- Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank On The Hook For 500M Euros In Greensill Collapse
Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank On The Hook For 500M Euros In Greensill Collapse
Just months after Germany’s financial regulator was exposed for being asleep at the wheel during the Wirecard scandal, both Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank are reportedly about to be on the hook for millions of euros of losses tied to Europe’s latest financial disaster, the collapse of Greensill Capital, and its Bremen, Germany-based banking arm, Greensill Bank.
Germany’s regulator, BaFin, which was slammed for dropping the ball on Wirecard (at one point, the regulator accused a reporter for the FT of conspiring with short-sellers to discredit Wirecard; in the end, the paper was vindicated), warned Tuesday that a handful of German banks that backed Greensill will examine depositors claims and pay out anything that might be owed under a national deposit-insurance scheme. A German court in Bremen opened insolvency proceedings into Greensill earlier on Tuesday at the agency’s request.
The Bremen Local Court appointed Michael Frege as the insolvency administrator. Frege, an attorney at law firm CMS, is one of Germany’s best known administrators, having gained notoriety from handling the insolvency of a Lehman Brothers unit and the dissolution of Maple Bank in 2016.
While dozens of German municipalities are at risk at losing some or all of the money they have deposited with Greensill, DB and Commerzbank will be left holding the bag because they’re two of the biggest members of a voluntary deposit-insurance scheme run collectively by Germany’s commercial banks.
Although it’s too early to say how much they might owe, a payout from the fund would force the surviving members of the scheme to cough up more cash.
One German media outlet, Manager Magazin, reported that Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank will each have to contribute €200MM to €300MM to cover deposits at the collapsed bank, sums that encapsulate their share of the damages from the deposit insurance scheme. Neither bank was willing to comment about their prospective liabilities.
Bremen-based Greensill Bank had about €3 billion of insured deposits and an additional €500MM euros which aren’t covered, the latter include funds placed in the bank by German municipalities, which, as we have reported, expect to be wiped out.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/17/2021 – 02:45 - War Erupts Inside NATO's Atlantic Council Over "Pro-Russia" Article
War Erupts Inside NATO’s Atlantic Council Over “Pro-Russia” Article
Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,
An article written by two Atlantic Council employees that argues Washington should consider a more realistic approach to Russia caused quite the stir within the think tank. The article, written by Emma Ashford and Mathew Burrows, says the US should “avoid a human-rights-first approach to Russia.” The authors suggest that the Biden administration should instead “seek to build a less aspirational policy toward Russia, minimize the use of sanctions, and look for incentives that might induce Moscow to take steps in line with US interests.”
Ashford and Burrows make an argument grounded in reality. The US does not have the power to control what happens inside Russia through sanctions and other unilateral means. The authors are not at all sympathetic to Russian President Vladimir Putin and don’t even suggest lifting sanctions that are currently in place. But at the hyper-interventionist Atlantic Council, the idea of taking a less hostile approach to Russia is out of the question to many of its employees.
Kremlin/Reuters image Twenty-two Atlantic Council fellows signed a statement denouncing the article. “Their article is premised on a false assumption that human rights and national interests are wholly separate,” the statement reads. The statement ignores the fact that Washington cooperates with many countries with questionable human rights records, including some of the Atlantic Council’s top donors.
In the 2019 fiscal year, the embassy of the United Arab Emirates contributed over $1 million to the Atlantic Council. The UAE’s state oil company also chipped in over $250,000 for the think tank. Abu Dhabi is not the only Gulf monarchy that funds the Atlantic Council, the embassy of Bahrain donated somewhere between $100,000 and $249,000.
While the Atlantic Council’s Gulf funding is rarely questioned, the article from Ashford and Burrows caused some of its employees to complain about recent donations from Charles Koch, who funds the libertarian Cato Institute that advocates for a less interventionist foreign policy.
The Atlantic Council received a $4.5 million donation over five years from Koch that set up the New American Engagement Initiative (NAEI) and brought over some experts from the Cato Institute, including Ashford. According to its website, the NAEI aims to question the “prevailing assumptions governing US foreign policy, in particular with respect to the efficacy of military intervention and the lost potential of diplomacy.”
Atlantic Council fellows that signed the statement denouncing Ashford and Burrow’s article made it clear that to them, questioning US aggression is akin to spreading Russian propaganda. “The Koch industry operates as a Trojan horse operation trying to destroy good institutions and they have pretty much the same views as the Russians,” one person that signed the letter told Politico.
“The general view at the Atlantic Council is to send them back to the Cato Institute where they came from,” another person that signed the statement said. While they all had harsh words for Ashford and Burrow’s article, the people that spoke with Politico who signed the statement refused to go on the record and spoke anonymously.
One signatory to the statement did go on record in his criticism and published an article responding to Ashford and Burrow’s argument. Dylan Myles-Primakoff, who heads the Free Russia Foundation at the Atlantic Council, wrote a piece titled America’s Russia policy must not ignore human rights.
Myles-Primakoff argued that “Russia’s domestic politics and its foreign policy are inextricably linked.” His main example for this was what he described as the 2014 “invasion” of Ukraine that resulted in Russia annexing Crimea. Myles-Primakoff said the annexation of Crimea had a purpose in “Russia’s domestic politics.” He said the Russian government “sought to convince Russians that the inevitable result of a popular reform movement like Ukraine’s Euromaidan was not dignity and democracy, but violence and chaos.”
Myles-Primakoff is right that the Euromaidan protests that led to the ouster of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was democratically elected, caused Russia to annex Crimea, but he ignores crucial context. First, referendum after referendum shows the largely ethnic Russian population of Crimea favored joining the Russian Federation. This is also demonstrated by the fact that what Myles-Primakoff called an “invasion” was met with no violent resistance.
Second, Myles-Primakoff makes no mention of Washington’s role in the ouster of Yanukovych. The US threw its full weight behind the opposition in Ukraine during demonstrations in 2013 and 2014, an opposition that even had a neo-nazi element. A few weeks before Yanukovych was forced out, a recording of a phone call between then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland, who was working in the State Department at the time, was leaked and released on YouTube. In the now-infamous phone call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should replace the government of Yanukovych.
Atlantic Council neocons who openly shilled for Burisma after raking in donations from its oligarch owner are outraged over the “reputational risk” of publishing an op-ed calling for a moderately less warlike approach to Russia https://t.co/jWdJ9LCChf
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 11, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Like the ethnic Russians in Crimea, the ethnic Russians in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region also rejected the post-coup government in Kyiv, sparking the war that has killed tens of thousands. The context of US involvement in the coup that sparked these events is crucial, especially when discussing what US foreign policy should look like in that part of the world. There’s an argument to be made that neither the annexation of Crimea nor the war in the Donbas would have happened the way it did if not for US intervention.
Myles-Primakoff took issue with Ashford and Burrows pointing out that US-Russia relations began rapidly declining around the 2011 and 2012 protests in Russia. Ashford and Burrows write: “US-Russia relations declined markedly in 2011-12 after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced support for protests in Moscow.” Myles-Primakoff says this line ignores the context of what was happening in Russia at the time and blames Putin’s decision to run for a third term and alleged fraud in the 2011 parliamentary elections for the damage that was done to the US-Russia relationship at the time.
But Myles-Primakoff again misses the mark with his argument. In 2011, Clinton voiced support for protesters in Russia and voiced concern over claims of fraud in the parliamentary elections. Putin responded by accusing Clinton of inciting protests. “They heard the signal and with the support of the US State Department began active work,” Putin said.
Myles-Primakoff described Putin’s comments as a “wild conspiratorial response.” While Putin may have been overstating it, he had real reasons to fear that the US was funding protesters and opposition groups in Russia. Clinton based her claims of election fraud on a report from an election monitoring organization known as Golos, which was accusing the Russian government of violating election laws before votes were cast in the 2011 parliamentary election.
At the time, Golos was funded by the US government through the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Golos was also receiving money from the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization that presents itself as a private company but is funded almost entirely by the US government.
The US government was also funding political parties inside Russia at the time. “We had been offering political training to every political party in Russia, to Putin’s own party, to the Communists, but also to Putin’s opponents,” Victoria Nuland told PBS in 2017 when discussing the 2011 elections. Although Nuland said the US was training Putin’s United Russia party through the NED and similar organizations, the party had rejected earlier claims from Nuland that they got funding from USAID.
With the US so deeply entrenched in Russia’s politics in 2011, Washington certainly had ways to influence Putin’s opposition, and these facts make the Russian president seem less paranoid than Myles-Primakoff would like readers to believe. Russia’s Central Electoral Commission eventually issued a report on the 2011 elections and found out of the 1686 reports on irregularities they investigated, 11.5 percent were confirmed to be true. Only 60 of the complaints were claims that voting results were falsified. In 2012, Putin kicked USAID out of Russia.
Myles-Primakoff also addresses jailed Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny, who Ashford and Burrows described as “an open nationalist who is widely known to agree with Putin on many foreign policy questions; he backed the Russian seizure of Crimea and has made racist and Islamophobic remarks.”
