Jul 12

Today’s News 12th July 2018

  • Germans Actually Want US Troops Out Of Germany, Poll Finds

    A central irony behind Trump’s rumored “threat” that he could withdraw or at least greatly reduce American troops stationed in Germany, who last month wrote to Angela Merkel of “growing frustration in the United States that some allies have not stepped up as promised” on defense spending, is that Germans don’t actually want US troops on their soil to begin with, according to a new poll.

    On Wednesday Trump slammed Germany from the moment he touched down in Brussels for expecting the US to foot the bill for Europe’s security in the face of Russian aggression while Germany and others cut massive energy deals with Russian energy companies. In an exchange the president promptly posted on Twitter, he said Germany is “totally controlled by Russia” in reference to the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is to supply the country with Russian natural gas. “Germany is a rich country,”Trump said, implying it should increase spending on its own defense.

    It appears the German public agrees with Trump on this point as a YouGov poll — the results of which were first published for the dpa news agency on the first day of the NATO summit — finds that Germans would actually welcome American troop withdrawal from their soil (though a policy of outright US withdrawal is not on the table this week, nor is expected to be broached… but with Trump, who knows?). 

    Screenshot of video of Wednesday’s breakfast with NATO Secretary General

    The poll found that “42 percent said they supported American withdrawal while just 37 percent wanted the soldiers to stay, with 21 per cent undecided.” 

    Citizens polled who were part of outlier or non-establishment political parties tended to be most strongly in favor of an American military exit from Germany:

    Voters for the left-wing Die Linke are particularly in favour of withdrawal, with 67 per cent backing it, as are supporters of the far-right AfD, on 55 per cent. Greens also back withdrawal by 48 per cent.

    Less supportive of withdrawal are voters for the centre-right CDU, at 35 per cent, the SPD at 42 per cent, and the FDP at 37 per cent. —The Independent

    Trump has lately berated other NATO member states for not living up to a 2014 pledge to reach two percent of GDP on defense by 2024, as only three European countries have reached the mark. Germany, which has had tense ties with the US in recent months, has already indicated it will be unable to meet that goal; Poland, however, has met the target.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    A continued theme the president is expected to emphasize this week in Brussels is to urge other governments of the alliance to dramatically increase military spending and lower import tariffs.

    On this point, the YouGov poll shows the German public at odds with American and NATO leaders:

    The same poll also found significant opposition to militarism in general in the country. Just 15 per cent of all Germans agree with Angela Merkel that the country should increase its military spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2024, with 36 percent saying the country’s already spends too much on its military.

    So interestingly, those surveyed tend to favor American security draw down in the heart of Europe along with a humble German foreign policy.

    Map source: Wikimedia Commons

    It could be that like many in the US, Germans are increasingly aware that such entangling (and some might say outdated) alliances as NATO only creates more unnecessary tensions and trouble in a world increasingly nervous over Western expansion and hegemony (a Cold War era “north Atlantic” alliance used for regime change in north Africa being a prime example).

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Should this come as any surprise? Similar polls over the past decade have shown the German public to be simultaneously desirous of close ties with the United States yet consistently opposed to Washington dragging Europe into military campaigns abroad.

    In 2015 Foreign Policy summarized this trend as follows: 

    Surveys have consistently shown that Germans are far less supportive than Americans regarding the use of military force to maintain order in the world: in 2011 75 percent of Americans voiced the view that force is sometimes necessary compared with only 50 percent of Germans. More than 80 percent of Germans supported Berlin’s decision to not use military force in Iraq, according to Pew Research surveys at the time. In Afghanistan, where Germany had troops, by 2010 and 2011, majorities of Germans wanted NATO and U.S. troops withdrawn.

    And Germany abstained in the United Nations vote on intervention in Libya. Indeed, the latest Pew Research survey finds a distinct German reticence about taking on more of the global security burden. Asked if Berlin should play a more active military role in helping to maintain peace and stability in the world, only 25 percent of Germans agree. 

    Last month, a report suggested the Pentagon is already in the process of tallying the cost of keeping troops and its vast military bases (the US has over 20 – and many other joint command locations – with Ramstein Air Base being the largest; and at the height of the Cold War there were over 200) in Germany ahead of possible withdrawal. However, early this month Pentagon officials denied such an audit is taking place. 

