- Turkish President Erdogan Blasts The US For "Sending 5,000 Trucks Loaded With Weapons To Northern Syria"
On Saturday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sharply criticized the United States Armed Forces and its N.A.T.O. (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies for supplying weapons to Kurdish militias in Syria for free, while refusing to sell defense hardware to Turkey.
“We cannot buy weapons from the US with our money, but unfortunately, the US and coalition forces give these weapons, this ammunition, to terrorist organizations for free,” Erdoğan stated in an interview on Turkish NTV news channel.
“So where does the threat come from? It comes primarily from strategic partners,” he said, warning that Washington continues to pump in truckloads of weapons into northern Syria.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan appearing as a guest of the Political Affairs Special program on NTV news channel over the weekend. (Source:NTV)
During the interview, the Turkish president unloaded a bombshell that most Americans are entirely oblivious to — Washington and the Trump administration are deploying thousands of trucks jammed packed with guns and ammunition to Syrian terrorist.
The United States has recently “sent 5,000 trucks loaded with weapons to northern Syria,” he said.
Meanwhile, Trump took to Twitter on April 14 with a triumphant message in less than 280 characters after the US-led precision strikes in Syria hit alleged chemical weapons manufacturing sites earlier this month. “A perfectly executed strike,” he bragged, ending the tweet with a foolish phrase: “Mission accomplished!”
The tweet eerily echoed that famous phrase of a former president, George W. Bush, who announced “mission accomplished” in 2003 to mark the start of the Iraq War, also called Second Persian Gulf War, that would continue for another 8-years until 2011. Even though Trump could have been using the phrase in a different context — the recent delivery of 5,000 trucks packed with military weapons and ammunition via Washington to terrorist organizations in Syria, indicates that fight in Syria is far from over.
A perfectly executed strike last night. Thank you to France and the United Kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine Military. Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 14, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In recent times, Washington has supplied weapons to the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The support “infuriated Ankara, which sees the YPG as the Syrian branch of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK),” said Press TV.
Erdogan accused Washington of building a “terror army” in Syria, which this could very well be true — considering the weapons convoy, he alleges…
On January 20, Turkey launched an operation against the YPG in the Syrian city of Afrin. The cross-border invasion of Syria, dubbed Operation Olive Branch, has severely strained relations between Washington and Ankara.
As the situation between both countries becomes dire, Ankara has gravitated towards Russia and Iran to ensure a smooth political transition in Syria, leaving Washington out of the discussions. Ankara has even decided to purchase arms from Russia, including the S-400 air defense systems, which has made the country vulnerable to Western sanctions. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell recently warned, noting that “it is in the American national interest to see Turkey remain strategically and politically aligned with the West.”
“The ease with which Turkey brokered arrangements with the Russian military to facilitate the launch of its Operation Olive Branch in the Afrin district –arrangements to which America was not privy– is gravely concerning,” he said. “Turkey lately has increased its engagement with Russia and Iran.”
Nevertheless, Marcus Montgomery, a fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC, has warned: “The Trump administration do not seem to understand the gravity of Turkey’s concerns.”
Robert Stephen Ford, a retired American diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador to Syria from 2010 to 2014, echoed Montgomery’s comments about the Trump administration’s progress to ease the worries of Ankara.
“The American position in northern Syria is strategically foolish and operationally dangerous,” Ford told Middle East Eye news portal, which he is referring to Washington’s decision to arm terror organizations in Syria.
While President Trump has told the American people the U.S. would “be coming out of Syria very soon,” there are new claims from Turkish President Erdoğan that Washington is preparing for further conflict by resupplying their proxy armies with more than 5,000 truckloads of weapons.
- Merkel Caught In Energy Conundrum Over Germany's Future
The nominal U.S. President, Donald Trump, will meet with the two main European leaders this week with the goal of pushing the President off his position to end the Iran Nuclear Deal, or JCPOA. But it is the bigger issues of energy security that will be the real focus.
From soy-boy Emmanuel Macron of France to the Gelded One of Germany, Angela Merkel, putting the European Union back in its place is one of the few things that Trump may still be able to affect the trajectory of when it comes to foreign policy.
He has no control over Syria, having ceded his authority to the neoconservative crazies who have been wrong about everything since the fall of the Soviet Union. I also don’t think he has much control over negotiations with North Korea.
While everyone on the right keeps talking about how he keeps winning, after the disaster of his strikes on Syria, why would anyone take him seriously during Korean demilitarization talks?