Myles-Primakoff rebuked the claim that Navalny “backed” the annexation of Crimea by using a quote from Navalny in 2014. The opposition figure said, “Crimea was seized with egregious violations of all international regulations.” While this is a real quote from Navalny, Myles-Primakoff presented it out of context. Navalny made the comment while explaining that if he were president of Russia, he would not return Crimea to Ukraine.
Here’s what Navalny said in October 2014: “Crimea, of course, now de facto belongs to Russia. I think that despite the fact that Crimea was seized with egregious violations of all international regulations, the reality is that Crimea is now part of Russia. Let’s not deceive ourselves. And I would also strongly advise Ukrainians not to deceive themselves.”
Myles-Primakoff did not challenge the assertion that Navalny is a nationalist who has made racist and Islamophobic remarks. Due to past comments Navalny made, Amnesty International revoked his status as a prisoner of conscience, which is being spun by Western media as the result of a Russian government-backed smear campaign, but Amnesty denies that claim. “”Reports that Amnesty’s decision was influenced by the Russian state’s smear campaign against Navalny are untrue,” the rights group said in a statement.
Ashford and Burrows also touch on what is perhaps the most important aspect of the US-Russia relationship: arms control. They argue that focusing on human rights inside Russia interferes with progress on arms control. Myles-Primakoff says this argument is irrelevant because Russia decided to extend New START, the vital nuclear treaty that would have expired in February, amid threats of sanctions from the new Biden administration. But extending New START is the bare minimum Washington and Russia could do.
As the two largest nuclear powers, the US and Russia have an obligation to the world to negotiate new treaties to dismantle their enormous arsenals. With the Biden administration slapping new sanctions on Russia over Navalny, it makes it much harder for Moscow and Washington to negotiate a new treaty. New START had a built-in five-year extension, so renewing the treaty took little more than a phone call. A brand new treaty would require good faith.
But most funders of the Atlantic Council have no interest in nuclear treaties or easing tensions with Moscow. The think tank receives contributions from the top US weapons makers, including Raytheon, General Atomics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. The Atlantic Council is also funded by NATO, an alliance that has an interest in keeping tensions high and presenting Russia’s annexation of Crimea as an unprovoked “invasion.”
With these facts in mind, it’s no surprise that Ashford and Burrows’ article caused such a stir within the Atlantic Council. By making such a fuss over a mild criticism of Washington’s hostile approach to Russia, the Atlantic Council fellows showed their hand.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/17/2021 – 02:00 - The Great American Delusion: 'Just That One Guy'
The Great American Delusion: ‘Just That One Guy’
Authored by Patrick Armstrong via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
There is an objective reality: and the most powerful and strong-willed individual can only shape the future within the existing possibilities.
In my career I used to participate in regular meetings with an American intelligence agency. I – we – were always fascinated by their obsession with individuals. One time they proudly presented each of our group with a chart showing the Boss’ associates distributed into three groups. I’m sure creating this had cost a lot of time and money, but what use was it? Did it allow us to predict better, understand better? Of course it didn’t. Quite apart from the absurdity of thinking that an individual was 100% in one group and 0% in the other two – least one fitted two groups equally well – the truth was that they were a team which made decisions and outsiders had no idea what went on inside the process. The three-group division just led to more ungrounded speculation – if some decision were imagined to be to the benefit of one group, then a flurry of speculation about who was up and who was down would erupt. Theorising in the absence of data: a labour of crackpots. Lots of money, time and promotions but very little understanding. On another occasion their predictions at a leadership change were entirely personal – if X, then this, if Y, then that. (And the person who actually did succeed wasn’t on their list.) My group’s approach was to try and describe what constraints the as-yet-unknown successor would have to deal with. We were trying to work out the context; they were talking personalities. But there is an objective reality: and the most powerful and strong-willed individual can only shape the future within the existing possibilities. The American assumption seemed to be that the boss had unconstrained choices. Now it’s true that they thought of the country as a “dictatorship” but never even in the greatest tyranny has the ruler been able to do anything he wanted to. No wonder they have, over the ensuing twenty years, been invariably wrong. The simple-minded and ignorant obsession with personalities leads nowhere.
Did it begin with the Calvinists of Plymouth Rock and their division of humanity into the saved and the damned? Was it reinforced a century and a half later by the conviction that King George single-handedly caused “repeated Injuries and Usurpations” and urged on “the merciless Indian Savages”? Or is it of more recent origin? Hollywood’s rugged individuals saving the day at the end of the movie? Who can say, but it seems to be hard-wired into the American view of the world – or at least their view of the rest of the world. And the news media play along every time: the problem is Leader X, if we replace him, all will be better.
I have just finished a book about the CIA which mentions the Kennedy Administration’s obsession about Fidel Castro. “‘We were hysterical about Castro,’ Defense Secretary Robert McNamara acknowledged”; there were innumerable assassination plots. The missile crisis seems to have brought Kennedy to his senses and, a couple of months before his assassination, the CIA principal had to tell the mobster he had picked to organise it that the plot to kill Castro had been terminated. None of it amounted to anything and, in the words of one player “so much of the goddamn stuff was really juvenile.” Sixty years later, Fidel Castro is gone but Cuba remains – still defiant.
Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran was a problem; after he was overthrown Iran was not a problem for a while but today it’s an even bigger problem; and they still resent his overthrow. Ngô Đình Diệm in Vietnam was a problem; but his death just led to more war. Mohamed Farrah Aidid of Somalia was another who had to go, but after the Battle Of Mogadishu it was the Americans and NATO who went; Somalia, much now as it was then, has faded from the news. Slobodan Milošević was the Butcher of the Balkans until a court found that he wasn’t so guilty after all. Saddam Hussein was a pretty comprehensive problem, the NYT informed us; now he’s gone and Iraq is still a problem – can’t win it, can’t leave it. Kims in North Korea come and go; it remains the same. And so on and on – Assad, Maduro, Qaddafi, Arafat, Daniel Ortega and Yanukovych; all individuals who were imagined to be the single roadblock in the path of… The Better, Progress, Democracy and all other Good Things.
But the two biggest are Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. I have written enough about the crazy American obsession with Putin: five years ago I wrote A Brief Compendium of Nonsense About Putin. Since then he has grown in monstrosity: election rigger, computer hacker, serial poisoner, “Russia under Putin poses an existential threat to the United States and other countries of the West, Russia’s neighbors, and his own people” is a typical effusion. Note the personalism: the “existential threat” is “Russia under Putin”, not “Russia”. If only Putin could be got rid of…
The author of this piece goes on: “China will be at the top of the to-do list”. And the Atlantic Council has emitted The Longer Telegram: Toward A New American China Strategy written by Anonymous. Clearly it is supposed to echo Mr X’s (George Kennan’s) Long Telegram. But some differences: this is longer – much longer, grinding on for seven times the length of Kennan’s essay. Secondly, Kennan himself didn’t think that his recommendations had been well followed and was utterly opposed to NATO expansion and Western triumphantasies. I will certainly not waste my time reading this midden of prolixity (one wishes an ex-PFC Wintergreen had binned it), the summary is more than enough – and it’s longer than Kennan’s essay. The very first sentence puts us on familiar ground
The single most important challenge facing the United States in the twenty-first century is the rise of an increasingly authoritarian China under President and General Secretary Xi Jinping.
“China under President and General Secretary Xi Jinping”, “Russia under Putin”. Back to personalities.
…Xi has returned China… quasi-Maoist personality cult… systematic elimination of his political opponents…. Xi has used ethnonationalism… Xi’s China… Xi has demonstrated… China under… Xi is no longer just a problem for U.S. primacy. He now presents a serious problem for the whole of the democratic world…
He is the problem and “All U.S. political and policy responses to China therefore should be focused through the principal lens of Xi himself.” No Xi, no problem; no Putin, no problem; no Saddam, no problem; no Qaddafi, no problem. Away we go again.
Better informed people point out that Xi Jinping’s policies have a context: we start with Deng Xiaoping’s strategic guideline “hide capabilities and bide time”. Once capabilities could no longer be hidden, they moved to Hu Jintao’s “Actively Accomplish Something”. That something – or rather, those many somethings – are being actively accomplished by Xi Jinping. Far from a polity captured by a personality, China has a collective leadership focussed on a long-term strategy.
But that is only one voice in the background and the personality-obsessed (Very Much) Longer Telegram comes from the Atlantic Council which has a far greater influence on U.S. and NATO activities. As it is engummed in personalism, so are they.
What do the personality-obsessed suggest be done to get rid of Xi? Well, this is a little more difficult than other cases: bombing got rid of Saddam and Qaddafi but China is too strong. Economic measures, as even someone as dim as Anonymous realises, might hurt the USA more than China. Stripped of nostalgianism (the U.S. must “retain collective economic and technological superiority”), delusion (“Dividing Russia from China in the future is equally [critical]”) and degraded touchstones (“current rules-based liberal international order and, critically, its ideological underpinnings, including core democratic values”), the strategy offered is pitiful.