    It will be interesting to see if Trump, in his notorious off-the-cuff and unpredictable manner of speaking, actually pulls this out as a negotiating card either publicly or in private exchanges in Brussels this week. 

    * * *

    Figures from a 2016 Germany Embassy in the US fact sheet on US military presence in Germany since the early 2000’s:

    • Each year, Germany contributes nearly $1 billion to the upkeep of U.S. bases in Germany. 
    • Ramstein Air Base, the biggest U.S. base in Germany, costs about $1 billion annually – an amount equal to Germany’s yearly contribution toward the upkeep of U.S. bases. 
    • On average, the other 43 bases cost about $240 million each — about the same as a single F/A-22 fighter jet.
    • With 34,000 American residents, Kaiserslautern is the largest American community outside of the United States.
    • Since 1945, some 17 million Americans have served tours of duty in Germany. Many return time and again as tourists.

  • For Peace With Putin, End America's Pointless Wars

    Authored by George O’Neill Jr., via The American Conservative,

    Ignore the establishment: Trump has a huge opportunity at his upcoming summit…

    The upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is an overdue opportunity for the American president’s next bold peace initiative. It is time for the U.S. to stop its wasteful wars, and Russia can be a constructive partner to this end.

    The mainstream press on both sides of the Atlantic will howl against any agreement between Trump and Putin—no matter what’s in it. So why not take steps that the American public will instinctively understand and that will provide the support for Trump to end America’s failed interventions? Besides what are his opponents going to do? Vilify him for seeking peace and starting the process of healing the many wounds of the wars? The American people are not fooled by false claims that Trump is soft on terrorism; they are aware that U.S. military interventions oftentimes can—and do—fuel terrorism.

    President Trump should propose a drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan in exchange for a drawdown of Russian troops in Syria (along with a pledge that America has no interest in reengaging in the Syrian Civil War). This would be consistent with Trump’s oft-stated observation that America’s wars (declared and undeclared) in the Middle East have been a waste.

    Trump need not “recognize” the Russian annexation of Crimea but he should assert that a resolution to the situation on the ground in Ukraine is a European matter – to be settled by bilateral negotiations between Russia and Europe.

    Understanding of this magnitude would obviate the main pretext for the senseless escalation of pecuniary diplomatic sanctions – the defenestration of embassy and consulate staff – on the parts of both Russia and the United States. The return of the possibility of civilian travel between the two nations would do wonders to lower tensions. (Remember, even at the height of the Cold War, President Eisenhower argued that populations denied contact with each other would tend to be suspicious of each other—and prone to minor conflicts that could escalate into larger wars.)

    The American public is not interested in diplomatic and media theater. They know two things to be true: the failing “Trump-Russia collusion” hysteria is proving baseless (and distracting from concerns over economic growth and jobs); and whatever America’s international security interests are in the Middle East, we are all better protected with allies that face similar threats.

    Russia has more reason to be concerned over Islamic terrorism than America. Their southern border touches on several Islamic countries: Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Afghanistan. The instability created by America’s misguided military adventures has, for years, been unsettling to Russia. According to a friend who has long studied Russia, America’s post-Cold War military aggression, starting in the Balkans, began the ascension to power of Russian military hardliners who were skeptical of America’s intentions for peace.

    Russia has a significantly better understanding of and influence over most of those countries, including Iran. America’s relationship with Iran has long been hostile due to years of interference and mistreatment. The relationship was seriously complicated in 1953 when our CIA and British intelligence overthrew their democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and placed the brutal Shah in power. The Washington keyboard warriors never mention this sad chapter in our history. Imagine how we would feel towards a country that interfered with us to that extent.

    How much smarter would it be for Russia to work with its neighbor Iran to limit the civil war in Yemen, than for America to continue to provide military support to Saudi Arabia to perpetuate a colossal human tragedy?

    The naysayers ridiculed Trump’s peace initiative with North Korea, and yet his denuclearization and pacification of the Korean Peninsula advances (in contrast to the efforts of four previous American presidential administrations). Given that Trump and Kim could sit together, what stands in the way of progress with Putin?

