Today’s News 17th October 2018

• Global Beer Supply In Jeopardy "Due to Extreme Drought And Heat," Study Warns 

  Beer is the most popular alcoholic beverage in the world by volume consumed, and yields of its main ingredient: barley, decrease sharply in the event of extreme weather 

  A team of agricultural specialists and climate economists published a new study Monday in the Journal of Nature Plants, found the connection between extreme weather conditions, such as drought or heat, and the global consumption of beer. 

  Fig.2 | Average barley yield shocks during extreme event years 

  

  Researchers from the University of East Anglia warned that global beer supply could be in jeopardy due to extreme weather conditions affecting the production of barley — the main ingredient in beer. 

  Their computer models found barley yields could plunge 3% to 17% across the world by the end of the century, which would trigger a 16% decline in global beer consumption and cause beer prices to inflate massively. 

  The report shows that the consumption of barley, by country, is used primarily for animal feed, with only 17% of the crop used for brewing. 

  Fig.3 | Barley consumption by country and globally under future climate change 

  

  Researchers said that declining yields could have a disproportionate impact on beer production, making a cheap cold beer unaffordable for the working class. 

  “We made the assumption that farmers may be able to adapt to gradual changes, but it may be harder to adapt to more extreme events,” said Steven Davis, the study’s lead author, who studies environmental impacts of global trade at the University of Calfornia, Irvine. 

  To model extreme events, the team identified droughts and heat waves that might co-occur during growing seasons.

  “The aim of the study is not to encourage people to drink more today,” Dabo Guan, a co-author of the study and professor of climate change economics at the University of East Anglia, told CNN. Instead, the team wanted to show how volatile weather patterns could impact the quality of life for the working class. 

  In the event of a substantial barley crop failure, computer models show beer prices could double worldwide, and the US would see a 20% collapse in beer consumption — that would be equivalent to approximately 10 billion cans of beer. Places like Ireland could fair worse; beer price inflation would add an extra $21 per six-pack. 

  Fig. 4| Changes in beer consumption and price under increasingly severe drought-heat events 

  

  “If you don’t want that to happen–if you still want a few pints of beer–then the only way to do it is to mitigate climate change,” said Guan.

  The study’s co-author also said global beer shortage would have the most impact on the working class, thus triggering significant social and political consequences for governments.  

  The Wall Street Journal said brewers and farmers had been geoengineering barley to increase resilience to get ahead of climate changes. 

  “We have seen there are changes that are already happening,” said Jess Newman, director of U.S. Agronomy at AB InBev, which is currently testing new barley strains among its 4,500 farmers. “We are proactively investing in breeding and crop management to make sure our growers can thrive in the new world.” 

  Bart Watson, the chief economist for Brewers Association, told WSJ that such extreme effects were unlikely considering current efforts to protect beer’s ingredients. “Not to underrate the challenges of climate change but we’d anticipate the barley system will continue to evolve and adapt,” he said. 

  The study raises important questions about how the global food supply chain is going to adapt to climate change.

  President Trump on Sunday told CBS’ 60 Minutes in an interview that climate change is ‘not a hoax’ but suggested that humans might not cause it. 

  Trump also said that climate change scientists have a “political agenda,” as the study above is certainly based on fearmongering propaganda towards the working class. Otherwise, why would climate researchers examine beer? Most working class folk wash down their gig-economy woes with a cheap cold beer — what happens if climate change causes price inflation? As explained above, a beer shortage would lead to societal upheavals.

  

• Czech Politician: What Multiculturalism Hides

  Authored by Jan Keller (a Czech Social Democrat Member of the European Parliament), via The Gatestone Institute,

  Multiculturalism is not a manifestation of Europe’s generosity, or some noble embodiment of love and truth. Multiculturalism is what remains after mass migration reveals itself as a threat, rather than a benefit, to the economies of European countries.

  

  Take, for instance, the example of France. After the Second World War, when France underwent a boom of economic growth, waves of migration were viewed favorably: there were many job opportunities for unskilled and medium-skilled laborers, and the native French population aspired to work in the tertiary sector, which offered more qualified, better-paid jobs. From the end of the war until the mid-1970s, foreign workers tended to come to France temporarily, without their families, and return to their countries of origin. These workers were generally recruited from former French colonies to do menial and low-paying jobs — not in order to enrich the culture of the host country.

  At the end of the 1970s, that situation changed. Foreign workers began coming to France with their families and also having children after arriving in the country. At the same time, however, there were changes in the economy that ended up leaving descendants of the recruited workers hopeless. While their parents had experienced some upward mobility, they themselves — even those with a higher level of education than their parents — were left with fewer job opportunities and became a surplus on the labor market; they also did not have another place to go. In other words, they had been born in a country that suddenly had nothing to offer. The only thing that the government could come up with was a rationale for the dire situation — a mission for these children of migrants: that they should enrich themselves culturally in the country to which their parents had migrated. This new policy of multiculturalism, which emphasizes the benefits of cultural diversity for society and the state, is an example of the exploitation of others based on a fantasy of virtue. Those at whom the sweet talk of multiculturalism is aimed, can see that it has done nothing to improve their lot, and are now realizing that their future is bleak.