We are invited to be “laser focused” on the assumption that Xi’s so-called one man rule is resented by many in China; if a wedge can be driven into the leadership, Beijing will return to the happy pre-Xi state when
China, under all five of its post-Mao leaders prior to Xi, was able to work with the United States. Under them, China aimed to join the existing international order, not to remake it in China’s own image. Now, however, the mission for U.S. China strategy should be to see China return to its pre-2013 path—i.e., the pre-Xi strategic status quo.
One is reminded of Napoleon’s delusion that Russia’s nobles could be wedged away from Alexander and the undying conviction that one more targetted sanction will make Putin’s henchmen kick him out. But, enough of Anonymous’ fancies – they have no base in reality: the USA out-sourced its manufacturing to China long ago and won’t be getting it back, wokeism is killing its education system, its politics are broken, its military is losing everywhere and doesn’t realise it, a tsunami of debt has built up. Most absurd of all, after years of needless hostility to Russia, Washington has no hope of separating Moscow from Beijing. And Xi Jinping is not some rogue who seized control – he is the top of a robust pyramid.
The only significance of this paltry effort is that it gives us another – and depressingly influential – example of the curious American obsession with personalities – everything in Chinese-U.S. relations was going along swimmingly until Xi. But actually, as anyone capable of seeing reality knows, China is much, much more than one man.
China/Russia/Iran/Iraq/insert-name-of-country was happy to accept its place in the Rules-Based International Order until that nasty Xi/Putin/Ayatollah/Saddam/insert-name changed everything; get rid of him and it will all fix itself.
When are they going to understand that it’s a whole country, not just one guy?
Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/17/2021 – 00:05 - US Admits Waging InfoWar Against Russia's Sputnik Vaccine To "Combat Malign Influence"
US Admits Waging InfoWar Against Russia’s Sputnik Vaccine To “Combat Malign Influence”
The Kremlin on Tuesday called out what’s it’s dubbed the “unprecedented” propaganda war against Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. The words were issued by spokesman Dmitry Peskov in response to widespread allegations that the Untied States is actively trying to dissuade its allies from purchasing the Russian-produced vaccine. This despite the emerging scientific consensus that’s found it to be at least 91% effective while further preventing inoculated persons from becoming severely ill.
The Kremlin is responding to newly emerged proof that the US intervened with the largest country in South America, Brazil. The Washington Post details that “Buried deep in the dry, 72-page annual report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lay a startling admission: U.S. health officials under President Donald Trump worked to convince Brazil to reject Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine.”
US Dep. of Health publicly confirmed that it pressured Brazil against Sputnik V.
We believe countries should work together to save lives. Efforts to undermine the vaccines are unethical and are costing lives.
👇https://t.co/Ga5i4zvbCt P.48 pic.twitter.com/A6wyKOkc8t— Sputnik V (@sputnikvaccine) March 15, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Brazil has long stood as the second highest COVID-19 infected country in the world behind the US, with over 11.5 confirmed infections so far (with the US now approaching the 30 million mark).
Here’s the key controversial section from the 71-page document. The section is entitled “Combatting malignant influence in the Americas”…
“Examples include using OGA’s Health Attache office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine,” the government report spelled out explicitly.
Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since claimed it never received directives or “consultations” such as are described in the report from the US, with a statement saying, “the Embassy of Brazil in Washington has not received consultations or actions from United States authorities or companies regarding the possible purchase, by Brazil, of the Russian vaccine against Covid-19.”
Kremlin spokesman Peskov in his comments didn’t name the allegations specifically but only denounced generally that “In many countries the scale of pressure is quite unprecedented… such selfish attempts to force countries to abandon any vaccines have no prospects.”
“We believe that there should be as many doses of vaccines as possible so that all countries, including the poorest, have the opportunity to stop the pandemic,” Peskov added.
Via Reuters Thus far neither the US Embassy in Moscow nor the US Department of State have responded, according to Reuters.
However, the annual HHS report clearly constitutes a “smoking gun” admission which details that Washington does indeed have a covert policy of blocking the Sputnik V vaccine’s spread. This is ironic given one would think Washington would be more focused on combatting the spread of the pandemic itself, regardless of politics or geopolitical maneuvering.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 23:45 - Study Shows Very Few Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties To 'Right-Wing' Groups
Study Shows Very Few Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties To ‘Right-Wing’ Groups
Authored by Victoria Taft via PJ Media (emphasis ours),
A survey by the University of Chicago finds that most Capitol Hill rioters had no ties to any fringe right-wing groups and were merely engaged people outraged by what they believed was a rigged election.
AP Photo/John Minchillo While colorful weirdos with names such as QAnon Shaman and Baked Alaska stole the headlines, people who were arrested by federal officials during and after the riot were a “broader core of people” with a healthy skepticism about the veracity of the November 2020 election, according to the study.
QAnon Shaman: ‘I regret entering that building with every fibre of my body’ https://t.co/YpLx4dhw57
— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) March 5, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
There was plenty of reason for the skepticism, considering the collusion between Big Tech, unions, lawfare, and Democrats’ combined efforts to sway the election. Those efforts were at the very least unethical.
As Time Magazine enthused in an article entitled, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” “there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the [election] scenes” of an “informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans” to “save” the election from Donald Trump.
The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President.
[…]Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.
Rather than being ill-informed, it appears that the Capitol Building rioters may have been better informed than most on these moves to sway the election.
In a “working paper” that is considered to be a “novel approach” to “estimating community-level participation in mass protest events,” Asst. Prof. Austin Wright of the Harris School of Public Policy and David Van Dijcke of the University of Michigan found a surprising number of the people arrested at the Capitol Hill riot who were business owners and other professionals obviously upset over election fraud.
The paper found that those arrested were “more likely to have traveled to the Capitol from Trump-voting “islands,” where residents are surrounded by neighborhoods with higher numbers of Biden supporters.” More than half came from counties that Joe Biden carried.
Though the researchers include the fact that the overwhelming number of people live in Democrat areas, they also highlighted the fact “that proximity to Proud Boy chapters and local levels of engagement with misinformation posted on Parler, the exiled social media platform popular with the far right, are robustly linked to participation in the Capitol rally.”
However, researcher Austin Wright said living in those leftist areas “played a significant role.”
Social isolation and the perception of being threatened by neighboring areas that largely hold opposing political views also played a significant role in who was there.
The researchers also looked at cell phone data such as where in the country Capitol rioters called. Most were in the eastern, central, and southern parts of the country.
Screenshot of study’s findings. Could the cancel culture and being surrounded by people with Trump Derangement Syndrome and other anti-conservatives have helped trigger the attack?
They claimed some of the rioters were on the social media app Parler, though efforts to discover other social media apps used by the people arrested were not noted.
The survey found that approximately 10% percent of the Capitol rioters had a connection with Proud Boys, which they describe as a “hate group,” and Oath Keepers.
Nearly 90% had no ties or right-wing affiliations whatsoever.
And they found out that 85% of the people arrested were business owners or held down white-collar jobs.
WTTW TV reported that researchers hadn’t even needed a “business owner” category before when looking into protest groups. Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, oversaw the study and said the caliber of people at the riot was surprising.
“Normally, we don’t even have a category for ‘business owner’ when we study political violence, so this is a very big sign that we’re dealing with a new political movement with violence at its core that can’t be reduced to the usual suspects.”
Jobs held by Capitol rioters. Perhaps they should consider that the 2020 election was seen by half the country as rigged. Election integrity efforts, not name-calling, lawfare, and canceling others who hold politically opposing views, will be key in winning back confidence in the elections process. If Democrats pass HR 1, all bets will be off.
Victoria Taft is the host of “The Adult in the Room Podcast With Victoria Taft” where you can hear her series on “Antifa Versus Mike Strickland.” Find it here.Follow her on Facebook, Twitter, Parler, MeWe, Minds @VictoriaTaft
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 23:25 - 8 Dead, 3 Wounded In Georgia Massage Parlor Rampage, 21-Year-Old Suspect Arrested
8 Dead, 3 Wounded In Georgia Massage Parlor Rampage, 21-Year-Old Suspect Arrested
After an hours long manhunt, a 21-year-old man has been captured in southwest Georgia, hours after eight people were killed in shootings at three Atlanta-area massage parlors…
Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Capt. Jay Baker said the suspect, Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, was taken into custody in Crisp County, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) south of Atlanta.
The eight women were shot dead in three separate incidents at two spas and a massage parlor in and around Atlanta.
Around 5 p.m., five people were shot (4 dead, 1 wounded) at Young’s Asian Massage Parlor in Acworth, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Atlanta, Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Capt. Jay Baker said.
From there, The Daily Mail reports that it’s believed Long drove more than 30 miles where a further two shootings occurred in northeast of the city in the suburb of Woodland Hills.
Atlanta police officers responding to a call of a robbery in progress at Gold Spa around 5:50 p.m. found three women dead from apparent gunshot wounds, police said.
While on the scene at Gold Spa, cops reportedly received a second call from the Aromatherapy Spa directly across the street and found one woman had been shot and killed there as well.