    The past year and a half of Russophobia have been driven by the “bitter clingers” of Hillary’s failed national political ambitions, the military-industrial complex, corporate interests, corporate media, the Washington/New York/Hollywood commentariat, and foreign lobbyists. Too many of them profit from an endless state of war—throughout the world and, in particular, with Russia.

    Washington and its clients are terrified that the war gravy train will be slowed or stopped. Our NATO clients are afraid of carrying their own national defense burdens. Washington neocons are perfectly willing to continue to waste the lives of our devoted military to protect both their funding and a world order that the West’s victory in the Cold War has rendered moot.

    Again, the American people share no such delusions and are overwhelmingly tired of the wars they cannot explain or even locate on a globe. These wars have damaged and destroyed American families. War proponents’ repeated incantations about “supporting the troops” instead of keeping them home to protect their families and our country has worn thin.

    We hear stories about parents being separated from their children at our borders, but not a peep about the American children being separated from their soldier parents and parents being separated from their soldier sons and daughters abroad.

    The July 16 Trump-Putin summit is an opportunity for the president to act boldly in the face of near-total establishment opposition and work to bring peace to a war-weary world. If he works to reduce America’s involvement in its wars, the Russo-American disagreements will fade.

  • Visualizing The World's Largest Importers In 2017

    For most world leaders and corporate executives, the swing of the global pendulum to more protectionist policies has been an unpleasant surprise.

    That’s because the consensus view from both economists and economic historians has been that measures like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which triggered a trade war during the Great Depression, greatly exacerbated circumstances that were already quite dire.

    It’s common for tariff increases to be countered by retaliatory measures, and this can often translate to lower levels of international trade and decreased economic growth across the board. During the period of 1929 to 1934, according to the U.S. State Department, world trade decreased by 66% – largely a result of subsequent trade wars after the passing of Smoot-Hawley.

    For the above reasons, international barriers to trade have been falling for decades – until now, of course.

    LARGEST IMPORTERS

    Which countries can throw their weight around the most with tariffs and retaliatory measures?

    It’s those that import the most goods – and today’s infographic from HowMuch.net shows the world’s largest importers in 2017, according to recently released data from the World Trade Organization.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    Here are the top 15 largest importers, globally:

    The United States takes home the number one spot with $2,409 billion of imports in 2017, about 13.4% of the global total. It’s worth mentioning that this is $860 billion higher than the country’s exports in 2017, and that the difference between the two numbers is the hotly-debated trade deficit.

    China and Germany come in the #2 and #3 spots respectively, with $1,842 billion (10.2% of global total) of imports for China and $1,167 billion (6.5% of total) for Europe’s largest economy.

    After the big three, no other country has a number exceeding 5% of global imports, but Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Hong Kong (China), and the Netherlands all surpass the 3% mark.

  • Time For A Helsinki Communique

    Authored by Thomas Graham Jr. via The National Interest,

    The joint U.S.-China Shanghai Communique laid out stark differences, but also laid real groundwork for cooperation. Could Trump and Putin follow such an example?

    American President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to issue a joint statement at their summit meeting in Helsinki on July 16. Since the end of the Cold War, summit statements have expressed an aspiration toward partnership, committing both sides to cooperation on various critical matters for mutual benefit. Even though many goals were left unfulfilled, the statements were honest reflections of intentions at the time of their issuance. But if Trump and Putin were to produce a statement in a similar vein, it would be rightly greeted with derision due to the current state of relations. What then could a joint-statement say that would have the ring of truth while offering hope for a less-dangerous relationship between both countries?

    There is a model, drawn not from U.S.-Russian relations but from America’s history with China. That model is the Shanghai Communique of 1972, which set China and America on the path to normalization after years of estrangement. At the insistence of Chinese leader Mao, the document dispensed with worn-out platitudes about cooperation and laid out the disputes between the two countries. Doing so gave it an air of credibility, which lent greater weight to the few critical issues on which the two sides did, in fact, agree to cooperate. It was a masterpiece of diplomacy that has shaped U.S.-Chinese relations ever since.

