, the price difference is 378 yuan / square meter. However, some netizens have carefully checked that the overall price of the second phase is lower by 887 yuan/square meter.

On September 15th, about 10 first-time owners went to the future coastal sales office to “defend rights” and demanded to make up the difference, send the parking space or check out the whole amount.

The article points out that developers aren’t willingly slashing prices. Developers are under financial stress and trying to recoup capital:

Therefore, in fact, it is not the developer who wants to cut the price. It is completely forced by the situation. In order to recapture capital, price reduction promotion is a common means used by developers.

21st Century: 房地产价格回归成交低迷，楼市“博傻”时代已过

As early as June of this year, the sales office of the K2 Shili Spring Breeze Project in Tongzhou District of Beijing was once surrounded by the owners who asked to return their houses. The reason was also that the price of the project was lowered.

Throughout the history of real estate development in China, the phenomenon of owners defending their rights due to price cuts has occurred from time to time, and most of them appear when the market goes down. The sales offices of large-scale housing companies such as Vanke, Poly, Longhu, etc. have all encountered “siege.”

Having learned from the past three cycles, developers are using indirect price cuts to hopefully avoid triggering real estate rage:

This year’s market situation is considered similar to the above three years. Under the prolonged control, developers are increasingly demanding cash flow and collection rates, and price cuts have become a viable option.

However, some real estate developers have recently reported to the 21st Century Business Herald that “direct price cuts” are usually the last choice for enterprises. Because many years of trading experience tells home buyers, direct price cuts usually lead to similar disputes.

“If you have to make adjustments, the first choice is ‘downgrade’.” The person said that “downsizing” refers to lowering the standards for decoration, greening and other supporting facilities on the basis of not adjusting the price, thus making up for Loss of profit margin.

At the same time of “downsizing”, some projects will also reduce prices in disguise, such as reducing the gift area, increasing the price of parking spaces, and improving the price of fine decoration. These practices can also achieve the goal of making up for profit margins. For the first time, the project can choose to open low (low price opening), or price concession strategy. Most of the recent price concessions have occurred in the first open project.

The person said that choosing a direct price cut usually means that the project has “no choice”, which is a “already lost profits, and now lose reputation”.

Price cuts often follow in the wake of inflated prices as developers cashed in on the bubble:

There are many reasons for direct price cuts in real estate projects, but in general, most of them have the phenomenon of excessive pricing in the early stage.

A housing company in Changsha told the 21st Century Business Report on September 28 that in the past year, housing prices in Changsha have risen sharply, and some projects have increased their prices by more than 50% within half a year. Although there are no good quality projects in good locations, some of the lots and poor quality projects have followed suit.

This year, Changsha’s control policies have been deepened, and the implementation of “limit orders” has been particularly severe. The price of the project in a good location can be maintained, and suburban projects of poor quality have to undergo price correction.

Yan Yuejin, director of the think tank center of Shanghai Yiju Research Institute, called this adjustment “return” because “the price increase in the previous period was a irrational behavior.” Under the pressure of regulation, the price bubble must be squeezed out.

He said that in China’s real estate market, demand has never been released smoothly. Affected by regulatory policies, buying up mentality, etc., market demand usually shows a concentrated release, and then concentrated shrinkage. The supply side response often lags behind the demand side. Therefore, when market demand shrinks, many projects have to adjust the price strategy.

Analysts see reason for optimism given tight supply in top-tier cities and low inventory in lower-tiers:

First- and second-tier cities still have support

As the regulation of the property market continues to deepen, price adjustments may continue to spread. Yan Yuejin pointed out that the decline in project prices will bring more wait-and-see mood. Some housing companies with tight capital conditions will add their projects to the price reduction. He believes that similar cuts will occur in October. But it does not rule out the possibility of a price rebound at the end of the year.

Ouyang Jie, senior vice president of Xincheng Holdings, agrees with the above view. He pointed out that the risk of large-scale price cuts does not seem to be high. This is because: in the first- and second-tier cities with strict regulation, the demand is long-term depressed, the supply is far from sufficient, the high-end residential is more, the urban growth potential is huge, the land price is reduced, and there is no room for housing prices.