While authorities were not immediately releasing the gender or race of the victims, Atlanta Police Chief Rodney Bryant said all victims were female and “it appears that they may be Asian.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 23:05 - Russia Reveals Total Number Of Soldiers Killed In Syria, Blasts "Morally Bankrupt" US Policies
Russia Reveals Total Number Of Soldiers Killed In Syria, Blasts “Morally Bankrupt” US Policies
The First Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee of the State Duma, Andrei Krasov, announced that 112 Russian soldiers were killed during the entirety of the armed conflict in Syria, according to Sputnik Arabic.
The deputy’s statements came during a meeting with the State Duma Committee for Health Affairs, during which he said:
“According to recent military data provided by the Russian Ministry of Defense, about 112 soldiers have been killed in Syria since the beginning of the armed conflict.”
AFP via Getty Images This figure is far lower than the over 260 Russian armed forces deaths put forth by non-state monitoring groups like the anti-Assad Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).
The Russian military officially entered the war in Syira on September 30, 2015 and have since established a number of bases across the country, including its main installation at the Hmemim Airport in Latakia.
Among the most prominent field achievements made by the Syrian forces, with the support of Russia, was the lifting of the three-year-long siege on the city of Deir Ezzor, which was imposed on the administrative capital by the Islamic State (ISIS/Daesh).
Furthermore, the Syrian Arab Army was able to retake a large amount of territory in the central part of the country that was occupied by the Islamic State since 2015; this included the ancient city of Palmyra (Tadmur) and the strategic Al-Sha’er Gas Fields. While the Syrian conflict has witnessed a significant decrease in violence since 2015, clashes are still ongoing in the central part of the country, where the Islamic State has reemerged.
“We need to make the Russians pay a price in Syria…” the former Deputy Director of the CIA said in a 2016 interview.
Meanwhile a top Russian diplomat blasted the US continuing ‘dirty war’ on Syria on Tuesday.
Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin attacked the “morally bankrupt and unacceptable” US and UK sanctions meant to choke Damascus into submission.
My latest: China joins Russia in blasting “illegal” strategy backed by U.S. in Syria war
“In the past 10 years, Syria has been injured by illegal invasion and foreign occupation and maimed by terrorism and unilateral sanctions,” @zlj517 saidhttps://t.co/ZJbYD67Qxo pic.twitter.com/uSyc2zMvA4
— 𝕋om 𝕆’ℂonnor (@ShaolinTom) March 16, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“Development in Syria is being hindered not only by the consequences of conflict and COVID pandemic, but also by the illegal unilateral sanctions imposed on Syria by the US, the UK and some of their allies,” Amb. Kelin said.
“These restrictive measures not only put obstacles to the economic recovery, but also prevent essential purchases of pharmaceuticals, medical and construction equipment. This is morally corrupt and unacceptable.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:45 - Up To Two-Thirds Of Entry-Level Tech Jobs Go To Foreign Guest-Workers From Unranked Colleges
Up To Two-Thirds Of Entry-Level Tech Jobs Go To Foreign Guest-Workers From Unranked Colleges
A new report from Bloomberg reveals that up to two-thirds of entry-level tech jobs go to foreign guest workers from low-ranked colleges who don’t dare complain about long work long hours and low wages lest they destroy their chances of a green card – as opposed to hiring debt-laden American graduates willing to grind just as hard, yet have no such immigration leverage to exploit.
According to the report, the United States in 2018 had “between 96,000 and 143,000 openings in IT occupations that typically went to candidates with a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or engineering.”
Meanwhile, the government grants annual “Occupational Practical Training” (OPT) work permits to hundreds of thousands of foreigners attending American universities – while also inviting roughly 85,000 foreign graduates to reside and work in the United States on H-1B work visas.
In total, “OPT participants accounted for anywhere from one-third to one-half of new hires. If you add H-1B candidates, up to two-thirds of openings went to guest workers,” reads the report, which Breitbart News‘ Neil Munro notes relies heavily on Rutgers University high-tech employment expert, Hal Salzman.
Setting the bar low
When it comes to education, few OPT workers attended ranked colleges. “More than 70% of nonresident computer science master’s degrees awarded in 2018 came from unranked programs, or those ranked 50 and lower by U.S. News and World Report. Just 17% came from schools ranked in the top 25. [universities].”
Breitbart News has extensively reported on the fraud-ridden OPT program — and its sister program, the Curricular Practical Training program — which provides Fortune 500 companies with roughly 400,000 cheap foreign workers each year.
The OPTs — and the many similar H-1B, L-12, J-1, and TN visa workers — fill many starter-jobs and mid-career white-collar jobs in a wide variety of industry sectors, including tech, healthcare, academia, accounting, and design.
Few of the OPT workers complain about their lower-wage jobs because their CEOs can fire them at will. –Breitbart
At least one million foreign workers are working in low-wage white collar jobs, according to the report, which says that the “Green Card Workforce” contributes to suppressed salaries and a lack of American innovation.
Biden’s DHS opens the ‘OPT’ door wider for many foreign college graduates to take starter jobs & careers from new US graduates.
That’s a reversal from Trump, when his deputies quietly tried to help American grads get the jobs. #H1B, #OPThttps://t.co/Y3o9PIgpTj— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) March 4, 2021
Read the rest of the report here.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:25 - Who And What Killed George Floyd?
Who And What Killed George Floyd?
Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,
Friday, as the jury was being empaneled for the trial of fired police officer Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis City Council voted 13-0 to approve a record $27 million civil settlement with the family of George Floyd over his death in police custody.
The jury will not likely miss this message sent by the city fathers:
I.e., an atrocity was perpetrated by our police, and we are admitting our responsibility and doing our duty by offering these reparations for Floyd’s cruel and unjustified death and the suffering visited on his family.
Most Americans who saw the nine-minute tape of Chauvin with his knee on the neck of George Floyd as he pleaded, “I can’t breathe,” will probably concur with the charge of criminal culpability of Chauvin.
Yet, over the months, new facts and factors have emerged.
George Floyd was not choked to death. He was not asphyxiated. He was not killed by Chauvin’s knee on the side of his neck. An autopsy showed Floyd’s neck muscles were not even bruised.
Floyd died when his heart stopped. Yet, he was already suffering from an enlarged heart with constricted arteries, one of five of which was 90% blocked and two others were 75% blocked.
An autopsy found heavy concentrations of fentanyl in Floyd’s system and traces of methamphetamines. If Floyd had collapsed and died in the street while being wrested into the squad car, his death would have been attributed to a drug overdose and a bad heart.
Also, a videotape of the minutes prior to Floyd’s being put on the pavement, his neck under Chauvin’s knee, shows Floyd crying, repeatedly, “I can’t breathe,” while resisting the two rookie cops trying to put him in the patrol car.
Moreover, there is testimony from those with Floyd when he was stopped for passing an allegedly phony $20 bill, that he had passed out in the car before the cops arrived.
And the arresting cops claim he was foaming at the mouth before being restrained.
In short, Chauvin’s defense attorneys will likely make a credible case, backed by evidence, that Floyd’s death was not caused by the knee on his neck but by the battered condition of his heart, the near-lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, and his anxiety and panic at being arrested and fearing, as he wailed, that he was going to be shot.
The prosecution will counter-claim that Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck, and the two other cops sitting on him, precipitated the stopping of his heart.
But the prosecution faces other questions.
How could Chauvin, who arrived late to the scene, know Floyd was a drug addict with a serious heart condition and a large amount of fentanyl in his system, before using the restraint technique of sitting on him and putting a knee on the side of his neck?
What was Chauvin trying to do when he arrived to see two rookie cops trying to cope with a powerfully built, six-foot-four-inch, 220-pound man violently resisting arrest?
Did Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s neck to kill him? To torture or injure him? Or did he use the technique to restrain him?
Prosecutors will contend that the knee on the neck was criminal assault, a felony that caused Floyd to black out and his heart to stop?
But that raises another question:
Is placing a knee on the side of the neck an outlawed or a prohibited procedure for police to use to restrain a suspect violently resisting arrest, as a chokehold is in some precincts?
Or is it a procedure some police use legally at times?
Chauvin was clearly familiar with the technique. Had he used it before without injury to a suspect?
In a motion to dismiss the charges he himself faces in the death of Floyd, former police officer Thomas Lane included 30 pages of Minneapolis PD training materials including information on the “maximal restraint technique.” Lane included a photo of an officer with a knee on a suspect’s neck, similar to the hold used by Chauvin.
In preparing for the trial of Chauvin, Minneapolis has fortified, with concrete barriers, fences and razor wire, the courthouse where it will be held. Understandably, for any acquittal of Chauvin, or conviction on a lesser charge than murder, could trigger a riot like those that plagued the city through the summer of 2020.
And if a mob does take to the streets in Minneapolis, as it did all last summer, the national reaction will be telling.
How does one accurately describe a crowd that gathers outside a courthouse to demand, on the threat of a riot, a verdict of guilty?
And should a riot occur — and violent protests in Louisville, Seattle and Portland over the weekend seem to point to another such long hot summer – may we expect our new national leaders (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer) to denounce the mob and stand up unequivocally for the rule of law?
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:05 - Biden Says Cuomo Should Resign If Investigation Confirms Harassment Allegations From 7 Women
Biden Says Cuomo Should Resign If Investigation Confirms Harassment Allegations From 7 Women
After doing everything he could to avoid getting dragged into Cuomogate (some still recall the name Tara Reid) and making an official statement on the record, late on Tuesday Joe Biden said that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo should resign if an investigation confirms the sexual harassment allegations against him.