    What would a U.S.-Russian Helsinki Communique look like?

    It would begin with the observation that the two countries are major powers that intend to play significant roles in global affairs for years to come. They see each other as competitors, divided by essential differences over the foundations of world order, the resolution of regional conflicts, and the values that inform domestic political systems. Each side, however, recognizes the dangers of turning a competitive relationship into a permanent confrontation, which would risk military strife with catastrophic consequences, given each side’s massive nuclear arsenal. The two sides are, therefore, determined to find ways to compete that reduce that risk.

    The statement would then sharply and succinctly lay out the essence of the differences on many vital matters, such as Ukraine, Syria and Iran. Election interference should be on the list, although Trump would certainly object. The Russians would likely insist on including the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and U.S. sanctions. No topic should be off limits. The United States could, for example, note its rejection of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its opposition to Russia’s intervention in Eastern Ukraine. Also, Russia could repeat its non-negotiable position that Crimea joined Russia in a legitimate act of self-determination and its denial that Russian forces have ever operated in Eastern Ukraine. Similarly, Russia could state its objection to NATO expansion, and the United States would state its view that every country has the right to choose its alliances freely.

    Given these disputes, the two sides would agree to seek their resolution through negotiations based on mutual respect. Without acknowledging past transgressions, they would commit themselves from this point onward to act with respect for the principles of nonaggression, mutual benefit, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states and noninterference in each other’s internal affairs.

    The next section of the statement would focus on possible areas for cooperation. At the top of the list should be strategic stability, for which the United States and Russia have long borne a unique responsibility. The agreed immediate goals would be to ensure mutual compliance with the terms of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), which each side accuses the other of violating. Furthermore, both sides should begin negotiations for the prolongation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty agreement (New START), set to expire in 2021. Action on these two matters would launch a broader discussion of strategic stability in a world that is moving towards nuclear multipolarity with China’s rise and in which advanced conventional and cyber weapons have profound implications.

    In addition, counterterrorism and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction could be identified as promising areas of cooperation, as long as care is taken not to exaggerate the possibilities. The United States and Russia do diverge in their approaches to them, as is evident from the controversy surrounding Syria and each country’s respective relations with Iran and North Korea.

    Finally, the statement would end with a commitment to the steady normalization of relations, including the opening up of multiple channels of official communication and regular meetings between senior officials. This step is critical to avoid the misunderstandings that can lead to undesired conflict. Also, the two presidents could endorse expanded contact between American and Russian expert communities and welcome the contributions they could make to finding innovative ways of managing disputes and fostering cooperation. More generally, the presidents could also embrace efforts to build bridges between both societies through expanded people-to-people contacts.

    *  *  *

    The odds against such a Helsinki Communique are, of course, great. Time is short, and Trump is probably looking for a dramatic bargain while Putin is prepared to pocket any concessions. But if he thought about it for a moment, Trump would realize that no other post-Cold War president has produced anything like a Helsinki Communique, moreover one that would set the framework for the closer ties to Russia he professes to want. It would be a striking achievement for which he could rightly take credit.

  • "There Is No End In Sight" Army Major Warns Of "Perpetual War" On Terror

    Cutting through the haze of humanitarian bullshit and liberation,  West Point graduate and author Major Danny Sjursen told ‘Watching The Hawks’ that the War on Terror is a “battle for basic hegemony in the Middle East”, warning that it may go on indefinitely.

    In the brief but eye-opening interview, Sjursen calls the US’ now 17-year War on Terror “unprecedented in American history,” noting that soon kids who were born after 9/11 will be joining the military.

    Sjursen called the War on Terror a misnomer. “How do you fight a war against a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic,” he asked.

    “What it really has been, in my opinion, is a war for basic hegemony in the Middle East,” Sjursen said.

    He believes that even though some of it may be backed by humanitarian impulses, “I don’t suspect that the government necessarily fights just for oil or whatever the different conspiracies [are].”

    “The War on Terror, as far as I see it, is potentially perpetual. There is no end in sight,” he added.