  Now let us look at those who favor multiculturalism for the Czech Republic, in Eastern Europe, which has been resistant to it. What they do not grasp is that the Czech Republic today does not resemble France in the early part of the 20th century. We Czechs do not need to recruit foreign workers to perform menial jobs. On the contrary, we need to develop an economy based on skilled labor. It also does not make sense for us to seek highly skilled migrants for this purpose. Such migrants prefer countries whose languages they speak and in which they can earn higher wages than those offered in the Czech Republic. Furthermore, given the problematic nature of our current education system, which is unable adequately to prepare graduates for jobs in tech companies, it would be absurd for us to rely on technology experts from developing countries to rescue our economy.

  Some politicians claim that we need a mass wave of immigrants to care for our elderly. This is controversial: in a new country, if they are unskilled, they will barely be able to care for themselves, let alone for others, and will present an additional burden to our already overburdened social security system. If, on the other hand, we bring in highly qualified immigrants to our workforce, we would be taking away from poorer countries the best they have to offer. What right do we have to use them to solve our own problems? If we take them away from their countries of origin, the situation in those countries will further deteriorate. The result will be an even greater flow of unskilled migrants escaping those countries. These new arrivals will create an even greater burden on the social security system than it will incentivize economic development. That consequence is not because migrants are lazier or less ambitious than the local population. Their disadvantages are due to other factors, such as difficulty with a new language and that they tend to have larger families.

  For decades, there has been a debate in Europe between the effort to slim down the welfare state, as opposed to continuing it to meet the needs of various disadvantaged sectors of the population. This debate has intensified sharply as the mass wave of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East has threatened to increase significantly the number of welfare recipients in Europe.

  Under these circumstances, the nature of multiculturalism has changed. It has become a means to exert fierce psychological pressure primarily on the middle- and lower-income sectors in Europe. One form this pressure has taken is the equating of the plight of the current refugees to emigrants escaping to the West from behind the Iron Curtain. The comparison, however, does not really apply. The Eastern European at that time emigrants did not aspire to achieve “multicultural status”. Their goal was to integrate — to adapt to a society that was so generous as to have accepted them.

  In short, mass waves of migrants represent statistically significantly greater risks than opportunities. They do not serve to boost prosperity. Our insurance systems, which were founded by, and developed for, the nation states whose populations they were meant to serve, were simply never designed to cover them.

  The proponents of the new multiculturalism want to share their welfare states with masses of refugees who — through no fault of their own — will be unable to participate in financing themselves for a long time to come.

  

• China To Unveil Next-Generation Stealth Bomber In 2019 

  Last week, the Global Times confirmed that the Hong-20, China’s newest long-range stealth bomber was ready for imminent trial flights. 

  Now, it seems Chinese media, as per Defense Blog, has indicated that the stealth bomber will be unveiled during a massive military parade in 2019. 

  

  While there is no official statement or confirmation from the Chinese government or military, the unveiling is expected to occurring during a period where JPMorgan expects a full-blown trade war between the US and China. 

  According to fresh reports, China will show the world its new stealth bomber at an air force military parade to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) in the second half of 2019. 

  The program was confirmed in 2016 when official PLA-affiliated sources announced the developed of the bomber. PLA Air Force General Ma Xiaotian, stated, “our long-range strike capability has much improved compared to the past, and an even bigger improvement is coming. We are developing a new generation of long-range bomber.” 

  

  Andreas Rupprecht, an aviation journalist at Jamestown Foundation, recently reported that the stealth bomber has been in development since the late 1990s and or early 2000s. 

  Last week, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times that trial flights of China’s stealth bomber would be immient. He said disclosing the new plane is a potential deterrence to our enemies. 

  

  “Usually the development of equipment and weaponry of the People’s Liberation Army is highly confidential,” he said, but with the threat of a full-blown trade war in 2019, and a potential flare-up of military conflict in the South China Sea; Beijing is trying to flex its military muscles for the fight ahead. 

  The Global Times quoted air force researcher Fu Qianshao as saying the ultimate goal for the stealth bomber is to boost operational range to 12,000 kilometers with 20-tons of payload.

  

  Asia Times said the bomber could be the solution for China to fire missiles at American mainland assets. 

  In addition to this, the outline of an unknown stealth aircraft was spotted earlier this month on a large banner at a celebration for China’s strategic bomber division; military observers speculate it could be the new bomber. The party was held on Oct. 07 at an unspecified strategic bomber division facility under the PLA Eastern Theater Command. 

  

  The frontal view of the aircraft was shown at the party but did not match China’s known stealth bomber because of its angled winglets on the ends of its wings; also there was no visible tail. 