In what Bloomberg has dubbed “his most extensive comments about accusations made by several women against his longtime Democratic ally”, Biden reiterated his support for seeing the inquiry carried out but said that its findings could force the three-term governor from office.
Asked by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos if Cuomo should step down if the investigation confirms the allegations, Biden replied, “Yes” adding that “I think he’ll probably end up being prosecuted, too.” At another point in the conversation, Biden repeated the expectation, saying “there could be a criminal prosecution that is attached to it.”
EXCLUSIVE: @GStephanopoulos on Gov. Andrew Cuomo: “If the investigation confirms the claims of the women, should he resign?”
“Yes,” Pres. Biden says. “I think he’ll probably end up being prosecuted, too.” https://t.co/a6qfOJ9Byp pic.twitter.com/EiC63wtnUo
— ABC News (@ABC) March 17, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Well of course he will say that if the allegations are confirmed. The real question is whether Biden – a staunch believer that women never lie, especially #metoo women who are taking down republican opponents except when one of those women turns her attention on Biden himself – will challenge the recollections and veracity of the increasingly more numerous accusers who are now almost in the double digits… when it involves a close political ally.
So caught in a bit of a bind, Biden said that “a woman should be presumed telling the truth and should not be scapegoated and become victimized by her coming forward.”
Well, then Cuomo should quit right? Not exactly, because while the presumption that a woman is telling the truth is equivalent to the presumption of guilt for the target of her allegations if that someone is republican, when it comes to fellow democrats it gets… complicated.
Which is why Biden once again refused to make any definitive statements, instead falling back to what he told reporters on Sunday that he was waiting for the probe to be carried out. ”I think the investigation is underway and we should see what it brings us,” BIden said in response to a question about whether the New York governor should resign; he echoed as much on Tuesday when he said that “the presumption” is that allegations should be taken seriously and investigated “and that’s what’s underway now.”
Asked if Cuomo can continue to serve effectively even as New York elected officials including both of the state’s U.S. senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, have said he should step down, Biden responded: “Well, that’s a judgment for them to make.”
According to CNN, the comments mark the President’s most explicit repudiation of Cuomo since multiple women made allegations of sexual harassment or unwanted advances against the New York governor. They came in an interview with Stephanopoulos in which Biden encouraged migrants not to come to the US as a crisis unfolds at the country’s southwestern border — with thousands of unaccompanied children now in federal custody — and he expressed openness to changing the Senate’s filibuster rule for the first time.
Seven women have accused Cuomo of sexual misconduct and inappropriate workplace behavior. Cuomo, however, has repeatedly refused to step down and denied the allegations. The governor is also in deep trouble for his mishandling of the covid fiasco in New York; he could be criminally liable for dozens of nursing home deaths due to his catastrophic mishandling of the crisis… for which he won an Emmy and received constant praise from the “bluecheck” brigade.
WATCH: Media pundits praised New York Governor Cuomo unquestioningly for a year before the scandals caught up with him pic.twitter.com/qH9z0wSdVu
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) March 9, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
State Attorney General Letitia James has appointed an outside attorney to investigate the claims made against Cuomo. State Assembly members last week initiated an impeachment investigation into the misconduct claims that could lead to his removal.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 21:48 - Alibaba Browser Pulled From China's App Stores As Xi Warns Tech Giants Pose "Risks" To CCP Control
Alibaba Browser Pulled From China’s App Stores As Xi Warns Tech Giants Pose “Risks” To CCP Control
Months after Beijing’s crackdown on China’s tech behemoths like Alibaba and Tencent unofficially commenced with the scuttling of Ant Group’s domestic IPO (what would have been the biggest corporate debut yet on the officially Communist nation’s public markets), President Xi finally spoke out about the campaign, suggesting that it’s only just getting started.
And as if to underline his point, western media outlets reported Tuesday morning that Alibaba’s popular web browser had been removed from Chinese app stores. While removing apps is a common punishment in China for companies that have transgressed in the eyes of the CCP, the decision to suspend the Alibaba browser (known as the UC Browser) follows reports about the CCP leaning on Alibaba to divest its media holdings. The CCP reportedly fears that Alibaba’s vast news media properties represent an unwelcome rival to Beijing’s own propaganda machine.
The decision to remove the popular UC Browser is the latest hit to the empire of Jack Ma, China’s most famous entrepreneur, after regulators scuppered the record $37bn initial public offering of Ant Group, Alibaba’s financial technology affiliate. Ma has barely been seen in public since the listing was pulled last November, as Xi tightens Beijing’s grip on the economy.
According to minutes from a meeting of senior CCP leaders, President Xi warned that tech giants are growing “in an inappropriate manner” that creates risks for the Chinese system.
“Some platform companies are growing in an inappropriate manner and therefore bear risks. It is a considerable problem that the current regulatory regime has failed to adjust” to the rise of these groups,” the minutes of the meeting said. Regulators will “step up” efforts to improve the regulation of China’s big internet companies, the minutes added.
Xi added that the development of China’s platform economy is currently at a crucial stage, and it’s necessary to focus on the long term, strengthen weaknesses and create an innovative environment to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the platform economy. In the past, Xi has spoken about the importance of limiting monopolies, but this is the first time he has specifically addressed the problems posed by “platform” companies like Tencent, Alibaba, JD.co and others.
Jack Ma
Circling back to Alibaba, the decision to pull its browser from the app store followed the airing of a lengthy feature report slamming China’s tech industry during a prime time slot on China’s consumer rights day.
The effort against UC Browser came after a programme on state-owned broadcaster CCTV targeted the tech industry on China’s consumer rights day, an annual event when the channel investigates alleged malpractice and documents the findings on a primetime show.
This year’s programme included a segment on misleading online medical advertising. UC Browser was shown to allow private hospitals to bid for the names of China’s large well-known hospitals in keyword searches, leading potential patients to their websites instead of the public hospitals they intended to visit.
But taking on Alibaba might be only the beginning. While Tencent founder Pony Ma has been more circumspect than Alibaba’s Jack Ma, whose errant comments at a tech conference in October were blamed for initially provoking the CCP, there’s no question that Tencent’s WeChat is the uber-app in China’s highly technological economy, where people routinely pay for goods via their smartphones thanks t the app. Tencent shares have plunged on the crackdown news as the company has also been targeted by China’s anti-trust regulators – even though so far Alibaba has faced most of the heat.
As Rabobank’s Michael Every pointed out in a recent note to clients, the authorities seem to be sending the message that data and media must be state and not private-owned. That’s terrible news for Tencent, which is already being pushed to form a financial holding company to house its banking, insurance and payments businesses. Warburg Pincus slashed its estimated range for Ant Group’s valuation, calling for a range of between $200BN and $250BN, down from $280BN before the IPO unraveled, yet another sign that western investors are growing wary of the CCP’s intentions. Alibaba and Tencent shares have tumbled on the crackdown as well.
China of course has massive tech ambitions, and these necessarily involve data and media. And while there’s no question that China has benefited from the astronomical economic growth afforded by these firms, a threat to the CCP’s dominance is still a threat no matter what.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 21:45 - "It's Gone Parabolic": Canadian Housing In One Shocking Chart
“It’s Gone Parabolic”: Canadian Housing In One Shocking Chart
It probably does not need much commentary, but as BMO Senior Economist Robert Kavcic writes in his morning charts, “if it’s not fully apparent to all parties that the Canadian housing market is boiling, this picture might convey the message…”
Kavcic urges readers to note the acceleration: “that is, the 1-month change is faster than 3-month; which is faster than the 6-month; which is faster than the 12-month. In all cases but the 12-month (and that won’t be long either), price growth has accelerated through the rates seen in 2017, when policymakers were working on multiple fronts to tame the market.”
* * *
Curious for more: here are some facts on the state of Canada’s overheating housing market courtesy of BMO:
Canadian Existing Home Sales (Feb.) — The Wild North
Canadian existing home sales rose 6.6% in seasonally-adjusted terms in February, setting yet another record level. From a year ago, sales were up a hefty 39.2%, and the gains are about to look even more gawdy once we see comparisons to March, April and May (recall that the market was locked down last year). We’ve discussed at great length the factors that are driving record demand, but in case you’re new to the scene, here’s a quick refresher:
- Employment in higher-paying industries recovered swiftly, supporting incomes among potential homebuyers.
- Mortgage rates plumbed record lows and, while they’re backing up now, they’re still below pre-COVID levels, while many buyers are likely still on pre-approvals with rates locked in.
- There’s has been a dramatic shift in preferences toward more space, further outside major urban centres (commuting requirements are down, and probably assumed to remain down).
- Limited travel has created historic demand for second (recreational) properties, and households have equity in existing properties to tap.
- Younger households are likely pulling forward moves that would have otherwise happened in the years ahead.
- There has to be some FOMO and speculative activity in the market at this point (which is, unfortunately, tough to show with hard data until after the fact).