Ouyang Jie also said that some of the second-tier cities that are not yet severely regulated are also the driving force for rising house prices.

According to the report of the Shanghai Yiju Research Institute, as of the end of July 2018, the destocking cycle of new homes in 100 cities nationwide was only 9.6 months, which was significantly lower than the reasonable range of 12-16 months. Some of these cities have a de-chemical cycle of less than five months.

However, with the sinking of the regulatory policies, some third- and fourth-tier cities where house prices have risen too fast in the early period are not optimistic.

Ouyang Jie said that in the third- and fourth-tier cities where house prices are rising too fast and customer traffic is shrinking too much, there is a high probability of a price correction in the future. He pointed out that in many provinces, the prices of low-energy and low-grade cities are higher than those of high-energy and high-grade cities. In short, the price of county towns is close to or exceeds that of provincial capitals.

Ouyang Jie said that in September this year, the average price of second-hand housing in Yiwu, Zhejiang Province was 21,519 yuan/m2, up 17.25% year-on-year, and the chain was also rising. This price is already higher than many provincial capital cities in the Midwest. At the same time, the prices in many places in Hebei are higher than those in Shijiazhuang; the prices in Jiangxi Province, Yichang City, Hubei Province, and Wuhu City, Anhui Province are close to their capital cities.

The aforementioned housing companies also said that the market capacity of the third- and fourth-tier cities is not large in itself, and it has been exhausted in the previous cycle. If the sheds change to a large resurgence of monetization, the demand scale and purchasing power of these cities will be affected, and prices will appear. It is not unexpected to downgrade.

Whether these markets will hold up or not is no longer a speculative question though, because the market has turned.

Zhongyuan Real Estate pointed out that in the past three years, house prices in the country have generally risen, investment speculation has risen, and many demand have used higher leverage. Regardless of whether this round of price adjustment will spread, market participants should increase their awareness of risk, because with the normalization of the property market regulation, “the time when the price only rises and does not fall is over.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2P3cRzT Tyler Durden

Embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will not be returning to his teaching position at Harvard Law School in January.

According to Judge Kavanaugh’s biographical page says on the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit website. he has taught full-term courses on Separation of Powers at Harvard Law School (each year from 2008 to 2015), and on the Supreme Court at Harvard Law School (2014, 2016, 2017, 2018).

The Crimson reports that according to an email administrators sent to Law students Monday evening, Associate Dean and Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs Catherine Claypoole wrote:

“Today, Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered.”

The allegations that have roiled Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, spurred students on the Law School’s campus to call for Harvard to bar him from teaching pending a “full and fair investigation” of his alleged sexual misconduct.

It is unclear whether this decision is normal practice for a SCOTUS nominee at this stage of the process (i.e. pre-confirmation) or if this is a mutually-agreed separation from Harvard, reflecting what Judge Kavanaugh angrily exclaimed during the latest hearing that his family name “has been totally and permanently destroyed” and his prior life is now “ruined.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2y6gygT Tyler Durden

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Remember Stormy Daniels? Bet you do. And lucky you, you’ll be hearing and seeing a lot more about her -again- as her already classic tome “Full Disclosure” is due out tomorrow – wouldn’t Full Frontal have been a better title?.

Poor Stormy though has to compete with two other anti-Trump books coming out om the same day, “The Fifth Risk” by Michael Lewis, which could actually be good, and “The Apprentice” by Greg Miller, who’s a journo at the WaPo, so that will definitely not be any good. Hope for Miller that he’s got some sex in his book.

That all these books come out now is no coincidence; it’s because Trump sells better than sex in America these days, and the combination of the two is a can’t miss. AFP writes about the books about Trump, of which “Fire and Fury,” “A Higher Loyalty” “and “Fear” have already sold over a million copies each.

The article quotes a certain David Corn, co-author of “Russian Roulette,” a book about Russian interference in the American presidential campaign (YAWN, not enough sex!), as saying: 

“There is deep desire on the part of many Americans for an understanding of what happened in this country” during the 2016 presidential campaign”, and also of “what’s going on now within the Trump White House.”