    Calling for a teaching of the mistakes from the “messy history” of the US misadventure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sjursen warned that the US is “apt to repeat” these mistakes “whether it’s in Iran, whether it’s in West Africa.”

    “American soldiers are dying countries Americans can’t pronounce, they can’t find on the map, and part of the problem and part of the reason for that they aren’t really educated on this.”

    Sjursen called for the War on Terror to be taught in schools and for honest and critical conversations to be had publicly in order to educate the average American on it.

  • Raúl Ilargi Meijer: NATO Is A Con Game

    Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    Okay, well, Trump did it again. Antagonizing allies. This time it was Germany that took the main hit, over the fact that it pays Russia billions of dollars for oil and gas while relying on the US for its defense … against Russia. And yes, that is a strange situation. But it’s by no means the only angle to the story. There are many more.

    For one thing, The US has by far the largest military industry. So it makes a lot of money off the billions already spent by NATO partners on weaponry. Of course Raytheon, Boeing et al would like to see them spend more. But once they would have done that, they would clamor for even more after.

    At some point one must ask how much should really be spent. How much is enough, how much is necessary. The military-industrial complex (MIC) has every reason to make the threat posed by ‘enemies’ as big as they possibly can. So knowing that, we must take media reports on this threat with tons of salt.

    And that is not easy. Because the MIC has great influence in politics and the media. But we can turn to some numbers. According to GlobalFirePower, the US in 2018 will spend $647 billion on its military, while Russia is to spend a full $600 billion less, at $47 billion. And the US Senate has already voted in a $82 billion boost recently.

    There are other numbers out there that suggest Russia spends $60 billion, but even then. If Moscow spends just 10% of the US, and much less than that once all NATO members’ expenditure is included, how much of a threat can Russia realistically be to NATO?

    Sure, I’ve said it before, Russia makes weapons to defend itself, while America makes them to make money, which makes the latter much less efficient, but it should be glaringly obvious that the Russia threat is being blown out of all proportions.

    Problem with that is that European nations for some reason love playing the threat card as much as America does. After all, Britain, France and Germany have major weapons manufacturers, too. So they’re all stuck. The Baltic nations clamor for more US protection, so does Sweden, Merkel re-focused on Putin just days ago, the game must go on.

    Another way to look at this is to note that UD GDP in 2017 according to the IMF was $19.3 trillion, while Russia’s was $1.5 trillion. NATO members Germany France, Britain, Italy and France all have substantially higher GDP than Russia as well. European Union GDP was $17.3 trillion in 2017.

    If this economically weak Russia were really such a threat to NATO, they would be using their funds so much better and smarter than anyone else, we’d all better start waving white flags right now. And seek their help, because that sort of efficiency, in both economics and defense, would seem to be exactly what we need in our debt-ridden nations.

    The solution to the problems Trump indicated this morning is not for Germany et al to spend more on NATO and their military in general, but for the US to spend less. Much less. Because the Russian threat is a hoax that serves the interests of the MIC, the politicians and the media.

    And because America has much better purposes to spend its money on. And because we would all be a lot safer if this absurd theater were closed. To reiterate: developments in weapons technology, for instance hypersonic rocket systems make most other weapons systems obsolete. Which is obviously a big threat to the MIC.

    Russia attacking NATO makes as much sense as NATO attacking Russia: none whatsoever. Unwinnable. Russia attacking Germany and other European countries, which buy its oil and gas, makes no sense because it would then lose those revenues. From that point of view, European dependence on Russian energy is even a peacemaker, because it benefits both sides.

    Can any of the Russiagate things be true? Of course, Russia has ‘bad’ elements seeking to influence matters abroad. Just like the US does, and France, Britain, Germany, finish the list and color the pictures. How about the UK poisoning stories? That’s a really wild one. Russia had no reason to poison a long-lost double spy they themselves let go free years ago, not at a time when a successful World Cup beckoned.

    342 diplomats expelled and risking the honored tradition of exchanging spies and double agents from time to time. Not in Moscow’s interest at all. Britain, though, had, and has, much to gain from the case. As long as its people, and its allies, remain gullible enough to swallow the poisoned narrative. Clue: both poisonings, if they are real, occurred mere miles from Porton Down, Britain’s main chemical weapons lab.