On the flip side, there is precious little supply to meet that demand, at least in segments that the market wants. New listings actually jumped 15.8% (seasonally adjusted) in February, but the 11% gain from a year ago still trails well behind sales. More importantly, the standing inventory on the market remains almost non-existent by historical standards. The months’ supply of homes for sale across the country hit a record low of 1.8 in the month (the norm is about 5). Even if we re-set the sales pace to pre-COVID norms, we’d still only have about the half the normal supply on the market. Why? Here’s another quick refresher:
- Mobility is down, so it stands to reason that listings (i.e., movement) are down, particularly for those in desirable locations to ride out the pandemic.
- The past 15 years or so have been characterized by intensification, with new condo development running at twice the rate of that for single-detached homes – that’s not what the market wants right now.
This leaves us with a perfect storm for higher home prices outside the major-city condo sector. The MLS benchmark price jumped 17.3% y/y in February, within reaching distance of the 2017 high (when policymakers were working on multiple fronts to cool the market). Annualized growth over the past six months was even stronger at 24%; and month-over-month, price growth in February alone was the strongest on record (dating back to 2000). In other words, parabolic.
Regionally, almost all of the country is participating, with sales up by double-digits or more in all markets outside Quebec (that market is not weak by any means). Meantime, 22 of 26 major markets have seen the average transactions price rise by double-digits, with 20%-to-40% gains common. Markets that entered the pandemic in a position of strength (e.g., Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal) have strengthened further, while markets that were in the doldrums (e.g., Calgary, Edmonton, to a lesser extent Vancouver) have re-emerged. And, the strongest momentum is in what we can loosely call “cottage country”, with average price gains in some locations running around 50% y/y.
In a separate release, Canadian housing starts pulled back to 245,900 annualized units in February, a still-high level following a near-record print in the prior month. Just so we’re clear that this is not a winter wonder, starts on a twelve-month average basis are running at 227k annualized, the strongest such pace since 2008; and over the past six months, starts are averaging 242k, the highest since at least 1990. Both single- and multi-unit starts declined in the month, as did all provinces but British Columbia.
The Bottom Line: It should be fully apparent to all parties that the Canadian housing market is boiling, with strength across most markets, and extreme conditions in some.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 21:05 - The Consent Of The Governed
The Consent Of The Governed
Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,
In Holland Sunday, a protest demonstration against government Covid policies provoked a emergency order from that same government against thousands of people gathering in a place to … protest. The police and government had only “allowed” 200 demonstrators. So the government “allowed” a protest against itself, but demanded the right to determine where, how, and with how many people it could take place. But that’s not really a protest, is it? The police deployed dogs, horses and water cannons to disperse the crowd.
In Greece, a video appeared last Sunday of a policeman severely beating a man. Protests against that have occurred daily since. The prime minister spoke out against the protests, not the policeman. That made people even angrier. And then he proposed a “police reform” law. Yeah. And everybody lived happily ever after. But under heavy restrictions.
In the UK, a peaceful vigil for a woman kidnapped and murdered -by a policeman!- was broken up by police Saturday because there was “no permission” given for it. Several women were handcuffed and dragged across the pavement. Meanwhile, the government is introducing a “police reform” law (they’re popular these days!) that would impose conditions even on one-person protests. And protesters can’t make noise. And so much police will be deployed that it may become too costly to “allow” the protest.
In Canberra, capital of Australia, 10s of 1000s protested because of a rape scandal inside government buildings. Good thing the restrictions were recently eased, or the same government that’s so busy trying to hide the scandal would have not “allowed” the protest.
It’s perfectly safe to call this extremism. It all takes place against the background of one year of failed Covid measures and restrictions. Though of course governments will always claim the pandemic would have been much worse without them. But after a year, what right do they still have to impose restrictions? What right did they ever have in the first place to tell people they cannot travel, assemble, see their family or go to work? And how has that right, if they ever had it, changed after a year-long “emergency”?
I’ve talked about legal issues before, but I still don’t see them discussed. I see no supreme courts testing laws or calling governments back. People in democracies are told they have basic and inalienable rights. But not anymore. Joe Biden talked about how Americans could, if they were good and obedient, maybe invite a few friends over for the Fourth of July. How many inalienable rights does that trample on in one go?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Where did these governments all go wrong? Well, here:
And here:
They’re not benign public servants, they’re drug pushers -in this case vaccines- with armies and bodyguards. They protect corporations and institutions, not the rights of their people. They’re not democrats, they’re authoritarians. We are ruled by ideologies, not principles. The only rights we have are those that they “allow” us to have. There are no basic or inalienable rights left. Our politicians represent, and serve, long established parties and systems that have ruled for at least decades, in a symbiosis with corporations.
If there’s one lesson to learn from the sordid never-ending Covid episode it must be that: your human rights are just a thin veneer that serves to make your reality look nice and shiny, but may be scraped off at any moment. What does that say about our forefathers and -mothers who fought, and died, in order to provide us with inalienable rights? Do we really owe those people less than we owe our current ruling classes?
I read yesterday that the health minister of Jordan has resigned because 6 Covid patients died due to a failing oxygen supply in a hospital. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen a politician being held to account for Covid failure. And even he is probably just a scapegoat.
I’ve seen a few reports on the damage the lockdowns and other measures do to children’s minds. They mostly talk about schools being closed, as if schools are every child’s happy place. Of course not. Children simply need other children, so they can find their place in the world, it has nothing to do with a school. But this goes far beyond children, untold millions of adults also will come away with mental traumas. People need people.
We have a few questions we should ask ourselves. History teaches us that rights being taken away are awfully hard to regain. That the Constitution talks about the Consent of the Governed also means that the governed were considered to be able to make proper, just decisions about their own lives, and had the right to do that, without goverment intervention.
But you are not.
* * *
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:45 - "All Hell Could Break Loose": The Fate Of The Market Is In The Median 2023 Dot
“All Hell Could Break Loose”: The Fate Of The Market Is In The Median 2023 Dot
With less than 24 hours to go until one of the most closely watch Fed announcements in a long time, the VIX finds itself hanging just below 20, the gamma gravity in the S&P is at 4,000 while dealers remains short Nasdaq/QQQ gamma (which however is shrinking by the day). In short, depending on what Powell says (we previewed how market would respond to a hawkish… and dovish Fed), markets could tumble or surge.
A quick rundown of the key technical factors ahead of tomorrow’s 2pm announcement:
As our friends at SpotGamma note, the 400/4000 Call Wall in SPY/SPX has grown in size to over $5BN from yesterday – 10k 4000 strike calls were added yesterday, along with 100k SPY calls (to 400) – which increases its “pull” and yet total gamma is little changed in the S&P500 (that said, due to the FOMC tomorrow SG does not expect much movement today a forecast which has so far proven accurate).
On the other hand, Nasdaq/QQQ gamma remains negative, but that continues to shrink and SG notes that the upcoming March op-ex should flush out the remainder of that negative gamma position.
Meanwhile, the VIX continues to slide which is rather curious ahead of a major event-risk day such as the FOMC.
Putting it all together, Nomura’s Charlie McElligott notes predicts “massive days ahead for markets”, between heavy central bank information and options flows around quarterly expiration, particularly noting
- the release of the Fed dots, featuring what Charlie calls the “credibility conundrum” of the market anticipating and pricing a ’23 rate liftoff along with Nomura/GS/JPM all calling for +25bps in 2023, yet with Bloomberg “consensus” of Street economists expecting that the Fed will not likely reflect this in their median forecast in order to strengthen their own forward guidance and avoid further tantrums (something we expanded on earlier), and…
- US serial Op-Ex in VIX Wed (ahead of the Fed) and Quad Witch Equities on Friday, which has the potential to unlock new ranges and see a heavy reduction of risk and Delta.
Echoing SpotGamma’s forecast, McElligott notes that the quarterly equities expiration is likely to see “very substantial dealer gamma unclenching thereafter”, which following Op-Ex “exposes markets to larger price ranges with the inherent reduction of dealer hedging flows as that risk goes away, while the market is long a ton of Delta in SPX and IWM, and also set to be sharply de-risked, (SPX net Delta +$308.8B (85th %ile), with front-month +$209.4B and front-week +$139.2B of that).
Next, the Nomura quant quantifies the impact of the expiration, writing that he sees a post Op-Ex reduction of the aggregate Gamma of -44.7% SPX / SPY, while the QQQ change is even greater at -60.0% (IWM is -50.5%; EEM is -62.7%), so as thresholds expire, CME warns that “we are open to big moves in both directions next week”
Going back to the Fed, McElligott says that he believes that if we do get a “soft-surprise” of +25bps on median ’23 dot, that the Rates market will just keep feeding that status quo, grinding bear-steepener, but the immediate flow through is that stocks would knee-jerk trade lower (at least short-term), “as it would be higher yields for “tightening” and not “higher growth- / inflation- expectations”; ultimately though, the Nomura strategist views this is a much “healthier” outcome for both Rates and Equities markets. As a reminder, earlier we showed Goldman’s projections for the Fed’s latest set of dots, with the bank expecting 11 participants to show at least one hike in 2023 versus 7 showing no hikes (Of those showing at least one hike, most will show just one, but a handful will show two or more, in line with market expectations of 3 rate hikes)
Alternatively, McElligott writes that if that ’23 median dot doesn’t move, the Equities party may likely gap-higher with the largest Gamma strike at Spooz 4000 being easily in-play and beyond (Charlie’s summary of the Greeks is charted below), while the previously discussed standoff in rates market-pricing vs the Fed “will only grow wider and force an eventually dangerous reckoning at a future point – market pricing QE Taper in ’22, first hike in late ’22, 3 or more hikes in ’23…..vs Fed “kicking the can” until a later date – but not now, with stocks staging a furious relief rally in response.