Does anyone think now Donald Trump has the leeway to negotiate an end to the Korean War and make those terms stick?
And if you do, do you think Xi or Putin or Kim himself do?
EU Fracturing
And that brings me back to Macron and Merkel. They were split on striking Syria. It’s obvious that Macron saw this as an opportunity to up his ‘street cred’ with the globalist oligarchy, cozying up to the U.S. and U.K. and finish what his predecessors started in Syria decades ago.
Macron is positioning himself to replace Merkel as the de facto leader of the EU. He’s been groomed for this position as Merkel’s time on the world stage comes to an end.
While a terminally-weakened Merkel, fielding off political and social unrest at home, saw through the cheap theatre of the U.K.’s machinations to further isolate Russia, i.e. Skripal and the false flag in Syria, refusing to support airstrikes.
Both leaders have raised Trump’s ire. Merkel over not being a good NATO partner and Macron for over-stating his influence with Trump for staying in Syria.
So, suffice it to say there may not be any “beautiful chocolate cake” on this diplomatic table.
In fact, the divisions over many issues may be deep enough that we begin to see real movement from Merkel away from the U.S. and towards the hated Russia.
It has been a staple of geopolitical maneuvering for the past couple hundred years to keep Germany and Russia from forming any sort of real political and economic alliance. And up to now Merkel has been the good soldier, working to align Germany and the EU with the goals of the globalist oligarchy that Trump has been so vocal in wanting to curtail.
This is the basis for their antipathy.
But, her days of being the leader of that front are approaching their end. Deep divisions have opened up in German politics and her coalition with the Social Democrats is thin to the point of being anorexic.
New SPD leader Andrea Nehles is going to be a handful for Merkel. Merkel won’t have a whipped hound as coalition partner for the next four years. So, expect a lot more, dare I say, “Germany First,” from Germany.
And this will lead to problems with Trump and his “Empire First’ cabinet.
Drill, Baby Drill
Because where Merkel and Trump fundamentally disagree is allowing Russia any more access to the European gas market. This is one of the ways in which his neocon Iagos can convince him so easily on staying in the Middle East.
All they have to do is whisper, “Energy security” and “billions in natural gas revenues” and Trump makes the wrong decision every time.
Merkel knows that Germany’s path to independence lies through the Nordstream 2 pipeline as well as extricating itself from the mess that is Ukraine. Energy independence for Germany means Nordstream 2, now that they’ve shuttered their nuclear reactors and the coup in Ukraine has failed to produce leverage over Russia in gas markets.
But, no one in the U.S wants this pipeline built and we’ve threatened the world with nuclear annihilation over it. And that we’ve expended so much political capital in attempting to stop it tells you just how important it is to power brokers in D.C. and London.
The realities are not lost on Trump who has a domestic oil and gas industry to build new markets for while maintaining control over European Union policy.
That’s the song that’s been sung to him over Syria. Don’t kid yourself.
Because the U.S. ousting Assad in Syria delivers a devastating blow to Russia, Iran and China while re-opening pipeline access to Europe per the original plan.
And that’s why Merkel’s abstention on Syria was so significant. It is also why Nordstream will be the most heated discussion between them next week. Not Iran’s nuclear program, but how the U.S. can craft policy that brings ‘energy security’ to Europe which cuts out Russia and curtails China’s plans for central Asian development and integration.
Merkel in the Middle
In other words, same policy, different president.
To this point Merkel has tried to walk the fine line between the loyal NATO/US satrap and unwilling partner in antagonizing the Russians over energy needs. But, Trump has been more than clear in his willingness to screw over all of Europe and Asia just to sell a few tankers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Poland at prices that ensure Europe’s anti-competitiveness for a generation.
On this idea I don’t think he disagrees with the neocons at all.
Because in the end Trump is a mercantilist, just like I said before he was elected. And while he talks a good game about better deals for the U.S., what he really means is a cheap dollar, protection tariffs and mafioso foreign policy to sell half as many goods at twice the price.
Like all mercantilist policies, it’ll work for a while. And Europe’s own fecklessness has brought it to this position where it’s vulnerable to it. When the sovereign debt crisis begins to hit Europe, it will need the U.S. to help manage it, if possible.
And that’s why Merkel will say nothing that will change the situation one whit.