  This is not the first time an aircraft rumored to be the mysterious stealth bomber has made a public appearance. 

  China’s aviation giant, Aviation Industry Corporation, revealed a model jet, believed to be the US B2 stealth bomber-like model “H20”, in a 9-second Easter egg in a video commemorating 60 years of its subsidy Xi’an Aircraft Industrial Corporation. https://t.co/yD5k0Ecc0O pic.twitter.com/kLWJkxSaXh

  — Global Times (@globaltimesnews) May 9, 2018

  In May, we reported that Aviation Industry Corporation of China, one of China’s most significant aerospace and defense companies (ranked 159th in the Fortune Global 500 lists), released a five-minute video commemorating the 60th anniversary of its subsidiary the Xi-an Aircraft Industrial Corporation. In the last 10-seconds of the footage, a sneak peek into one of the most secretive aerospace projects to date — the development of the next-generation stealth bomber. 

  Looks like US war planners will have to factor in China’s next-generation stealth bomber into the fight, as the threat of trade war could send both countries into a potential hot conflict. 

   

  

• Pepe Escobar: Welcome To The G-20 From Hell

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

  World leaders wrestle with a maelstrom of complex, burning issues as they prepare for November 30 summit…

  

  The G-20 in Buenos Aires on November 30 could set the world on fire – perhaps literally. Let’s start with the US-China trade war. Washington won’t even start discussing trade with China at the G-20 unless Beijing comes up with a quite detailed list of potential concessions.

  The word from Chinese negotiators is not at all bleak. Some sort of agreement could be reached on about a third of US demands. Debate on another third could ensue. But the last third is absolutely off-limits – due to Chinese national security imperatives, such as refusing to allow the opening of the domestic cloud computing market to foreign competition.

  Beijing has appointed Vice-Premier Liu He and Vice-President Wang Qishan to supervise all negotiations with Washington. They face an uphill task: to pierce through President Donald Trump’s limited attention span.

  On top of it, Beijing demands a “point person” with the authority to negotiate on behalf of Trump – considering the mixed-message traffic jam out of Washington.

  Now compare this with the message coming from the research institute fabulously named Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era under the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC): the US has started the “trade friction” essentially “to hinder China’s industrial upgrading.”

  That’s the consensus at the top.

  And the clash is bound to get worse. Vice President Mike Pence accused China of “meddling in American democracy,” “debt diplomacy,” “currency manipulation,” and “IP theft.” The Foreign Ministry in Beijing dismissed it all as “ridiculous.”

  It’s enlightening to pay close attention to what Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the Council on Foreign Relations – as diplomatically as possible: “China will follow a path of development different from historical powers.” And China will not seek hegemony.

  From the point of view of the US National Security Strategy, that’s irrelevant; China has been framed as a fierce competitor and even a threat. President Xi Jinping will not cave in to Washington’s trade demands. So expect a possible non-meeting between Xi and Trump in Buenos Aires.

  The threat of a nuclear first strike

  Things look even hairier on the Russian front. For all of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Taoist patience, Moscow’s diplomatic circles are exasperated by serious American threats – as in the US Navy possibly enforcing a blockade to restrict Russia’s energy trade. Or worse: the ultimatum that Russia must stop developing a missile that according to Washington violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, otherwise the Pentagon will destroy it.

  This is as serious as it gets – because it amounts to committing to a US nuclear first strike.

  In parallel, BP CEO Bob Dudley told the Oil & Money conference in London that any additional US sanctions against top Russian energy companies would be disastrous. “If sanctions were put on Rosneft or Gazprom or Lukoil like what happened with Rusal, you would virtually shut down the energy systems of Europe, it is a bit of an extreme thing to happen,” he said.

  On the BRICS front, Russia and India deftly maneuvered on their own and managed to squash some US geostrategic planning against the three major poles of Eurasia integration: Russia, China and Iran.

  The Quad – US, Japan, Australia, India – was conceived to box in China across the Indo-Pacific, in parallel to confining Russia’s margin of maneuver. The Quad is not exactly in sterling form after India decided to buy Russian S-400 missile systems. Trump has promised revenge.

  On top of the S-400 deal, Russian companies will be building six additional nuclear reactors in India, at a cost of $20 billion each, over the next decade. Rosneft signed a 10-year deal to sell India 10 million tons of oil a year. And India will continue to buy oil from Iran, paying for it in rupees.

  On the EU front, it’s all about Germany. There are few illusions in Berlin about the EU’s wobbly future. The export-centered German economy is focused on Asia. Germany is doubling down on solidifying an Asian-style model – a few large companies that are national champions able to turbo-charge exports. The US market – under protectionist winds – now is just an afterthought.

  Toxic tropics

  Then there’s the Brazilian tragedy. President Mauricio Macri ruined Argentina with a neoliberal shock. The nation is now a hostage of the IMF.