Finally, as a reminder, the x-factor for rates or spreads – not to mention stocks – is the Fed’s “deafening silence” on SLR relief—with nothing still yet to be addressed there (more on that in a post latter today) leading to the “reflation” bear-steepener getting further pressed by traders until the narrative is altered either by data, some risk-off catalyst or the Fed/politicians finally concede on extending the SLR as the alternative could spark a full-blown bond (and stock) market crash.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:44 - U.S. Joins India And China In Ramping Coal Usage To Pre-Pandemic Levels
U.S. Joins India And China In Ramping Coal Usage To Pre-Pandemic Levels
Major users of coal across the world are set to ramp up their usage of the fossil fuel in coming months.
Power plants in the U.S. are expected to consume 16% more coal this year than in 2020 and another 3% on top of that in 2022. China and India also have “no plans to cut back” their use of burning the fossil fueld. In fact, “it’ll almost be as if the pandemic-induced drop in emissions never happened,” Bloomberg reports.
Inevitably, this will result in higher emissions, which stands at stark odds with the climate initiatives that President Joe Biden ran on. Amanda Levin, policy analyst at the New York-based National Resources Defense Council said: “We’re going to see a really marked increase in emissions with coal consumption at U.S. power plants returning almost to 2019 levels.”
She says that changes to mitigate usage could happen quickly if Biden implements his planned green-energy policies.
In the U.S., the ramp comes as a result of both costlier natural gas, and a broad re-opening from the pandemic. For India and China, the steady use is indicative of growing demand, despite the fact that both countries are trying to use wind and solar, as well. China’s power consumption, for example, has grown, despite the country reducing coal’s share in the nation’s energy makeup.
President Biden’s upcoming infrastructure bill is expected to include plans to “fulfill his campaign pledges on climate change, making the U.S. best poised to salvage progress in reducing global emissions,” Bloomberg reports.
In China, President Xi Jinping has committed to net-zero emissions by 2060.
India has not memorialized such an agreement yet and remains a “very long way” from a clean grid. The country said it is ahead of schedule to meet the initial carbon reduction pledged under the Paris Agreement. Coal still accounts for about 70% of the country’s electricity generation and consumption at plants will rise 10% this year. In fact, the climb is expected to continue every year through “at least 2027”.
Binay Dayal, technical director of Coal India, said: “There are climate-change issues about coal, but India’s energy needs won’t allow it to dump the fuel instantly.”
In the U.S., demand for the fuel was cut by 19% due to the pandemic last year. That, coupled with roaring natural gas prices, make for a tailwind in coal usages throughout 2021 and into 2022.
Dennis Wamsted, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, still thinks the longer-term trend for coal is lower, especially as emerging markets have started to favor gas and renewables. He concluded that for the long-term: “The trend is down, down and continuing to go down.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:25 - Former BlackRock ESG Chief: American Public Is Being Duped By "Greenwashing"-Wall-Streeters
Former BlackRock ESG Chief: American Public Is Being Duped By “Greenwashing”-Wall-Streeters
Over a month ago we first exposed the “Green Scam”. ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance, has become the virtue-signaling tour de force for asset mangers to skim even greater margins off retail dupes under pressure from their liberal peers. And since the green movement was here to stay, so was the wave of pro-ESG investing which every single bank has been pitching to its clients because, well you know, it’s the socially, environmentally and financially responsible thing.
There is just one problem. Instead of finding companies that, well, care for the environment, for society or are for a progressive governance movement, it turns out that the most popular holdings of all those virtue signaling ESG funds are companies such as…. Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon, which one would be hard pressed to explain how their actions do anything that is of benefit for the environment, or whatever the S and G stand for. It gets better: among the other most popular ESG companies are consulting company Accenture (?), Procter & Gamble (??), and… drumroll, JPMorgan (!!?!!!?!).
Yes, for all those who are speechless by the fact that the latest virtue-signaling investing farce is nothing more than the pure cristalized hypocrisy of Wall Street and America’s most valuable corporations, who have all risen above the $1 trillion market cap bogey because they found a brilliant hook with which to attract the world’s most gullible, bleeding-heart liberals and frankly everybody else into believing they are fixing the world by investing in “ESG” when instead they are just making Jeff Bezos and Jamie Dimon richer beyond their wildest dreams, here is Credit Suisse’s summary of the 108 most popular ESG funds. Please try hard not to laugh when reading what “socially responsible, environmentally safe, aggressively progressive” companies that one buys when one investing into the “Green”, aka ESG scam.
And today we get confirmation from ex-insider. Tariq Fancy, former chief investment officer for Sustainable Investing at BlackRock, wrote an op-ed in USAToday admitting that Wall Street is greenwashing the financial world, making sustainable investing merely PR, which is a distraction from the problem of climate change.
The financial services industry is duping the American public with its pro-environment, sustainable investing practices. This multitrillion dollar arena of socially conscious investing is being presented as something it’s not. In essence, Wall Street is greenwashing the economic system and, in the process, creating a deadly distraction. I should know; I was at the heart of it.
As the former chief investment officer of Sustainable Investing at BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world with $8.7 trillion in assets, I led the charge to incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) into our global investments. In fact, our messaging helped mainstream the concept that pursuing social good was also good for the bottom line. Sadly, that’s all it is, a hopeful idea. In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community.
SEC looking to ‘proactively identify ESG-related misconduct’
In many instances across the industry, existing mutual funds are cynically rebranded as “green” — with no discernible change to the fund itself or its underlying strategies — simply for the sake of appearances and marketing purposes. In other cases, ESG products contain irresponsible companies such as petroleum majors and other large polluters like “fast fashion” manufacturing to boost the fund’s performance. There are even portfolio managers who actively mine ESG data to bet against environmentally responsible companies in the name of profit, a short-selling strategy. Risk managers are focused on protecting their investment portfolios from potential damages done by a worsening climate rather than helping prevent that damage from occurring in the first place.
As disheartening as this reality is, claiming to be environmentally responsible is profitable. Last year alone, ESG mutual funds and exchange-traded funds nearly doubled. The investment community understandably reacted to this with cheers. But those cheers were only for fund managers and their bottom lines. No matter what they tout as green investing, portfolio managers are legally bound (as well as financially incentivized) to do nothing that compromises profits. To advance real change in the environment simply doesn’t yield the same return.
In early March, my sentiments were echoed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which announced it was creating a Climate and ESG Task Force to “proactively identify ESG-related misconduct” such as inaccurate or incomplete disclosures by funds and companies — an unprecedented move that suggests there might be abuses that have gone unaddressed.
Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to learn some painful lessons. The initial response of rosy forecasts, loose half-measures and group denial boosted morale, but it also lulled the public into a false sense of security that prolonged and worsened the crisis.
We need to fix the system before disaster strikes
While how we fight a pandemic and climate change are very different, one aspect is clear. Both threats can only be won through the combined efforts of science and policy. In response to the pandemic, we’ve learned that only top-down government action, such as forcing the closure of high-risk venues and mandating masks indoors, makes a real difference. A “free market” will not correct itself or fix the problem by its own accord.
Imagine the planet is a cancer patient, and climate change is the cancer. Wall Street is prescribing wheatgrass: A well-marketed, profitable idea that has no chance of curing or even slowing down the cancer. In this scenario, wheatgrass is the deadly distraction, misleading the public and delaying lifesaving measures like chemotherapy. But like giving false hope to unproven cures in the midst of a pandemic, the consequences of such irresponsibility are all too obvious. And motivation for why the industry continues to greenwash is all too obvious.
When I left the industry in late 2019, due to family business obligations following the passing of my father-in-law, I was frustrated by the lack of any real change. But I took some comfort in believing that if we weren’t doing as much as we could, at least we weren’t doing any harm. Since my departure, I have had a lot of time to think about this issue, and I’ve reassessed my opinion. I believe we are doing irreversible harm by stalling and greenwashing. And all in the name of profits.
We’re running out of time and need to accept the truth: To fix our system and curb a growing disaster, we need government to fix the rules.
Fancy appeared later in the day on CNBC and stunned the always-ready-to-virtue-signal anchor by telling her that that “the financial services industry is duping the American public with pro-environment, sustainable investing practices.”
He added that there is no evidence ESG investing has any social impact.
Watch the full interview here:
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:05 - Chinese Tech Giants Build Tools To Bypass Apple's New Privacy Controls
Chinese Tech Giants Build Tools To Bypass Apple’s New Privacy Controls
As Beijing works to bring China’s powerful tech giants to heel, the FT has published a report detailing how Chinese tech giants are working to override new privacy controls being introduced by Apple to help protect the privacy of iPhone users from ruthless digital advertisers.