* * *
To support work like this and see how it correlates to a holistic investment strategy in strategic commodities, join My Patreon and subscribe to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter
- 70% Of Taiwanese "Willing To Fight" China
Just days after China launched its “largest naval drill in 600 years” in the Taiwan Strait, The Taipei Times reports that 67.7 percent of respondents said they were willing to go to war to defend Taiwan if China launched an armed assault on the nation to force unification.
The survey, released by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy last week, also showed the number of people willing to fight to prevent unification with China rose to 70.3 percent among respondents aged 20 to 39, the survey showed.
The foundation president Hsu Szu-chien told a news conference in Taipei that it considers it a fitting time to pose the question as the Chinese military has over the past few years been increasing activity near Taiwan.
94 percent of people said that living in a democratic society is “important,” of which 65.8 percent said it is “very important.”
In addition, 76.4 percent of people agreed with the statement: “Democracy, despite its flaws, is still the best system,” the poll showed.
“If we factor in questions about whether young people support democracy, we discover that the more people support democracy, the more willing they are to defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion by China,” Hsu said.
“I think it is our democratic lifestyle and values that people want to protect.”
Earlier this month, the Trump administration cleared various American manufacturers for business to sell submarine technology to Taiwan, which deeply angered Beijing.
“The live-fire drills would almost certainly be intended to be seen as a response to the Trump administration’s new initiatives over Taiwan,” Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS China Institute at the University of London, said.
“It is probably intended more for Taipei than Washington as the military exercise cannot intimidate the US but can get Taipei to think of the security dilemma, which is that the more Taipei seeks to secure US support, the more Beijing will do to make Taipei feel less secure.”
Ni Feng, director of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the parallel events of the Syrian crisis and the Taiwan Strait war drill is coincidental.
“Beijing needs to send its warning to Taipei on time if Bolton wants to visit Taipei, which will obviously be a breakthrough [in the US-Taiwan relationship],” he said.
Yun Sun, director of the China programme at the Stimson Centre in Washington, agreed with the other military analyst, stating the Trump administration is playing a dangerous game “using Taiwan as a potential bargaining chip with China.”
“With Trump’s love for transactions and linking issues together, it is conceivable that he is using Taiwan as a potential bargaining chip with China,” she said.
That move increases “the possibility of an armed conflict between the US and [mainland] China out of miscalculation; and it creates an illusion that Taiwan is up for negotiation”.
“For many policy experts, US support for Taiwan is warranted, and should be independent from political or economic deals [between Washington and Beijing].”
Given the Taiwanese willingness to fight, the threat of World War III being sparked from this conflict continue to rise…
- The Great Game Comes To Syria
Authored by Conn Hallinan via Counterpunch.org,
An unusual triple alliance is emerging from the Syrian war, one that could alter the balance of power in the Middle East, unhinge the NATO alliance, and complicate the Trump administration’s designs on Iran. It might also lead to yet another double cross of one of the region’s largest ethnic groups, the Kurds.
However, the “troika alliance” – Turkey, Russia and Iran – consists of three countries that don’t much like one another, have different goals, and whose policies are driven by a combination of geo-global goals and internal politics.
In short, “fragile and complicated” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
How the triad might be affected by the joint U.S., French and British attack on Syria is unclear, but in the long run the alliance will likely survive the uptick of hostilities.
But common ground was what came out of the April 4 meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meeting in Ankara, the parties pledged to support the “territorial integrity” of Syria, find a diplomatic end to the war, and to begin a reconstruction of a Syria devastated by seven years of war. While Russia and Turkey explicitly backed the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, Iran was quiet on that issue, preferring a regional solution without “foreign plans.”
“Common ground,” however, doesn’t mean the members of the “troika” are on the same page.
Turkey’s interests are both internal and external. The Turkish Army is currently conducting two military operations in northern Syria, Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield, aimed at driving the mainly Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) out of land that borders Turkey. But those operations are also deeply entwined with Turkish politics.
Erdogan’s internal support has been eroded by a number of factors: exhaustion with the ongoing state of emergency imposed following the 2016 attempted coup, a shaky economy, and a precipitous fall in the value of the Turkish pound. Rather than waiting for 2019, Erdogan called for snap elections this past week and beating up on the Kurds is always popular with right-wing Turkish nationalists. Erdogan needs all the votes he can get to imlement his newly minted executive presidency that will give him virtually one-man rule.
To be part of the alliance, however, Erdogan has had to modify his goal of getting rid of Syrian President Bashar Assad and to agree—at this point, anyhow—to eventually withdraw from areas in northern Syria seized by the Turkish Army. Russia and Iran have called for turning over the regions conquered by the Turks to the Syrian Army.