  A possible scenario is a G-20 in which Argentina will be learning how to deal with a fascist leading its close neighbor and top trade partner, Brazil.

  Former paratrooper Jair Bolsonaro may be xenophobic and mysoginistic, but is certainly not a nationalist. The self-billed tropical “Messiah” routinely salutes the US flag. His economic hit man is a Chicago Boy bent on selling the country out – much to the delight of “investors” and “market” experts from New York and Zurich to Rio and Sao Paulo.

  Forget about creating jobs or even attempting to solve Brazil’s immense social problems: acute social inequality, pressing investments in health and education, urban insecurity. Bolsonaro’s only “policy” is to weaponize the population in a Mad Max remix.

  Everything under Bolsonaro should proceed under the unmitigated reign of a Hobbesian “free” market. Forget about any possibility of a moderating state intervention in the complex relations between Capital and Labor.

  This is the apex of a complex process unleashed years ago in Brazil via think tanks such as the Atlas Network, loads of money and, last but not least, an evangelical/neo-pentecostal tsunami.

  The pillars of the Brazilian carnage are powerful agro-business and mineral exploitation interests, toxic Brazilian mainstream media, evangelicals, a financial sector totally subservient to Wall Street, the weapons industry, the completely politicized judiciary, the police, intel services, and the armed forces.

  And the stars of the show are of course the Beef-Bible-Bullet combo – with their scores of Congress members – overseen by the Goddess of the Market.

  Neoliberalism never wins elections in Brazil. So the only way to implement “reforms” is via a sub-Pinochet. Expect widespread social-environmental havoc, indiscriminate killing of rural and native Brazilian leaders, an unmitigated bonanza for the weapons industry, banks celebrating Christmas every week, abysmal cultural repression, total denationalization of the economy, and workers and pensioners paying for all these “reforms.” Call it business as usual.

  Bolsonaro’s fascist tendencies were normalized not only by the powers that be in Brazil. Argentina’s Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie qualified him as a “center-right” politician.

  Beijing and Moscow – for BRICS reasons – and the EU in Brussels are appalled by Brazil’s descent into the maelstrom. Russia and China were counting on a strong Brazil contributing to a multipolar world as during the time of Lula, who was a major BRICS driving force.

  For the EU, it is hard to stomach a fascist leading their top trading partner in Latin America, and the heart of Mercosur. For the Global South as a whole, the implosion of Brazil, one of its leaders, is an unmitigated tragedy.

  Now picture Washington as a raging compendium of threats and sanctions. An EU fractured to the hilt – denouncing Asian illiberalism while impotent to fight the “rise of the deplorables” at home. BRICS in disarray, with two in a serious clash with Washington, one out of the game and one on the fence – among the top four. The House of Saud rotting from the inside. Iran not even at the G-20 table.

  Time to sing What a Wonderful World.

  

• The Staggering Numbers Behind America's Opioid Epidemic

  Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50, who are now more likely to die from a drug overdose than from car accidents or firearms. The United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest percentage of drug-related deaths in the world.

  However, while opioid abuse is a nationwide problem, Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes that there are specific areas that are being hit harder by this epidemic. Using the location data above, from NORC at the University of Chicago, we can see clusters of counties that have an extremely high rate of overdose deaths. Between 2012 and 2016, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio saw a combined 18,000 deaths related to opioid abuse.

  

  Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

  A sharp increase in prescribed opioid-based painkillers and the rise of illegal fentanyl – which is up to 50 times stronger than heroin – has unleashed the worst public health crisis in American history.

  It’s a problem that can be tough to understand, but by delving into the data, some key observations emerge.

  DOCTORS PRESCRIBED A LOT OF PAIN KILLERS

  Beginning in the 1980s, prescription opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone were heavily marketed as a treatment for pain, and at the time, the risk of addiction to these substances was downplayed. Opioid prescriptions nearly tripled between 1991 and 2011.

  

  Sales of these powerful painkillers are beginning to drop, in part because the risk of addiction has now been widely publicized. Another decelerating factor is the crackdown on clinics and pharmacies that were over-dispensing painkillers, in some cases directly feeding the elicit drug market.

  In 2015, nearly 100 million Americans were prescribed painkillers by their doctor. A recent survey showed one-third of people who abused prescription painkillers in the past year got pills directly from a physician.

  

  This abundance of pills impacts the community at large when excess pills are sold, stolen, or simply given to others. In fact, receiving painkillers from a friend or family member was the most common gateway to abusing opioids.

  FENTANYL IS KILLING A LOT OF PEOPLE

  If doctors have been prescribing opioids for decades, what is causing this recent spike in overdoses? The answer, for the most part, is fentanyl.

  This synthetic opioid presents a problem because it’s extremely potent – it only takes about 2 milligrams to overdose on the drug. Since much of the fentanyl on the market is sourced illegally, doses can and do exceed this amount on a regular basis.