Of course, the new privacy controls being introduced by Apple will make it harder to track iPhone users without their consent, something that both Facebook and the Chinese state see as a major problem. Pretty soon, America’s biggest social media giant might be lobbying to compare notes with the state-backed China Advertising Association.
Some of China’s biggest technology companies, including ByteDance and Tencent, are testing a tool to bypass Apple’s new privacy rules and continue tracking iPhone users without their consent to serve them targeted mobile advertisements. Apple is expected in the coming weeks to roll out changes it announced last June to iPhones that it says will give users more privacy.
Until now, apps have been able to rely on Apple’s IDFA system to see who clicks on ads and which apps are downloaded. In future, they will have to ask permission to gather tracking data, a change which is expected to deal a multibillion-dollar bombshell to the online advertising industry, and has been fought by Facebook, since most users are expected to decline to be tracked.
In response, the state-backed China Advertising Association, which has 2,000 members, has launched a new way to track and identify iPhone users called CAID, which is being widely tested by tech companies and advertisers in the country.
Per the FT, TikTok-owner ByteDance published a new 11-page guide for Chinese app developers suggesting that advertisers can use this new CAID system to track iPhone users, assuming the CAID technology has been embedded in the app. The FT managed to confirm that ByteDance and Tencent (which is also seeking to leverage CAID) are already testing the technology. While several parties are working to circumvent Apple’s new privacy controls (which, remember, threaten to hammer the digital advertising businesses of Facebook, Google and other US tech giants), Apple says it won’t grant any exemptions, potentially placing the company on the path toward a confrontation with Beijing.
“The App Store terms and guidelines apply equally to all developers around the world, including Apple,” the company said. “We believe strongly that users should be asked for their permission before being tracked. Apps that are found to disregard the user’s choice will be rejected.”
One person familiar with the situation said Apple would be able to detect which apps use the new tracking tool, but even so, it will need to tread carefully. Starting to ban apps backed by state-linked businesses could see Apple kicked out of China.
But Zach Edwards, founder of Victory Medium, a tech consultancy, said: “They can’t ban every app in China. If they did it would effectively trigger a series of actions that would get Apple kicked out of China.” Three people with knowledge of briefings between Apple and developers also said the Cupertino, California-based company would be wary of taking strong action, despite a clear violation of its stated rules, if CAID has the support of China’s tech giants as well as its government agencies. Rich Bishop, chief executive of AppInChina, a leading publisher of international software in China, suggested that Apple might “make an exception for China” because tech companies and the government are “so closely aligned”.
Fortunately, it looks like Apple has allowed for some wiggle room for Chinese apps…and others as well, since, according to the CAA, there is already demand for its workaround from European companies and advertising firms.
Meanwhile, Yang Congan, chief executive of Digital Union, a Beijing-based data privacy company, suggested that CAID had been designed to get around Apple’s rules because its tracking methods might not “uniquely” identify the user. “This is the room that the industry has left to explore,” said Yang, who suggested this grey area was intentional.
The CAA said the CAID solution “does not stand in opposition to Apple’s privacy policy” and that the association “is currently actively communicating with Apple, and the [CAID] solution has not yet been formally implemented”. CAID has been in a free demo phase for select companies in recent months. Two people briefed on the issue say Apple is aware of the tool and seems to have so far turned a blind eye to its use.
The system is intended for use by local app developers in China, but at least one French gaming group has been encouraged to apply to use it and several foreign advertising companies have already applied on behalf of their Chinese divisions, two people familiar with the matter said. CAID is scheduled to be publicly released as soon as this week, according to a person briefed on the plan.
Dina Srinivasan, a US-based antitrust scholar, said the issue highlighted how Apple’s policies alone could not solve glaring privacy issues. “The big picture is that there is simply too much money at stake,” she said. “There will always be an arms race to track consumers. Only legislation can make it stop.”
In other words, it looks like Apple’s new rules are just another exercise in pro-privacy box-checking, because actually protecting consumers’ privacy simply isn’t financially feasible anymore.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 19:45 - Alaska Republican Party Censures Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Vows To Primary Her
Alaska Republican Party Censures Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Vows To Primary Her
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Alaska Republican Party voted to censure Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and vowed to issue a primary challenge to her in 2022—coming after she voted to convict former President Donald Trump during February’s impeachment trial.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) arrives before the fifth day of the Senate Impeachment trials for former President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Feb. 13, 2021. (Stefani Reynolds – Pool/Getty Images) The state Republican Party said (pdf) it passed a resolution to censure—another term for a strong condemnation—Murkowski not only for her vote to convict Trump last month, but because she voted in favor of Democratic-led initiatives such as not placing limits on abortions, against the GOP-led repeal of Obamacare, and voted in favor of President Joe Biden’s pick for Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, among others.
The aforementioned votes, the state Republican Party said, were “in conflict with the Alaska Republican Party platform.”
The Alaska Republican Party said it will now “recruit a Republican primary challenger to oppose and prohibit Senator Murkowski from being a candidate in any Republican primary to the extent legally permissible.”
According to the GOP’s resolution, Murkowski also voted “present” rather than in support of the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and “repeatedly spoken critically of President Trump throughout his term in office.”
NRSC chair Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) has attempted to quell in-party fighting and said his committee will support incumbent senators for reelection in the 2022 midterms. That goes against what Trump proclaimed in his speech to conservative activists in Florida last month, where he promised to primary Murkowski, the six other Republican senators who convicted him, and all of the House members who voted with Democrats to impeach him.
Last week, Trump issued a statement saying he would pledge to campaign against her next year.
“She represents her state badly and her country even worse. I do not know where other people will be next year, but I know where I will be—in Alaska campaigning against a disloyal and very bad senator,” the former president said.
The Epoch Times has contacted Murkowski’s office for comment.
In February, the Alaska senator said she would “vote again” to convict Trump if she were asked to do so.
“If the party is to censure me because they felt that I needed to support the party, they can make that statement, but I will make the statement again that my obligation is to support the Constitution that I have pledged to uphold, and I will do that, even if it means I have to oppose the direction of my state party,” Murkowski said, according to the Anchorage Daily News.
Murkowski hasn’t said whether she would seek another term in office. Murkowski won her reelection with 44 percent of the vote in 2016 against Libertarian candidate Joe Miller, who netted 29 percent.
Other than Murkowski, Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) have been censured by Republicans in their home states following the impeachment vote. The Utah GOP said it will not censure Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), while Maine’s Republican Party has yet to meet on how to handle Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Both Collins and Romney also voted to convict.
* * *
It seems Murkowski may pay the price for her loyalty to the Democrats…
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 19:25 - US Intelligence "On Alert" As North Korea Poised For First Weapons Test Of Biden Era
US Intelligence “On Alert” As North Korea Poised For First Weapons Test Of Biden Era
At a sensitive moment that both US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are traveling in Asia where they are discussing both China and North Korea policies with allied leaders in Tokyo and Seoul on Tuesday and Wednesday, CNN has cited US intelligence officials who say Pyongyang is likely preparing to conduct its first weapons test since Biden entered the White House.
CNN’s Barabara Starr reports that American intelligence agencies “are on alert as the US and South Korea conduct scaled-down, simulated military exercises” and further that “North Korea might decide whether to go through with a test after seeing what comes out of Blinken and Austin’s meetings in Asia.”
The White House is reported to be mulling a response should North Korea actually go through with a test.
Also on Tuesday, as CNN details, a top US general who heads up US Northern Command (which overseas defense of the continental United States), Gen. Glen Van Herck, issued the following warning:
“The Kim Jong Un regime has achieved alarming success in its quest to demonstrate the capability to threaten the U.S. homeland with nuclear-armed ICBMs, believing such weapons are necessary to deter US military action and ensure his regime’s survival.”
Meanwhile, on the same day the powerful sister of Kim Jong Un, Kim Yo Jong, warned the United States it must “refrain from causing a stink” if it desires to “sleep in peace” over the next four years.
“We take this opportunity to warn the new U.S. administration trying hard to give off gun powder smell in our land,” she said. “If it wants to sleep in peace for coming four years, it had better refrain from causing a stink at its first step,” she added. It marked the first time the ‘rogue regime’ directly addressed the new Biden administration.
“I don’t have a direct comment or response to the comments made from North Korea,” replies @PressSec on Air Force One when asked about Kim Jong Un’s sister’s remark that the US shouldn’t “cause a stink” with the #DPRK.
— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) March 16, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
However, one prominent regional affairs expert, Tom Fowdy, called attention to the timing of all this sudden bluster out of Pyongyang, noting that “North Korea are masters at getting America’s attention and forcing themselves on the agenda. By making a series of threats now, Pyongyang are unintendedly distracting the US from the anti-China dynamic of Blinken’s visits too.”
“North Korea plays what is essentially a small hand, to the absolute best of their ability every time. The two countries’ situations are very different, but it has to be said they are far more tactful, strategic, prudent and outright Machiavellian negotiators than China,” he added.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 19:05
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