Moscow’s goals are to keep a foothold in the Middle East with its only base, Tartus, and to aid its long-time ally, Syria. The Russians are not deeply committed to Assad personally, but they want a friendly government in Damascus. They also want to destroy al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, which have caused Moscow considerable trouble in the Caucasus.
Russia also wouldn’t mind driving a wedge between Ankara and NATO. After the U.S., Turkey has NATO’s second largest army. NATO broke a 1989 agreement not to recruit former members of the Russian-dominated Warsaw Pact into NATO as a quid pro quo for the Soviets withdrawing from Eastern Europe. But since the Yugoslav War in 1999 the alliance has marched right up to the borders of Russia. The 2008 war with Georgia and 2014 seizure of the Crimea were largely a reaction to what Moscow sees as an encirclement strategy by its adversaries.
Turkey has been at odds with its NATO allies around a dispute between Greece and Cyprus over sea-based oil and gas resources, and it recently charged two Greek soldiers who violated the Turkish border with espionage. Erdogan is also angry that European Union countries refuse to extradite Turkish soldiers and civilians who he claims helped engineer the 2016 coup against him. While most NATO countries condemned Moscow for the recent attack on two Russians in Britain, the Turks pointedly did not.
Turkish relations with Russia have an economic side as well. Ankara want a natural gas pipeline from Russia, has broken ground on a $20 billion Russian nuclear reactor, and just shelled out $2.5 billion for Russia’s S-400 anti-aircraft system.
The Russians do not support Erdogan’s war on the Kurds and have lobbied for the inclusion of Kurdish delegations in negotiations over the future of Syria. But Moscow clearly gave the Turks a green light to attack the Kurdish city of Afrin last month, driving out the YPG that had liberated it from the Islamic State and Turkish-backed al-Qaeda groups. A number of Kurds charge that Moscow has betrayed them.
The question now is, will the Russians stand aside if the Turkish forces move further into Syria and attack the city of Manbij, where the Kurds are allied with U.S. and French forces? And will Erdogan’s hostility to the Kurds lead to an armed clash among three NATO members?
Such a clash seems unlikely, although the Turks have been giving flamethrower speeches over the past several weeks. “Those who cooperate with terrorists organizations [the YPG] will be targeted by Turkey,” says Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said in a pointed reference to France’s support for the Kurds. Threatening the French is one thing, picking a fight with the U.S. military quite another.
Of course, if President Trump pulls U.S. forces out of Syria, it will be tempting for Turkey to move in. While the “troika alliance” has agreed to Syrian “sovereignty,” that won’t stop Ankara from meddling in Kurdish affairs. The Turks are already appointing governors and mayors for the areas in Syria they have occupied.
Iran’s major concern in Syria is maintaining a buffer between itself and a very aggressive alliance of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, which seems to be in the preliminary stages of planning a war against the second-largest country in the Middle East.
Iran is not at all the threat it has been pumped up to be. Its military is miniscule and talk of a so-called “Shiite crescent”—Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon—is pretty much a western invention (although the term was dreamed up by the King of Jordan).
Tehran has been weakened by crippling sanctions and faces the possibility that Washington will withdraw from the nuclear accord and re-impose yet more sanctions. The appointment of National Security Advisor John Bolton, who openly calls for regime change in Iran, has to have sent a chill down the spines of the Iranians. What Tehran needs most of all is allies who will shield it from the enmity of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, Turkey and Russia could be helpful.
Iran has modified its original goals in Syria of a Shiite-dominated regime by agreeing to a “non-sectarian character” for a post-war Syria. Erdogan has also given up on his desire for a Sunni-dominated government in Damascus.
War with Iran would be catastrophic, an unwinnable conflict that could destabilize the Middle East even more than it is now. It would, however, drive up the price of oil, currently running at around $66 a barrel. Saudi Arabia needs to sell its oil for at least $100 a barrel, or it will very quickly run of money. The on-going quagmire of the Yemen war, the need to diversify the economy, and the growing clamor by young Saudis—70 percent of the population—for jobs requires lots of money, and the current trends in oil pricing are not going to cover the bills.