  As a result, overdose deaths related to opioids have skyrocketed in recent years:

  

  OVERDOSES ARE THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG

  The thousands of overdose deaths around the country are the most extreme symptom of the opioid epidemic, but the problem runs much deeper.

  In 2017, there were over 11 million “opioid misusers” in the United States. To put that number in perspective, that’s equivalent to the entire population of Ohio. In fact, the problem is so widespread, that it’s suspected to be influencing workforce participation rates.

  The health care burden of the crisis is also staggering. The cost of opioid abuse ranges from $10,000 to $20,000 in annual medical costs per patient.

  The hard truth is that, unless bold action is taken, the opioid epidemic is projected to claim nearly 500,000 lives over the next decade.

  

• Syria's Chessboard

  Authored by Conn Hallinan via Counterpunch.org,

  The Syrian civil war has always been devilishly complex, with multiple actors following different scripts, but in the past few months it appeared to be winding down. The Damascus government now controls 60 percent of the country and the major population centers, the Islamic State has been routed, and the rebels opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are largely cornered in Idilb Province in the country’s northwest. But suddenly the Americans moved the goal posts – maybe – the Russians have fallen out with the Israelis, the Iranians are digging in their heels, and the Turks are trying to multi-task with a home front in disarray.

  

  So the devil is still very much at work in a war that has lasted more than seven years, claimed up to 500,000 lives, displaced millions of people, destabilized an already fragile Middle East, and is far from over.

  There are at least three theaters in the Syrian war, each with its own complexities: Idilb in the north, the territory east of the Euphrates River, and the region that abuts the southern section of the Golan Heights. Just sorting out the antagonists is daunting. Turks, Iranians, Americans and Kurds are the key actors in the east. Russians, Turks, Kurds and Assad are in a temporary standoff in the north. And Iran, Assad and Israel are in a faceoff near Golan, a conflict that has suddenly drawn in Moscow.

  Assad’s goals are straightforward: reunite the country under the rule of Damascus and begin re-building Syria’s shattered cities. The major roadblock to this is Idilb, the last large concentration of anti-Assad groups, Jihadists linked with al-Qaeda, and a modest Turkish occupation force representing Operation Olive Branch. The province, which borders Turkey in the north, is mountainous and re-taking it promises to be difficult.

  For the time being there is a stand down. The Russians cut a deal with Turkey to demilitarize the area around Idilb city, neutralize the jihadist groups, and re-open major roads. The agreement holds off a joint Assad-Russian assault on Idilb, which would have driven hundreds of thousands of refugees into Turkey and likely have resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties.

  But the agreement is temporary – about a month – because Russia is impatient to end the fighting and begin the reconstruction. However, it is hard to see how the Turks are going to get a handle on the bewildering number of groups packed into the province, some of which they have actively aided for years. Ankara could bring in more soldiers, but Turkey already has troops east of the Euphrates and is teetering on the edge of a major economic crisis. Pouring more wealth into what has become a quagmire may not sit well with the Turkish public, which has seen inflation eat up their paychecks and pensions, and the Turkish Lira fall nearly 40 percent in value in the past year. Local elections will be held in 2019, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party ‘s power is built on improving the economy.

  In Syria’s east, Turkish troops – part of Operation Euphrates Shield – are pushing up against the Americans and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces fighting the Islamic State (IS). Erdogan is far more worried about the Syrian Kurds and the effect they might have on Turkey’s Kurdish population, than he is about the IS. 

  Ankara’s ally in this case is Iran, which is not overly concerned about the Kurds, but quite concerned about the 2,200 Americans. “We need to resolve the difficulty east of the Euphrates and force America out,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in early September.

  That latter goal just got more complex. The U.S. Special Forces were originally charged with aiding the Kurdish and Arab allies drive out the IS. President Donald Trump told a meeting in March, “we’ll be coming out of Syria like very soon.” But that policy appears to have changed. National Security Advisor John Bolton now says U.S. troops will remain in Syria until Iran leaves. Since there is little chance of that happening, the U.S. commitment suddenly sounds open-ended. Bolton’s comment has stirred up some opposition in the U.S. Congress to “mission creep,” although Trump has yet to directly address the situation. 

  The Kurds are caught in the middle. The U.S. has made no commitment to defend them from Turkey, and the Assad regime is pressing to bring the region under Damascus’ control. However, the Syrian government has made overtures to the Kurds for talks about more regional autonomy, and one suspects the Kurds will try to cut a deal to protect them from Ankara. The Russians have been pushing for Assad-Kurd détente.

  Turkey may want to stay in eastern Syria, but it is hard to see how Ankara will be able to do that, especially if the Turks are stretched between Idlib and Euphrates Shield in the east. The simple fact is that Erdogan misjudged the resiliency of the Assad regime and over reached when he thought shooting down a Russian fighter-bomber in 2015 would bring NATO to his rescue and intimidate Moscow. Instead, the Russians now control the skies over Idlib, and Turkey is estranged from NATO. 