C’mon, no, Americans simply have grown addicted to reading stories bashing Trump every single day, and as behooves addicts, they want more every day. The coverage of the Kavanaugh hearings has only enhanced their lust for dirt, sex and sensationalism. And the media stand ready to give them more.

Corn again: 

“One potential problem is that people get too accustomed to the outrages of the Trump administration, and therefore become less interested in books like these. “But I don’t see that happening any time soon.” 

He’s right on that last bit. But forgets to mention -or simply doesn’t understand- that the ‘outrages’ are largely made up by the media who ‘report’ on them.

Why do they do this? Because it sells. No mystery there. Anything Trump sells. The Donald is the Golden Eggs Goose. That is the no. 1 business model for not just the US media, but for its entire society. Everything Trump touches turns into gold for someone. The media are making a killing, and they’re going to keep doing the same 24/7 scandal stories.

Yes, Brett Kavanaugh is undoubtedly a prick. So first thought: he’ll fit right in. But his accusers so far have not been very convincing. Nice performance from Blasey Ford, but the memory loss is weak. Still, it doesn’t matter, the story sells. It has Trump, it has sex, it has drama, abuse, the promise of more to come. Ideal set-up for the media.

Still, somewhere along the line one issue emerges: for many people in the anti-Trump crowd, this whole campaign is supposed to be based on working towards the impeachment of Donald Trump. The ultimate prize. But does anyone think that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC really would want to see him impeached right now?

Think again. Where and how would they make money? Why would they kill the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs? It makes no sense at all from a business point of view. The ideal world for the MSM is to let things continue just the way they have: bash Trump and anyone associated with him, but never run the risk that anyone would actually think of getting rid of him.

What would they do, the journalists, the TV presenters, the book writers, if Trump would leave, and Mike Pence were to live in the White House? They would all be back to grave financial problems. In a heartbeat, because digital media are inexorably taking over from them, even if Trump temporarily saved them. They need Trump much more than he needs them.

All this puts the old media in an interesting -potential?- conflict with the party they’re so enthusiastically supporting, the Democrats. And it’s good to ponder, too, that the MSM didn’t see this coming, at all. They were just going after Trump with all they got and then some because their owners and sponsors wanted Hillary and certainly not him.

When Trump raised their reader and viewer numbers through the roof because of all the Russia and corruption and, yes, sex, stories, they were taken by surprise, but they adapted fast, egged on forcefully by their financial departments: Look at the numbers, keep this up no matter what you do!

It works for them for now, and they don’t look much further; they can’t afford to. But the next problem is already on their horizons. That is, their editorial policies have alienated them from half the entire American population: Trump voters. And they will have a hard time ever getting any of those back, if ever.

There’ll be a time when the Donald is no longer the president and the attention magnet he is today. That will make much less people want to read and view the MSM. It’s all about entertainment, after all, and they can’t make up the kind of entertainment Trump provides. They can distort and exaggerate what he gives him, but they can’t invent him.

Like it or not, like him or not, Trump is a unique phenomenon not only in America, but globally. Perhaps most interesting is that he was never all that special, just a business guy surrounded by -too- many questions, and a reality TV person, who got some attention but in a limited way.

Once he entered politics that all changed. And it did through a very particular kind of cross-breeding. The media all lined up against him, and he fed off that, and then they fed off of that. It’s quite the symbiosis. The one big difference is that he never needed them as much as they did him, he built his victory, found his voters, on new -social?- media.

The MSM tried to destroy him and instead they built him up. And perhaps that’s not so surprising if your worldview and business model is based on polarization and antagonism, on excluding entire segments of a population and fulminate against them 24/7. But then again, if you’re a business and you’re making big profits, it’s easy to lose sight of longer term issues.

From my point of view, I’d say America needs to come together a lot more than it is right now; the present chasm is extremely volatile and can lead to really bad outcomes. But how can you do this if your media depend on keeping that chasm alive, and widening it, to make money?