War and oil make for odd bedfellows. While the Saudis are doing their best to overthrow the Assad regime and fuel the extremists fighting the Russians, Riyadh is wooing Moscow to sign onto to a long-term OPEC agreement to control oil supplies. That probably won’t happen—the Russians are fine with oil at $50 to $60 a barrel—and are wary of agreements that would restrict their right to develop new oil and gas resources. The Saudi’s jihad on the Iranians has a desperate edge to it, as well it might. The greatest threat to the Kingdom has always come from within.
The rocks and shoals that can wreck alliances in the Middle East are too numerous to count, and the “troika” is riven with contradictions and conflicting interests. But the war in Syria looks as if it is coming to some kind of resolution, and at this point Iran, Russia and Turkey seem to be the only actors who have a script that goes beyond lobbing cruise missiles at people.
- Ranked: The Best And Worst State Economies
On a global scale, the U.S. economy is massive at close to $19 trillion in size.
However, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins explains below, the United States is also the sum of its parts. America represents the union of 50 states and other jurisdictions such as D.C., and all of these state-level economies have their own unique problems to overcome, drivers of growth, and local resources that factor into their prosperity.
How can we compare these state economies on an even playing field?
RANKED: STATE ECONOMIES
Using absolute numbers, it’s hard to directly compare California ($2.75 trillion GDP, 39.5 million people) to a state like Vermont ($33 billion, 0.6 million people). By leveling the playing field, we can get an idea of how states contrast in terms of relative economic strength that companies and workers would better recognize.
Today’s infographic uses 27 metrics from WalletHub to rank state economies.
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist
These metrics are grouped into three major categories, which are evenly weighted:
1. Economic Activity: GDP growth, startup activity, exports per capita, and three other metrics
2. Economic Health: Labor force changes, median household income, unemployment, and 13 other metrics
3. Innovation Potential: Entrepreneurial activity, R&D investment, patents per capita, and three other metrics
Note: the full methodology with all 27 factors can be found here.
Here’s how the rankings shake down, for all 50 state economies and D.C.:
Topping the list for overall score were the states of Washington, California, and Utah, and the first place state in each major category includes Washington (Economic Activity), Utah (Economic Health), and Massachusetts (Innovation Potential).
CASE IN POINT
Looking at statistics and scoring methodologies alone can be a bit esoteric, so let’s look at some individual cases to see some contrast.
Utah (Rank: #3)
Utah consistently ranks as one of the top states for business, in the country, as well as a top state for job growth and employment. It’s also pretty unique in that it has a fairly diversified economy, with major sectors in the tourism, agriculture, tech, manufacturing, finance, energy, and mining industries.Utah has a higher median household income ($65,977), and a blistering 3.4% employment growth rate.
Florida (Rank: #22)
Using this methodology, Florida falls somewhere in the middle of the rankings. The good news is the state has good employment growth (2.9%) and a myriad of thriving industries like aerospace. The bad news? Florida has the second-highest level of poverty in the union at 19%, and it also has a lower median household income ($50,860) than the national average.Maine (Rank: #45)
Economic activity is sluggish in the country’s most northeastern state. With an aging population, slow employment growth (0.8%), and a number of lost manufacturing jobs over the last 15 years, the state is trying to rebound. Maine isn’t helped by having one of the highest tax burdens for its citizens and businesses in the country, either. - New Zealand Braces For "Super Gonorrhea": It's A Matter Of "When, Not If"
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
The island nation of New Zealand is bracing itself for what scientists are calling “super gonorrhea.” They say it is not a matter of ‘if’ the nation will be impacted by the disease, but a matter of ‘when.’
A historically-resistant strain of gonorrhea has made its way from South East Asia to the United Kingdom and Australia, and experts are warning New Zealand will be struck next by the antibiotic-resistant super-bug gonorrhea strain. It’s in Eastern Australia, and it’s in Queensland, Australia, so those in New Zealand are rightly concerned.
Last month, it was reported a British man had contracted what was dubbed the world’s ‘worst ever’ case of gonorrhea, that he picked up in southeast Asia. It was the first documented case of the sexually transmitted infection that could not be cured with a combination of standard antibiotics. England’s public health agency even launched an “incident response” after discovering more cases of gonorrhea recently that are resistant to nearly all antibiotics currently available.
So, how long will it be before it makes its way to New Zealand?
According to Family Planning’s Christine Roke, “if it isn’t here now, it will be very soon.” Auckland University associate professor of infectious diseases Mark Thomas agrees, telling Morning Reportit’s “almost certain” there will be cases within the next year or two. It’s simply a matter of “who has sex with who,” he said.