    And c’mon, if Putin wants his country strong and independent, the last thing he would do is to risk his oil and gas contracts with Europe. They’re simply too important, economically and politically. Trump may want some of that action for the US, understandably, but for now US LNG can’t compete with Russian pipelines. Simple as that.

    Let’s hope Trump and Putin can talk sense in 5 days. There’s a lot hanging on it. Let’s hope Trump gets his head out of NATO’s and the US and EU Deep State’s asses in time. There’s no America First or Make America Great Again to be found in those dark places. It’s time to clear the air and talk. America should always talk to Russia.

    Funny thing is, the more sanctions are declared on Russia, the stronger it becomes, because it has to learn and adapt to self-sufficiency. Want to weaken Russia? Make it depend on your trade with it, as opposed to cut off that trade. Well, too late now, they won’t trust another western voice anymore for many years. And we’re too weak to fight them. Not that we should want to anyway.

    We’re all captive to people who want us to believe we’re still stuck in the last century, because that is their over-luxurious meal ticket. But it’s all imaginary, it’s an entirely made-up narrative. NATO is a con game.

  • China Prepares To Dominate South Pacific With Week Of Electronic Warfare Drills

    While the Trump administration unveiling another round of tariffs on Chinese goods worth $200 billion – for which China’s Commerce Ministry is planning “countermeasures,” Beijing quietly began conducting military drills at five bases for electronic warfare, cybersecurity, reconnaissance and tactical strikes at five training bases, reports the South China Morning Post.

    Over 50 combat units consisting of around 2,100 officers are taking part in the war games, which includes airborne troops, special forces and electronic warfare experts from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western and Central command theatres, according to official accounts over social media.

    The war games began simultaneously at the Zhurihe Combined Tactics Training Base near Inner Mongolia, as well as four military institutes in Chongqing, Hebei and hefei provinces, as well as the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, according to the ground force.

    The drill was meant to replicate combat conditions so the troops would stay in camps rather than barracks or dormitories, the ground force said via social media on Monday.

    Military inspectors from the PLA’s anti-corruption watchdog, the military’s disciplinary commission, were sent to monitor the war games, with live pictures and video footage being sent to relevant troops, it said.

    The combat units were made up almost entirely of new graduates and military officers from the surveillance troops, information security force, cyberwarriors, special fighting troops and a strike team from the army’s aviation unit, the ground force said on its WeChat account. –SCMP

    China’s ground force said that the five new units were organized with the goal of “transforming their tradition combat role into a “modern army to right with the navy and air force,” along with the newly established strategic support unit and the rocket force.

    The five theatre commands were established directly by President Xi Jinping – who replaced the army’s seven military commands in February, 2016 to become chairman of the Central Military Commission. He has since shed 300,000 members of the PLA – cutting the army’s size down to 2 million troops. For reference, the entire US military has around 1.3 million troops. 

    Xi laid out an ambitious plan in October for the PLA to modernize by 2035, on its way to becoming “one of the strongest forces by 2050,” reports The Morning Post, emphasizing technology and modern warfare strategies. 

    “The scale of new combat forces has been expanded and becomes more important in combat effectiveness after many traditional troops and outmoded weapons were dissolved amid the military overhaul,” said a PLA commentary published on June 15.

    That said, some ground force leaders fell short of Xi’s new requirements, according to The PLA Daily – the public face of the Army.

    “However, some commanders failed to understand and study the real role of new combat forces, with some turning the new units into superficial troops or even ‘master of none’ … and some even immersing in traditional combat drills, letting the new combat units become an isolated fighting force.”

    On Friday, CNBC reported that China was quietly conducting electronic warfare tests on tech-jamming technology in the South China Sea – weeks after delivering military equipment to the disputed Spratley Islands. 

    The move allows Beijing to further project its power in the hotly disputed waters. The placement of electronic warfare assets, which are designed to confuse or disable communications and radar systems, comes on the heels of China’s installation of anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems on three outposts in the hotly contested waters of the South China Sea. –CNBC

    The Spratleys lie two-thirds of the way east from Southern Vietnam to the southern Philippines – while just north like the Parcel islands, where Beijing has 10 outposts, including Woody Island – their administrative and military headquarters in the South China Sea. 