  The Russians have been careful in Syria. Their main concerns are keeping their naval base at Latakia, beating up on al-Qaeda and the IS, and supporting their long-time ally Syria.  Instead of responding directly to Erdogan’s 2015 provocation, Moscow brought in their dangerous S-400 anti-aircraft system, a wing of advanced fighter aircraft, and beefed up their naval presence with its advanced radar systems. The message was clear: don’t try that again.

  But the Russians held off the attack on Idlib, and have been trying to keep the Israelis and Iranians from tangling with one another in the region around the Golan Heights. Moscow proposed keeping Iran and its allies at least 60 miles from the Israeli border, but Israel—and now the U.S.—is demanding Iran fully withdraw from Syria.

  The Assad regime wants Teheran to stay, but also to avoid any major shootout between Iran and Israel that would catch Damascus in the middle. In spite of hundreds of Israeli air attacks into Syria, there has been no counter attacks by the Syrians or the Iranians, suggesting that Assad has ruled out any violent reaction.

  That all came to end Sept 17, when Israeli aircraft apparently used a Russian Ilyushin-M20 electronic reconnaissance plane to mask an attack on Damascus. Syrian anti-aircraft responded and ending up shooting down the Russian plane and killing all aboard.  Russia blamed the Israelis and a few days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow was sending its S-300 anti-aircraft system to Syria, along with a series of upgrades in Damascus’ radar network. Syria currently uses the S-200 system that goes back to the ‘60s.

  The upgrade will not really threaten Israeli aircraft – the S-300 is dated and the Israelis likely have the electronics to overcome it – but suddenly the skies over Syria are no longer uncontested, and, if Tel Aviv decides to go after the Syrian radar grid, the Russians have their S-400 in the wings. Not checkmate, but check.

  How all of this shakes down is hardly clear, but there are glimmers of solution out there.

  

  Turkey will have to eventually withdraw from Syria, but will probably get some concessions over how much autonomy Syria’s Kurds will end up with. The Kurds can cut a deal with Assad because the regime needs peace. The Iranians want to keep their influence in Syria and a link to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but don’t want a serious dustup with Israel. 

  An upcoming Istanbul summit on Syria of Russia, France, Turkey and Germany will talk about a political solution to the civil war and post-war reconstruction.

  Israel will eventually have to come to terms with Iran as a major player in the Middle East and recognize that the great “united front” against Teheran of Washington, Tel Aviv and the Gulf monarchies is mostly illusion. The Saudis are in serious economic trouble, the Gulf Cooperation Council is divided, and it is Israel and the U.S. are increasingly isolated over in hostility to Teheran.

  

• Despite "Election Interference", Mattis Claims "We're Not Out To Contain China"

  After months of soaring tensions centered on the trade war as well as a series of incidents in the South China Sea where Beijing has sought to make territorial claims on international waters, Secretary of Defense James Mattis has sought to calm and downplay the situation ahead of a Southeast Asian Nations summit in Singapore, where it’s expected he could cross paths with Chinese officials. 

  Noting that it was not the U.S. goal “not out to contain China,” he said there were areas of mutually beneficial cooperation, but that there would be times they would “step on each other’s toes.” This includes, he explained, cooperation on North Korea and the United Nations. 

  

  He told reporters en route to the region:

  “Obviously, we’re not out to contain China. We’d have taken an altogether different stance had that been considered. It has not been considered,” according to Bloomberg.

  “We seek a relationship with China that’s grounded in fairness, reciprocity and respect for sovereignty,” he said.

  “So we’re two large powers, or two Pacific powers, two economic powers. There’s going to be times we step on each other’s toes, so we’re going to have to find a way to productively manage our relationship,” Mattis added.

  His softened rhetoric could mark a deescalation after China had previously canceled security talks planned for mid-October in Beijing amidst the two largest economies dueling it out in recent weeks in a trade battle. 

  This was exacerbated by President Trump’s charge at the UN General Assembly in New York last month that China was meddling in the November mid-term elections – comments in which Trump further said President Xi Jinping might no longer be a friend.

  Trump said at the UN:

  “Regrettably, we found that China has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election coming up in November against my administration.” And added, “They do not want me or us to win because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade.”

  “We have evidence. It will come out. Yeah, I can’t tell you now, but it came – it didn’t come out of nowhere, that I can tell you,” he also told a press conference.

  And while speaking at the neoconservative Hudson Institute early this month, Vice President Mike Pence added fresh fuel to the fire in an aggressive speech with a heavy anti-China focus.

   “There can be no doubt,” Pence said, “China is meddling in America’s democracy.”

  “Beijing has mobilized covert actors, front groups, and propaganda outlets to shift Americans’ perception of Chinese policy,” Pence charged. “As a senior career member of our intelligence community recently told me, what the Russians are doing pales in comparison to what China is doing across this country.”