Gonorrhea is caused by the Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacteria. The symptoms of the disease are difficult for men to live with, so most know fairly soon if they’ve contracted the infection. Symptoms can include discolored discharge, stomach pain, various forms of bleeding from the genitalia, discharge or bleeding from the anus and, for the fellas, sore testes. Women often are unaware of an infection, as it normally infects the cervix,which has no sensation. Occasionally you may also get a dry throat if you’ve contracted the bacteria. Normally, it has been easily treated with antibiotics, however, this new strain, appears to be resistant.
“The problem with gonorrhea is it’s a very wily bug,” says Roke. “And it’s able to mutate very easily. This leads to developing resistance.” Thomas agreed, adding that it is entirely possible that within the next ten years, humanity will run out of drugs to treat the bacteria. Roke also says that with international travel at the levels it is these days, it’s only a matter of time before someone smuggles the gonorrhea bacteria unintentionally into the country. As invasive as customs can be, New Zealand is not exactly screening for this stuff at the border.
Thomas said the current test for gonorrhea does not determine if the usual treatment of an injection antibiotic and two oral antibiotic pills will work. He said more resistant strains will require hospitals to administer the necessary antibiotics.
- US CENTCOM Chief Makes "Secret And Unprecedented" Visit To Israel As Russia Mulls Arming Syria
Increasingly it appears that the recent US coalition missile strikes on Syria have utterly backfired: instead of weakening Syria or degrading its military capabilities, the attack may have actually served to strengthen Syria’s defenses.
Since the massive strike which involved the US, UK, and France launching over 100 cruise missiles, Russia is rumored to be moving forward on delivery of its advanced S-300 missile defense system, which would be a monumental upgrade allowing Syrian defenses to far surpass current capabilities which utilize the Soviet-made S-125 and S-200 air defense systems.
Crucially, S-300s have a range of up to 150-200 kilometers (or 120 miles), bringing Syrian deterrent reach easily to within Lebanese airspace (as Israel has routinely struck targets inside Syria while firing over “neutral” Lebanese airspace in recent years), and could even extend airspace coverage into Israel itself.
Could this be the reason for some major behind-the-scenes diplomatic scrambling?
Undated file photo of S-300 air defense missiles launched at Ashuluk shooting range in southern Russia. On Monday VOA News chief White House correspondent Steve Herman announced that US CENTCOM commander General Joseph Votel is in the midst of “a secret and unprecedented visit to Israel.”
Knowledge of the “secret” visit was based on exclusive footage broadcast by Israel’s Kann News, which first reported, “the commander of the American Central Command arrived for the first time to Israel, and met with senior security officials, including the Chief of Staff.”
Israeli public broadcaster reports @CENTCOM commander General Votel making a secret and unprecedented visit to #Israel. https://t.co/BbhiThKMH2
— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) April 23, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
No doubt the potential for what weapons experts have commonly described as the “exceptionally advanced” Russian-supplied S-300 in Israel’s backyard is making Tel Aviv and its allies nervous. Israel has repeatedly called delivery of the S-300s a “red line” for which it would act, however, plans for just such a scenario could be hastening.
Early Monday morning Israel’s Channel 10 senior diplomatic correspondent broke the following, subsequently confirmed in the Times of Israel and Reuters:
Russian newspaper Kommersant reports that Russia might deliver S-300 anti aircraft missiles to Syria in the very near future in order to defend Damascus & Strategic Syrian army bases from Israel & U.S. airstrikes.
Kommersant reported Russia will give the S-300 missiles to Syria for free from Russian army supplies as part of its military assistance to Syria. This way the delivery could be done very quickly.
Russian military sources said parts of the S-300 will be delivered soon to Syria via cargo planes or Russian navy ships. Until Syrian officers will be trained to operate the system it will be operated by Russian military experts in coordination with the Syrian army.
According to Kommersant Russia believes that delivering the system will stabilize the situation in Syria and deter Israel and the U.S. from continuing its airstrikes in Syria. Russian sources said that if Israel attacks the missiles the results would be catastrophic.
1 \ Russian newspaper Kommersant reports that Russia might deliver S-300 anti aircraft missiles to Syria in the very near future in order to defend Damascus & Strategic Syrian army bases from Israel & U.S. airstrikes
— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) April 23, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Though still being hotly debated and contested among analysts, Syria’s over 30-year old current deterrent system appears to have performed well, likely stunning the West and neighboring Israel (which itself played a part in the coalition attack) as it reportedly shot down 71 of the 103 cruise missiles, according to official Russian and Syrian government sources.