    [insert: 105181437-skitchSCSmap.530×298.  , 105096240-Woody_1_25_18_R1C1_wm.530×298.jpg ] 

    China will be looking to compete with the United States’ GPS system with their Beidou program – also known as Compass. The system is expected to be completed by 2020, and will significantly improve China’s electronic warfare capabilities. 

    The Beidou system will definitely ‘add wings’ to the PLA, but only when all service troops are able to operate the new combat skills smoothly,” said Hong Kong-based military expert Song Zhongping, who added “Electronic warfare – like cyberwarriors and army aviation air strike operations – are strategically important in modern combat, as many new weapons also need the support of electronic facilities.” 

    Professor He Qisong, a defence policy specialist at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, said the drills this week indicated that the PLA was exploring a new training model to prepare commanders and soldiers for modern warfare.

    “All the electronic warfare operations need a comprehensive and safe cybersecurity network. That’s why the strategic support force was established [in late 2015], and it has played a key supporting role in different service troops,” he said. –SCMP

    “As a traditional ground force without real combat experience since the late 1970s, it really takes time for the army to break in modern warfare operations with so many newly established units.”

  • Papa John's Chairman Resigns After Racist Comments Revealed

    Following today’s much publicized report that just a few months after Papa John founder and Chairman John Schnatter quit the CEO last November for “divisive” remarks when he criticized the NFL for its handling of players’ national-anthem protests, saying it hurt the pizza chain’s sales, he used the N-word and graphic descriptions of violence against minorities on a conference call, moments ago the company announced that that the company had accepted Schantter’s resignation.

    Papa John’s International, Inc. (NASDAQ: PZZA)today announced that the independent directors of the company have accepted the resignation of John H. Schnatter as Chairman of the Board. Olivia Kirtley acts as the company’s Lead Independent Director. Papa John’s will appoint a new Chairman of the Board in the coming weeks.

    As a reminder, earlier on Wednesday, Forbes reported that during a May marketing call, Schnatter was asked how he would distance himself from racist groups online. He responded by downplaying the significance of his NFL statement. “Colonel Sanders called blacks n—–s,” Schnatter allegedly said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash.

    Schnatter also reflected on his early life in Indiana, where, he said, people used to drag African-Americans from trucks until they died. He apparently intended for the remarks to convey his antipathy to racism, but multiple individuals on the call found them to be offensive, the source said.

    Following publication of the comments, Schnatter issued a statement in which he apologized:

    “News reports attributing the use of inappropriate and hurtful language to me during a media training session regarding race are true,” Schnatter said in the statement. “Regardless of the context, I apologize. Simply stated, racism has no place in our society.”

    By then it was too late.

    Needless to say, the revelation of these comments shocked investors, and following the pounding PZZA stock took today which dropped as much as 5.9%, coupled with various analysts warning that this particular scandal could last a considerable period of time, the resignation is hardly surprising.

    * * *

    Earlier:

    Shares of Papa John’s tumbled on Wednesday to $47.80, the lowest price since February 2016, after after outspoken chairman and founder John Schnatter came under fire following a report from Forbes that he used the N-word and graphic descriptions of violence against minorities on a conference call in May designed by marketing agency Laundry Service as a role-playing exercise for Schnatter in an effort to prevent future public-relations snafus.”

    Following the conference call incident, Laundry Service cut ties with Papa John’s – telling staff in a May 31 letter that it was ending its work with an unnamed client thanks to “the regrettable recent events that several employees of Laundry Service witnessed during interactions with a client’s executive,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by Bloomberg.

    Papa John chairman and founder John Schnatter

    On the May call, Schnatter was asked how he would distance himself from racist groups online. He responded by downplaying the significance of his NFL statement. “Colonel Sanders called blacks n—–s,” Schnatter allegedly said, before complaining that Sanders never faced public backlash.