Kavanaugh is an ordinary prick who’d fit right in in DC and so shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near it.  Blasey Ford is a sympathetic person who forgot more than she should have if she wants to accuse anyone of anything 35 years later. In a normal world many people would agree with both statements. But today it’s “I believe her no matter what” or “confirm him tomorrow”.

Today the media realize if they don’t antagonize and set people up against each other, they’re done. Maybe it was inevitable that Trump would bring that out, that he would reveal what was waiting under the surface all along. No matter how you see this, it’s obvious that it’s poison for the nation. It’s toxic and dangerous.

However, isn’t all of America by now based on profit first and nothing second? And isn’t some form of civil war then the only possible outcome?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xQvAbq Tyler Durden

On September 14th, 2018, an image of a MiG-31 Foxhound interceptor jet carrying a large missile sparked speculation that Russia has developed an air-launched anti-satellite weapon system, according to The Drive.

The launch system was photographed at Zhukovsky Airport, one of four international airports in Moscow, by aviation photographer ShipSash.

Zhukovsky is an experimental military base for Russian aerial weaponry, equivalent to Edwards Air Force Base in the US.

The airport has the second largest publically accessible runway in the world, measuring nearly 18,000-foot long.

According to The Drive, the MiG-31 has been reconfigured by its original manufacturer to carry hypersonic missiles known as the Kinzhal, and or can carry an anti-satellite weapon or space launch system:

“The Mikoyan OKB has been working on two versions of the MiG-31 known internally as ‘article 06’ and ‘article 08.’ Article 08 was supposedly the carrier of the already known Kinzhal missile, with article 06 being a new version of the interceptor, with a completely different purpose—like potentially carrying an anti-satellite weapon or space launch system. It would feature a new inertial navigation system, radar, electronic warfare suite, and the suspension points under the fuselage have been reworked with the expectation of the weight of the new rocket.

This would not be the first time the MiG-31 has been used in an anti-satellite project. More than 30 years ago, in January 1987, the MiG-31D (“article 07″), which was the carrier of the 79M6 anti-satellite missile, made its first flight. The aircraft and missiles were elements of the anti-satellite weapon 30P6 ‘Kontakt’ system. The rocket was developed by KB Vympel. The project was largely a response to the United States’ own direct ascent air-launched anti-satellite missile system, the ASM-135, that used a modified F-15 called the Celestial Eagle as a launch platform. The weapon was successfully tested in 1985.”

The MiG-31D has had verticle “winglets” installed on the wingtips to increase stability when an anti-satellite missile is secured underneath the airframe.

Mikoyan OKB’s idea behind the Mig-31D was to fly as high and fast as possible to get the heavy anti-satellite missile in position to fire.

Russia seems to be recycling an old Soviet-era space program that uses the MiG-31 to deploy small payloads into orbit via an air-launched missile, or what is more likely, use the kinetic force of the weapon to destroy enemy satellites in low Earth orbit:

“In 1997, MAPO MiG, leveraging their experience working on the MiG-31D, began the development of the MiG-31S. This aircraft was designed to launch rockets carrying small satellites into space. The rocket, named RN-S (“carrier rocket launched from aircraft”), with a capacity of up to 440lbs was planned to be launched from the aircraft flying at an altitude of about 51,000 at a speed of 1,865mph (Mach 2.8). The rocket was developed by the Vimpel design bureau.

The first launch was scheduled for 1999-2000 but it never happened. In 2001 RSK MiG tried to re-launch the design of the MiG-31S aircraft as a civil project for launching small satellites with a mass of 220lbs or less. This project didn’t evolve into an operational state either and there were other similar initiatives involving the MiG-31 that failed as well.”

The ability for Russia to intercept American spy satellites in low-Earth orbit with flexibility and the surprise of a MiG-31 aerial launch platform would be very valuable in a wartime environment. Also, being able to quickly and unpredictably launch small spy satellites, especially to replace ones knocked out in battle, will be one of the most essential tools in the next war.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xSdRQA Tyler Durden