As we previously described, Pentagon officials have vehemently denied that their “nice and new and smart” cruise missiles were actually shot down, and Russia now further claims to be in possession of at least two non-detonated coalition missiles. Most Western media reports continue to assert that Syrian missile defense failed to shoot down a single inbound missile. Notably, the Pentagon has been careful in all statements to say Russia’s S-300 system (currently present aboard Russian battleships in the Mediterranean) did not engage.
However, there are other possibilities that the coalition’s missiles simply failed in reaching their targets in some instances without intercept by Syrian defenses, or even that advanced Russian air defense Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) may have been in play.
But one doesn’t need to take the Russian Defense Ministry’s word for it. It is entirely possible and even likely that Russian intercept claims are inflated, yet that there were a number of intercepts that night was also reported by several important outside sources, including by Syrian pro-rebel media, foremost being the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which has for years been a chief go-to source for all mainstream reporting on Syria (though ironically when SOHR contradicts the mainstream media, such as in this case, its numbers are ignored).
SOHR reported, based on “several intersected sources” on the ground, that “the number of missiles that were downed exceeded 65.” That anti-Assad/anti-Russia pro-rebel SOHR is saying this is hugely significant, and is consistent with Russia’s claim.
But all of this will perhaps quickly become a moot point if Russia does indeed deliver the S-300 system to Syria after warning immediately on the heels of the US-led strike, that there would be consequences.
Graphic and Info Source: Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems via Graphic News On the very morning after the US strike took place, Russia’s first deputy chief of staff, Sergei Rudskoi, said Russia would “reconsider” whether to supply the air defenses to Assad – an issue previously thought dead as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had reportedly successfully lobbied President Putin against the possibility in 2013.
Netanyahu was quoted at the time as saying of the S-300 system, “We’ll destroy your missiles if you deliver them to Assad” – a warning which has recently been repeated in the form of an Israeli “red line”. However, Russian military sources have this week been quoted in the Times of Israel as saying: if Israel tried to destroy the anti-aircraft batteries—as analysts have indicated Israel likely would—it would be “catastrophic for all sides.”
But on Monday, Reuters reported that no decision had been made on S-300 delivery to Syria, citing Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who said, “We’ll have to wait to see what specific decisions the Russian leadership and representatives of Syria will take.” Lavrov added, “There is probably no secret about this and it can all be announced (if a decision is taken).”
However, given Israel’s past history of “strike first” in Syria and negotiate later, we could witness missiles flying before any official announcement takes place.
- The Pension Crisis Gets A Catchy Name: "Silver Tsunami"
Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,
Pensions really are in crisis, but the story is so full of large numbers, obscure projections, and dry terms like “unfunded liabilities” that not many people are paying attention.
The same is true for a lot of other big trends out there, which is why those sounding the alarm eventually settle on pithy/scary (if not always accurate) terms to get people’s attention. Global warming, for instance, or nuclear winter.
Now the pension crisis may have found its hook:
‘Silver Tsunami’ hits as pension costs devour California school budgets
(San Francisco Chronicle) – What happens when state funding improves, but local school budgets get worse? And how did we get into this situation in the first place?
It’s simple. School systems are getting hammered by the rising costs of pension and health care commitments. Meanwhile, they are being pinched by external factors including declining student enrollment, increased competition and frozen federal funding.
California is not an anomaly. Districts throughout the nation are facing the same squeeze.
So why isn’t anyone paying attention? Three main reasons:
Money is boring: And only boring people like chief financial officers talk about money and use phrases like “unfunded liabilities.” Interesting, cutting-edge people talk about “disruptive innovations” like personalized learning, or anything with the word “maker” in it.
Money is politically messy. Everyone wants funding for their favorite education project. In this zero-sum world, no one wants to talk about making tough choices. Even fewer want to discuss sensitive topics such as pension and health care liabilities.
Education finance has never been part of our nation’s education wars.Most of the opinion makers in education are like the Great Houses of Westeros in the HBO series “Game of Thrones.” They are much happier fighting each other to the death about issues like unions and charter schools than focusing on the more powerful forces that could destroy them all.
In “Game of Thrones,” that force is the White Walkers. In education, it’s the “Silver Tsunami” — the tens of billions of dollars in pension and other post-retirement benefits guaranteed to retirees.