    Schnatter also reflected on his early life in Indiana, where, he said, people used to drag African-Americans from trucks until they died. He apparently intended for the remarks to convey his antipathy to racism, but multiple individuals on the call found them to be offensive, the source said. After learning about the incident, Laundry Service owner Casey Wasserman moved to terminate the company’s contract with Papa John’s. –Forbes

    Shares of the pizza chain have tumbled 25% since Schnatter waded into the debate over national anthem protests and made several inflammatory comments against the NFL; the slide continued today with PZZA dropping as much as 5.9%, sliding to the lowest level since February 2016.

    Papa John’s did not dispute Forbes‘ report on Wednesday, however they noted that “Papa John’s condemns racism and any insensitive language, no matter the situation or setting. … We take great pride in the diversity of the Papa John’s family, though diversity and inclusion is an area we will continue to strive to do better.”

    As Bloomberg adds, the company’s new CEO, Steve Ritchie, who replaced Schnatter in January, sent an internal memo to team members, franchisees and operators on Wednesday addressing the event, though without mentioning Schnatter by name.

    “You may have read the media reports today tied to our company culture. We want to make it clear to all of you that racism has no place at Papa John’s,” according to the memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

    “The past six months we’ve had to take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that we’ve lost a bit of focus on the core values that this brand was built on and that delivered success for so many years,” Ritchie said. “We’ve got to own up and take the hit for our missteps and refocus on the constant pursuit of better that is the DNA of our brand.” –Bloomberg

    The 56-year-old Schnatter founded Papa John’s in Jeffersonville, Indiana after he installed a pizza oven at his father’s tavern. The business eventually grew to over 5,000 locations with annual revenues north of $1.7 billion. 

    Following the NFL anthem controversy, Schnatter stepped down as CEO when during the company’s third-quarter conference call he blamed the league for slow sales. The company later apologized for the “divisive” comments. 

  • WHO Carcinogens: Asbestos, Arsenic, Cigarettes, Alcohol,… & Bacon!?

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    The World Health Organization has now officially declared bacon to be just as dangerous to human health as tobacco cigarette smoking. WHO has made the decision to declare all processed meats “carcinogenic to humans,” and that’s not a good thing.

    The World Health Organization officially classified processed meats as carcinogenic in October 2015. The decision managed to be made by something called the International Agency of Research into Cancer (IARC), based on a review done on 800 studies globally.

    They claimed that the report found “sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.” According to the IARC Report:

    “Meat consists of multiple components, such as haem iron. Meat can also contain chemicals that form during meat processing or cooking.

    For instance, carcinogenic chemicals that form during meat processing include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

    Cooking of red meat or processed meat also produces heterocyclic aromatic amines as well as other chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are also found in other foods and in air pollution.

    Some of these chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens, but despite this knowledge, it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat.”

    That means it isn’t just bacon, but any processed meat that could be potentially cancer-causing. According to Reporting The Truth, WHO made the decision to bacon and other processed meats in with the ranks of other notoriously carcinogenic substances such as asbestos, arsenic, cigarettes, and alcohol. As a matter of fact, this decision and subsequent story is all based around a fallacy: an appeal to authority, the authority of the WHO.

    Often, the WHO, CDC (Centers for Disease Control), and other government organizations have the ability to cause a media outcry based on nothing more what they say. The WHO has no genuine intention of keeping people healthy, being some altruistic force to make sure people don’t get bowel cancer. It would be naive to think that’s why they exist.

    At the root of this story, the WHO and health organizations are justifying their existence by issuing warnings about things like this.

    The WHO has a surface level, where they disclose to the public what they are researching and try to justify their existence with little warnings like this, and then they have a deeper depth of what they do and who they endorse, what research and products they promote, and all the rest.

    Also, it’s not a good thing when government organizations start “officially” recognizing things. When the government starts “officially” recognizing the danger of tobacco, they start trying to make laws that do nothing but line the pockets of politicians with new taxes, and create annoying little additional hassles for people who will not give up smoking cigarettes either way. –Reporting The Truth

    The truth is, almost everyone knows bacon is not a “health food.”  It isn’t a vegetable and it’s loaded with fat.  It’s not the best food to eat and because of that, most people have the common sense to not eat a pound of it at a time.

Digest powered by RSS Digest