  All of this also comes after a series of US aircraft and naval incidents with the Chinese military in the disputed South China Sea, including a recent close call between a US and Chinese destroyer in which Beijing attempted to warn the ship out of what it claims are Chinese territorial waters. 

  

• The Great Depression II

  Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

  Whenever a movie has been a huge hit, the film industry tries to follow it up by doing a sequel. The sequel is almost invariably far more costly, as there’s the anticipation by those who create it that it will be an even bigger blockbuster than the original.

  

  The Great Depression of the 1930’s is seen by most people to be the be-all and end-all of economic catastrophes and there’s good reason for that. Although the economic cycle has always existed, the period leading up to October 1929 was unusual, as those in the financial sector had become unusually creative.

  Brokers encouraged people to buy into the stock market as heavily as they could afford to. When that business began to level off, they encouraged people to buy on margin. The idea was that the buyer would only put up a fraction of the money for the purchase and the broker would “guarantee” full payment to the seller. As a condition to the agreement, the buyer would have to relinquish to the broker the right to sell his stock at any point that he wished, should he feel the need to do so to get himself off the hook in the event of a significant economic change.

  Both the buyer and the broker were buying stocks with money that neither one had. But the broker entered into the gamble so that he could charge commissions, which he would be paid immediately. The buyer entered into the gamble, as he had been promised by the broker that stocks were “going to the moon” and that he’d become rich.

  Banks got into the game, as well. At one time, banks took money on deposit, then lent that money out at interest. They would always retain a percentage of the deposited money within the bank to assure that they could meet whatever the normal demand for withdrawals might be. But, eventually, bankers figured out that, if they were prepared to gamble, they could lend out far more money – many times the amount that they had received on deposit. As long as very few loans turned bad, they would eventually get the money back, with interest.

  And so, in the 1920’s, they loaned money to people so that they could buy into the stock market more heavily. From that point forward, an investor who was tapped out and couldn’t afford to buy more stock, then bought on margin. When he was no longer able to even afford to buy on margin, he borrowed money from the bank to buy on margin.

  That meant that only a tiny percentage of the “money” that passed hands actually existed. The great majority of investment funds only existed on paper.

  Of course, the very existence of this absurd anomaly depended upon a market that was thriving and moving steadily upward. If for any reason, there were a sudden loss of confidence in the banks, large numbers of depositors would demand to withdraw their deposits and there would be bank failures, as the banks had been playing with money that did not exist.

  Likewise, if that loss of confidence were to take place with regard to the stock market, large numbers of stockholders would try to sell at the same time and the market would collapse, as the brokers had been playing with money that did not exist.

  In the 1920’s, fortunes were being made by those who ran banks and brokerage houses – at a rate that greatly exceeded anything that had ever existed.

  Unfortunately, they’d created the greatest financial bubble in history and, when it popped, as all bubbles do, it popped in a very big way.

  Thousands of banks were wiped out. Thousands of brokerage houses were wiped out. And millions of investors were wiped out.

  Not surprising that laws were then passed to assure that such a disaster could never occur again. Of particular importance was the Glass Steagall Act.

  Then, in 1999, Glass Steagall was repealed. This was done under the advice of Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, and was accepted readily by then-president Bill Clinton, as he was assured that the repeal would mean a dramatic increase in investment, which would assure a shining legacy for him as he left office.

  My own first reaction to the repeal was that, over the ensuing years, we’d see irrational investment in the real estate market, made possible through bank loans. This would lead to a crash in real estate, followed by a crash in the stock market. I believed that this debacle would be papered over by governments, eventually leading to a further crash, and that the latter crash would be of epic proportions.

  But, why should this be? Why should the second crash be so much greater?

  Well, the magnitude of a crash tends to be equal to the magnitude of the economic abnormality that preceded it. The crash of 1929 was greater than previous crashes, because bankers and brokers had found new ways to inflate the bubble beyond anything that had existed before.

  Likewise, they’ve become even more creative this time around and have inflated the bubble far beyond what existed in 1929. The level of debt far exceeds anything the world has ever seen.

  The 2008 crash was, in effect, a mini-crash. No correction ever took place. Instead, it was papered over by massive increased debt, assuring that, when the inevitable big crash did occur, the severity would be far beyond any other crash in history.

  The sequel to the 1929 crash will be much like movie sequels. With movies, the producers invest more money into the sequel than they spent on the original movie, in the belief that, if they just throw enough money at it, it will somehow be better and make them even more money than the original.

  Likewise in economic events, the assumption is that, if a great deal of money had been made in the buildup to the last major collapse, surely, by creating even more debt this time around, the profit to be made will be far greater than before.

  And this has proven to be true. Financial institutions have entered into an era of profit that has historically been without equal. The original was a monster and the sequel will prove to be an even bigger monster.