In the olden days (before the mid-2000s), these budget problems seemed very far away. But over the past decade, millions of Baby Boomers have retired. Suddenly pension and retiree health care costs were at hand.
Most state and local officials failed to plan for these increased costs. During good times, they sweetened already generous benefits. During bad times, such as the Great Recession, they reduced the already inadequate amounts they were socking away.
The size of these unfunded liabilities is mind-boggling. Nationally, the estimate is $1.4 trillion. In California, it’s $97 billion for teachers and other school employees as of 2015-16. To put this into perspective, total venture capital investment in educational technology since 2010 was $2.3 billion.
In 2013, California state leaders attempted to address the shortfall by increasing payments from districts into the pension fund to $1,600 per pupil in 2023-24 from $500. This increase will only pay for part of the state pension obligation. Billions of dollars more will come directly from state coffers and never reach education budgets.
Just when you think it couldn’t get worse, California has more than $92 billion in unfunded health care liabilities. By 2030, Los Angeles Unified School District, serving more than a half-million students, is projected to spend half its budget on retiree pension and health care costs. Hundreds of other districts could make dramatic budget cuts or even go bankrupt.
District and charter leaders are beginning to talk about the impact of these rising costs. Unfortunately, everyone else is making things worse. Unions, foundations, and nonprofits still live in a world where an improving state economy was a reason to advocate for salary increases or fund the latest program.
That world is gone. Winter is already here. Unlike the fantasy world of Westeros, there are no magical solutions or heroes coming to save us.
With 10,000 or so baby boomers – many of whom are public sector employees – turning 65 every day, pension imbalances will explode in the coming decade. That means life gets harder for pretty much everyone who drives, needs police protection or has kids in school. Which in turn makes politics even more unstable and unpredictable than currently.
At the same time, the weakest pension plans and their cities will be forced into bankruptcy, leading to panic among the not yet bankrupt and – now we’re getting to the systemic risk – the owners and potential future buyers of the bonds cities and states issue to keep afloat. When the muni market dies, so does much of the rest of the US financial system.
- Army Building "Self-Aware" Squid-Like Robot That Can Be "3-D Printed" During Combat
The Army Research Laboratory’s next robot weapon isn’t a new predator drone or even a robot dog like the infamous prototype developed by Boston Labs.
Instead, it’s a “self-aware” robot built from flexible materials inspired by invertebrates like squid, the Army Times reports.
But in addition to its advance machine-learning capabilities, the material used to build the robots is so lightweight and malleable that soldiers will be able to “print” the robots on the battlefield, the control them with controllers that send electric currents through the materials.
In case you weren’t already terrified of robots that can jump over walls, fly or crawl, Army researchers are developing your next nightmare – a flexible, soft robot inspired by squid and other invertebrates.
And they want soldiers to be able to use 3D printers to make them on the battlefield.
The U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the University of Minnesota are developing materials that can be 3D printed based on the flexibility and nimbleness of invertebrates such as a squid, according to an ARL release.
Researchers were inspired to design the new type of robot after testing material that would bend in any direction when hit with electricity.
Traditional materials are too rigid and limit certain types of movement that robots might require to get into “confined or restricted spaces,” said Ed Habtour, an ARL researcher.
The prototypes that Habtour and fellow ARL researchers developed gave 3D-printed actuators three times the movement as what’s been tested before.
The material that they’ve used in their testing will bend in any direction when hit with electricity.
“In the initial phase of the project, our team began by investigating new methods for emulating the locomotion of invertebrates,” said Michael McAlpine, a professor at the University of Minnesota.
That helped researchers learn how to apply the natural movement of invertebrates like squids to produce “high bending motions without skeletal support,” McAlpine said.
As scientists continue to study the material, the head researchers say they will be able to build robots that are “dynamic”, “self-aware” and able to adjust to battlefield conditions.
Because the material doesn’t have to be dried, heated or assembled, it would require little training and could be used for printable robots that soldiers could make and use whenever and wherever they’re needed.
“If we can understand these interactions, then we can use those insights to fabricate dynamic structures and flexible robots which are designed to be self-aware, self-sensing and capable of adjusting their morphologies and properties in real time to adapt to a myriad of external and internal conditions,” Habtour said.
While the Army is building squid-like robots that can squeeze into confined spaces – whether it’s to search for explosives or rescue or treat wounded soldiers – Amazon is working on a “top secret” robotics project of its own: Building what it hopes will be the first domestic robot to break into the mainstream.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