  Of course, there’s a difference between movies and economic events. With movies, the producers cash in when the moviegoers pay their admissions fee. With economic crises, the producers make their fortunes in the lead-up to the crash. The crash itself simply passes the bill for the disaster to the moviegoers.

  The question that’s always asked prior to any crash is, “When will it happen?” Unfortunately, although crises can be analyzed and predicted beforehand, the date is more uncertain. The decisive factor is the loss of confidence by the general public. When they collectively get weak knees about the economic future – when they withdraw their deposits from banks and sell their shares in the market, the bubble will suddenly pop.

  And so, the actual screening of this particular epic could be a year from now, or it could be next week. So, it might be premature to buy your box of popcorn now, but, when crashes come, they come suddenly and without warning.

  Since it’s not possible to predict an exact date, those who don’t wish to be casualties of the collapse may wish to prepare for it – to get free of debt, to liquidate assets that will be devalued in a crisis, to turn the proceeds into real money (precious metals) and to relocate to a place that’s likely to be less impacted by the monetary and social crisis that will ensue.

  *  *  *

  Clearly, there are many strange things afoot in the world. Distortions of markets, distortions of culture. It’s wise to wonder what’s going to happen, and to take advantage of growth while also being prepared for crisis. How will you protect yourself in the next crisis? See our PDF guide that will show you exactly how. Click here to download it now.

  

• China Defends Mass "Re-education Camps" As Uighur Muslims "Transformed For The Better"

  Two months after a United Nations human rights panel first accused China of holding up to one million ethnic Uighurs in what was described a “massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy,” Chinese officials have now admitted to the existence of the “re-education” camps focused on “preventing” religious extremism, and have mounted a fierce defense, going so far as to say former detainees have been “transformed for the better” and live happier lives as “citizens of the nation”. 

  Though reports of the Orwellian mass internment camps where “brain washing” techniques are said to be routine have shocked Western audiences as details and testimony have emerged over the past weeks, China has now not only unashamedly admitted to the centers, but is positively boastful about the whole enterprise. 

  

  A new Reuters report details a bombshell interview with Beijing’s number two Communist party official, who just happens to also be the most senior ethnic Uighur in Xinjiang province – the location and foremost concentration of government crackdowns and internment camps for the mintority group:

  Vocational training is being used “to the greatest extent” in China’s far-western Xinjiang region to ensure militant activities are “eliminated before they occur,” a senior Communist Party official said.

  The state media interview with Shohrat Zakir, the number two party official and most senior ethnic Uighur in Xinjiang, is China’s most detailed defense yet of its policies in the region, which is home to a large Muslim population.

  The minority ethno-religious group concentrated in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang has found itself under increased persecution and oversight by Chinese authorities of late as their collective Sunni Islamic identity and separatist political movements have resulted in historic tensions with the Communist government.

  Beijing has in recent years been accused of practicing collective punishment and broad crackdowns on the Uighur population in Xinjiang, which is numbered in total at 11 million (with some estimates of up to 15 million; China’s total Muslim population is at about 21 million). The minority ethnic group is also found in sizable numbers in neighboring Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan. Recent UN statements have blamed state authorities for  prominent Uighur Chinese citizens and dissidents being “disappeared”. 

  

  Though now owning up to the existence of what the Chinese official in this latest interview called “vocational training” — authorities are seeking to downplay its extent what appears a coordinated public relations campaign pushing back against recent stories focused on shocking testimonies of victims who spent time in the camps. Reuters confirms that, “After initially issuing blanket denials, Chinese officials have in recent weeks said they were not enforcing arbitrary detention and political re-education across a network of secret camps, but rather some citizens guilty of minor offences were sent to vocational centers to provide employment opportunities.”

  The high-ranking government official, named Shohrat Zakir, told state media in the interview that China was fighting “terrorism and extremism” in its own way in accord with international norms and that “trainees” in the camps even signed “education agreements” to receive “concentrated training” which involved “live-in study”. He described everything from Chinese language lessons to classes on the nation’s laws and basic vocational skills such as clothe making, factor work, and hairdressing. 

  “Through vocational training, most trainees have been able to reflect on their mistakes and see clearly the essence and harm of terrorism and religious extremism,” Zakir said in the interview. “They have also been able to better tell right from wrong and resist the infiltration of extremist thought,” he added.

  

  While China is clearly trying to spin what are essentially Communist political brainwashing centers and brutal mass detention centers, there is some truth to the claim that a militant Islamic insurgency has made inroads into Western China. 

  Most notable is the ethnic Uighur-founded and led East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM, also commonly called the Turkestan Islamic Party, or TIP), a Muslim separatist group based Xinjiang known to have conducted dozens of terror attacks in Chinese cities like Shanghai and Yunnan, but also in places like Afghanistan, and as far as Syria, where it’s believed up to 5,000 Uighurs fight alongside al-Qaeda. 

  China claims this threat has made its “re-education” program necessary as it focuses on fostering “anti-extremism” in Xinjiang. 

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest