Feb 18

Today’s News 18th February 2018

  • Escalation In Syria – How Far Can The Russians Be Pushed?

    Authored by The Saker,

    Events in Syria have recently clearly taken a turn for the worse and there is an increasing amount of evidence that the Russian task force in Syria is being targeted by a systematic campaign of “harassing attacks”.

    First, there was the (relatively successful) drone and mortar attack on the Russian Aerospace base in Khmeimin.

    Then there was the shooting down of a Russian SU-25 over the city of Maasran in the Idlib province.

    Now we hear of Russian casualties in the US raid on a Syrian column (along with widely exaggerated claims of “hundreds” of killed Russians).

    In the first case, Russian officials did openly voice their strong suspicion that the attack was if not planned and executed by the USA, then at least coordinated with the US forces in the vicinity. In the case of the downing of the SU-25, no overt accusations have been made, but many experts have stated that the altitude at which the SU-25 was hit strongly suggests a rather modern MANPAD of a type not typically seen in Syria (the not so subtle hint being here that these were US Stingers sent to the Kurds by the USA). As for the latest attack on the Syrian column, what is under discussion is not who did it but rather what kind of Russian personnel was involved, Russian military or private contractors (the latter is a much more likely explanation since the Syrian column had no air-cover whatsoever).

    Taken separately, none of these incidents mean very much but taken together they might be indicative of a new US strategy in Syria: to punish the Russians as much as possible short of an overt US attack on Russian forces.

    To me this hypothesis seems plausible for the following reasons:

    First, the USA and Israel are still reeling in humiliation and impotent rage over their defeat in Syria: Assad is still in power, Daesh is more or less defeated, the Russians were successful not only their military operations against Daesh but also in their campaign to bring as many “good terrorists” to the negotiating table as possible. With the completion of a successful conference on Syria in Russia and the general agreement of all parties to begin working on a new constitution, there was a real danger of peace breaking out, something the AngloZionist are absolutely determined to oppose (check out this apparently hacked document which, if genuine, clearly states the US policy not to allow the Russian to get anything done).

    Second, both Trump and Netanyahu have promised to bring in lots of “victories” to prove how manly and strong they are (as compared to the sissies which preceded them). Starting an overt war against Russian would definitely be a “proof of manhood”, but a much too dangerous one. Killing Russians “on the margins”, so to speak, either with plausible deniability or, alternatively, killing Russians private contractors is much safer and thus far more tempting option.

    Third, there are presidential elections coming up in Russia and the US Americans are still desperately holding on to their sophomoric notion that if they create trouble for Putin (sanctions or body bags from Syria) they can somehow negatively impact his popularity in Russia (in reality they achieve the opposite effect, but they are too dull and ignorant to realize that).

    Last but not least, since the AngloZionist have long lost the ability to actually getting anything done, their logical fall-back position is not let anybody else succeed either. This is the main purpose of the entire US deployment in northern Syria: to create trouble for Turkey, Iran, Syria and, of course, Russia.

    The bottom line is this: since the US Americans have declared that they will (illegally) stay in Syria until the situation “stabilizes” they now must do everything their power to destabilize Syria. Yes, there is a kind of a perverse logic to all that…

    For Russia, all this bad news could be summed up in the following manner: while Russia did defeat Daesh in Syria she is still far from having defeated the AngloZionists in the Middle-East.

    The good news is, however, that Russia does have options to deal with this situation.

    Step one: encouraging the Turks

    There is a counter-intuitive but in many ways an ideal solution for Russia to counter the US invasion of Syria: involve the Turks.

    How? Not by attacking the US forces directly, but by attacking the Kurdish militias the US Americans are currently “hiding” behind (at least politically). Think of it, while the US (or Israel) will have no second thoughts whatsoever before striking Syrian or Iranian forces, actually striking Turkish forces would carry an immense political risk: following the US-backed coup attempt against Erdogan and, just to add insult to injury, the US backing for the creation of a “mini-Kurdistsan” both in Iraq and in Syria, US-Turkish relations are at an all-time low and it would not take much to push the Turks over the edge with potentially cataclysmic consequences for the US, EU, NATO, CENTCOM, Israel and all the AngloZionist interests in the region. Truly, there is no overstating the strategic importance of Turkey for Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle-East, and the US Americans know that. From this flows a very real if little understood consequence: the Turkish armed forces in Syria basically enjoy what I would call a “political immunity” from any US attacks, that is to say that (almost) no matter what the Turks do, the US would (almost) never consider actually openly using force against them simply because the consequence of, say, a USAF strike on a Turkish army column would be too serious to contemplate.

    In fact, I believe that the US-Turkish relationship is so bad and so one-sided that I see a Turkish attack on a Kurdish (or “good terrorist”) column/position with embedded US Special Forces far more likely than a US attack on a Turkish army column. This might sound counter-intuitive, but let’s say the Turks did attack a Kurdish (or “good terrorist”) column/position with US personnel and that US servicemen would die as the result. What would/could the US do? Retaliate in kind? No way! Not only is the notion of the US attacking a fellow NATO country member is quite unthinkable, it would most likely be followed by a Turkish demand that the US/NATO completely withdraw from Turkey’s territory and airspace. In theory, the US could ask the Israelis to do their dirty job for them, but the Israelis are not stupid (even if they are crazy) and they won’t have much interest in starting a shooting war with Turkey over what is a US-created problem in a “mini-Kurdistan”, lest any hallowed “Jewish blood” be shed for some basically worthless goyim.

    No, if the Turks actually killed US servicemen there would be protests and a flurry of “consultations” and other symbolic actions, but beyond that, the US would take the losses and do nothing about it. As for Erdogan, his popularity at home would only soar even higher. What all this means in practical terms is that if there is one actor which can seriously disrupt the US operations in northern Syria, or even force the US to withdraw, it is Turkey. That kind of capability also gives Turkey a lot of bargaining power with Russia and Iran which I am sure Erdogan will carefully use to his own benefit. So far Erdogan has only threatened to deliver an “Ottoman slap” to the USA and Secretary of State Tillerson is traveling to Ankara to try to avert a disaster, but the Turkish instance that the USA chose either the Turkish or the Kurdish side in the conflict very severely limits the chances of any real breakthrough (the Israel lobby being 100% behind the Kurds). One should never say never, but I submit that it would take something of a miracle at this point to really salvage the US-Turkish relationship. Russia can try to capitalize on this dynamic.

    The main weakness of this entire concept is, of course, that the USA is still powerful enough, including inside Turkey, and it would be very dangerous for Erdogan to try to openly confront and defy Uncle Sam. So far, Erdogan has been acting boldly and in overt defiance of the USA, but he also understands the risks of going too far and for him to even consider taking such risks there have to be prospects of major benefits from him. Here the Russians have two basic options: either to promise the Turks something very inciting or to somehow further deteriorate the current relationship between the US and Turkey. The good news here is that Russian efforts to drive a wedge between the US and Turkey are be greatly assisted by the US support for Israel, Kurds, and Gulenists.

    The other obvious risk is that any anti-Kurdish operation can turn into yet another partition of Syria, this time by the Turks. However, the reality is that the Turks can’t really stay for too long in Syria, especially not if Russia and Iran oppose this. There is also the issue of international law which is much easier for the USA to ignore than for the Turks.

    For all these reasons using the Turks to put pressure on the USA has its limitations. Still, if the Turks continue to insist that the USA stop supporting the Kurds, or if they continue putting military pressure on the Kurdish militias, then the entire US concept of a US-backed “mini-Kurdistan” collapses and, with it, the entire US partition plan for Syria.

    So far, the Iraqis have quickly dealt with the US-sponsored “mini-Kurdistan” in Iraq and the Turks are now taking the necessary steps to deal with the US-sponsored “mini-Kurdistan” in Syria at which point *their* problem will be solved. The Turks are not interested in helping Assad or, for that matter, Putin and they don’t care what happens to Syria as long as *their* Kurdish problem is under control. This means that the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians should not place too much hope on the Turks turning against the USA unless, of course, the correct circumstances are created. Only the future will tell whether the Russians and the Iranians will be able to help to create such circumstances.

    Step two: saturating Syria with mobile modern short/middle range air defenses

    Right now nobody knows what kind of air-defense systems the Russians have been delivering to the Syrians over the past couple of years, but that is clearly the way to go for the Russians: delivering as many modern and mobile air defense systems to the Syrians.

    While this would be expensive, the best solution here would be to deliver as many Pantsir-S1 mobile Gun/SAM systems and 9K333 Verba MANPADs as possible to the Syrians and the Iranians. The combination of these two systems would immensely complicate any kind of air operations for the US Americans and Israelis, especially since there would be no practical way of reliably predicting the location from which they could operate. And since both the USA and Israel are operating in the Syrian skies in total violation of international law while the Syrian armed forces would be protecting their own sovereign airspace, such a delivery of air-defense systems by Russia to Syria would be impeccably legal.

    Best of all, it would be absolutely impossible for the AngloZionist to know who actually shot at them since these weapon systems are mobile and easy to conceal. Just like in Korea, Vietnam or Lebanon, Russian crews could even be sent to operate the Syrian air defense systems and there would be no way for anybody to prove that “the Russians did it” when US and Israeli aircraft would start falling out of the skies. The Russians would enjoy what the CIA calls “plausible deniability”. The US Americans and Israelis would, of course, turn against the weaker party, the Syrians, but that other than feeling good that would not really make a difference on the ground as the Syrians skies would not become safer for US or Israelis air forces.

    The other option for the Russians would be to offer upgrades (software and missile) to the existing Syrian air defense systems, especially their road-mobile 2K12 Kub and 9K37 Buk systems. Such upgrades, especially if combined with enough deployed Pantsirs and Verbas would be a nightmare for both the US Americans and the Israelis. The Turks would not care much since they are already basically flying with the full approval of the Russians anyway, and neither would the Iranians who, as far as I know, have no air operations in Syria.

    One objection to this plan would be that two can play this game and that there is nothing preventing the USA from sending even more advanced MANPADs to their “good terrorist” allies, but that argument entirely misses the point: if both sides do the same thing, the side which is most dependent on air operations (the USA) stands to lose much more than the side which has the advantage on the ground (the Russians). Furthermore, by sending MANPADs to Syria, the USA is alienating a putative ally, Turkey, whereas if Russia sends MANPADs and other SAMs to Syria the only one who will be complaining will be the Israelis. When that happens, the Russians will have a simple and truthful reply: we did not start this game, your US allies did, you can go and thank them for this mess.

    The main problem in Syria is the fact that the US and the Israelis are currently operating in the Syrian skies with total impunity. If this changes, this will be a slow and gradual process. First, there would be a few isolated losses (like the Israeli F-16 recently), then we would see that the location of US and/or Israeli airstrikes would gradually shift from urban centers and central command posts to smaller, more isolated targets (such as vehicle columns). This would indicate an awareness that the most lucrative targets are already too well defended. Eventually, the number of air sorties would be gradually replaced by cruise and ballistic missiles strikes. Underlying it all would be a shift from offensive air operations to force protection which, in turn, would give the Syrians, Iranians, and Hezbollah a much easier environment to operate in. But the necessary first step for any of that to happen would be to dramatically increase the capability of Syrian air defenses.

    Hezbollah has, for decades, very successfully operated under a total Israelis air supremacy and their experience of this kind of operations would be invaluable to the Syrians until they sufficiently built up their air defense capabilities.

    Conclusion: is counter-escalation really the only option?

    Frankly, I am starting to believe that the Empire has decided to attempt upon a partial “reconquista” of Syria, even Macron is making some noises about striking the Syrians to “punish” them for their use of (non-existing) chemical weapons. At the very least, the USA wants to make the Russians pay as high a price as possible for their role in Syria. Further US goals in Syria include:

    • The imposition of a de-facto partition of Syria by taking under control the Syrian territory east of the Euphrates river (we could call that “plan C version 3.0”)

    • The theft of the gas fields located in northeastern Syria

    • The creation of a US-controlled staging area from which Kurdish, good terrorist and bad terrorist operations can be planned and executed

    • The sabotaging of any Russian-backed peace negotiations

    • The support for Israeli operations against Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Syria

    • Engaging in regular attacks against Syrian forces attempting to liberate their country from foreign invaders

    • Presenting the invasion and occupation of Syria as one of the “victories” promised by Trump to the MIC and the Israel lobby

    So far the Russian response to this developing strategy has been a rather a passive one and the current escalation strongly suggests that a new approach might be needed. The shooting down of the Israeli F-16 is a good first step, but much more needs to be done to dramatically increase the costs the Empire will have to pay for is policies towards Syria. The increase in the number of Russian commentators and analysts demanding a stronger reaction to the current provocations might be a sign that something is in the making.

  • "Sudden Stratospheric Warming Event" Fractures The Polar Vortex In Two

    “This split of the polar vortex will shift the upper atmospheric pattern such that the coldest airmass is located in western North America as well as over parts of Europe. This will allow for a ridge of high pressure to amplify in the eastern US, bringing unseasonably warm conditions next week,” said Ed Vallee, Long-Range Meteorologist and President of Vallee Wx Consulting.

    The Weather Channel describes the atmosphetic impact for the Northern Hemisphere, as this unique weather event splits the polar vortex into two smaller vortices: one over western Canada and another over Europe.

    •  A split of the polar vortex occurred this week due to warming in the stratosphere
    • This is likely to result in cold temperatures in Europe
    • Although a disruption of the polar vortex is sometimes associated with cold weather in the eastern U.S., that is not always guaranteed

    Further, from the Weather Channel:

    “Across the Arctic, where the polar vortex typically stays locked, the stratosphere has warmed. This typically kicks into motion a polar vortex disruption like we are seeing. The stratosphere is a layer of the upper atmosphere above which most of our weather occurs – known as the troposphere – and where most of the polar vortex resides.” (Shown Below: The polar vortex has split into smaller vortices, one over Europe, and the other over northwestern North America.)

    The one vortex over Western Europe and much of Eurasia will send the region into a dangerous deep freeze for the second half of February into early March. A disruption of the polar vortex has sent March 18 U.K. natural gas contracts soaring on the session, advancing +3.6% to 51.540.

    During the same timeframe, the vortex over western Canada could bring spring-like conditions for the Eastern U.S. in the second half of February through early March. Temperatures for the next few weeks could be 20 to 25 degrees Fahrenheit above average for this time of year. Highs in the 70s Fahrenheit are possible from Washington, D.C. to New York City, which would be a significant change from the arctic conditions experienced earlier in the winter season. In the Western U.S, it is an entirely different story, particularly in the Northern Rockies, which could see measurable snowfall and frigid arctic air for the next two weeks.

    A disruption of the polar vortex has sent US March 18 natural gas contracts crashing -22% in February to December 2017 lows. A breach below 2.50 would indicate a deeper correction, as much as -15% to 2.172 area where the .764-fib resides (measured from the March 2016 low to December 2016 high).

    “Models are indicating very impressive early Spring warmth across the eastern U.S. next week… the West/Rockies will have some cold air to deal with, however,” said Michael Ventrice, a Meteorological Scientist for the Weather Company.

    What’s all this talk about a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW)? 

    Mashable explains that the primary polar vortex exists in the stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere where most of the weather occurs. An SSW event refers to a rapid warming of the stratosphere at high latitudes, up to 122 degrees Fahrenheit in a matter of days, some six to nine miles above the earth’s surface. Mashable said, “an SSW event, took place in early-to-mid February, and this has caused the splitting of the stratospheric polar vortex.”

    “Someone once asked why they call them “sudden” stratospheric warmings,” said Anthony Masiello, a private weather forecaster.

    Mashable further explains how the SSW broke apart the polar vortex into two and what it means for the weather in your region:

    Sudden stratospheric warming events occur when large atmospheric waves send energy upward, into the stratosphere, setting in motion a complex process that results in the temporary breakdown of the polar vortex. This February’s stratospheric warming event was particularly extreme, possibly setting records for how sharply temperatures spiked in the upper atmosphere.

    The polar vortex split isn’t the only factor favoring a cold snap in Europe, warmup in the Eastern U.S., and cool down in the West. There’s also a cycle of atmospheric pressure over the North Atlantic Ocean, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), that can increase the odds of colder and snowier weather in some of these areas.

    Computer models are projecting the NAO will become strongly negative during the next few weeks in response to the polar vortex split and stratospheric warming event, and this also favors cold and snow in Western Europe. (It also ups the odds of similar weather in the eastern U.S., but that may not happen right away.)

    “A significant PV [polar vortex] disruption is often followed by widespread cold temperatures across northern Eurasia and the Eastern US. However the cold is more certain across northern Eurasia following these type of PV disruptions,” meteorologist Judah Cohen, who specializes in seasonal weather forecasting and tracking the polar vortex for AER, a Verisk Analytics company, wrote on his blog.

    The negative mode of the NAO typically features an area of strong high pressure over Greenland, which blocks the progression of weather systems moving in from the southwest, and causes the jet stream to plunge southward over Europe, allowing cold air to flow in from the Arctic and Scandinavia. Sudden stratospheric warming events tend to cause the NAO to switch into negative mode shortly after they occur.

    The rest of February should feature a colder than average Western U.S., coupled with a milder than average East Coast. However, the negative NAO phase could bring a return of winter weather to the East in early March, depending where exactly that Greenland block sets up. There’s often a delay between when the polar vortex is disrupted, and when the cold air arrives in parts of the U.S., if at all.

    Snow lovers will be watching upcoming forecasts anxiously because the deeper into March we go, the less likely widespread snows along the East Coast become.”

    In summary: the polar vortex has split, here’s what that means for us:

  • Facebook VP: "The Majority Of Russian Ad Spend Happened AFTER The Election"

    Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a hand grenade in the Russian meddling narrative in a string of tweets responding to Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals running a “bot farm” which, according to Mueller (via Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein), was unsuccessful at influencing the 2016 election. 

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

    Notably, Goldman points out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election – and was designed to “sow discord and divide Americans”, something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost.

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

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

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

    President Trump fired off Goldman’s comment in a Saturday morning tweet:

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

    Subversion

    If we are to accept Mueller’s findings that Russian disinformation campaign was focused on elevating an outside candidate to win the White House, no matter who it was (Mueller notes they supported both Sanders and Trump, while using “any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest”), then the logical conclusion is that while there was no collusion with the Trump campaign, the ultimate goal would be to weaken America by creating a divide in the long-standing establishment power structure. 

    To that end, this 1985 interview with ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who defected to the West in 1970, is a must-watch. in it, Bezmenov very clearly outlines that the KGB’s primary goal is not covert intelligence; it’s a long-term campaign of ideological subversion, or “active measures.” 

    The entire interview is over two hours long, and both condensed and extended versions can be found below. In summary,the KGB, for decades, has had a goal of altering the average American’s perception of reality in order to confuse and divide the US population, while reducing men of fighting age to feminized soy boys.

    man-children

     

    There are four basic stages: 

    1) Demoralization: This will take 15-20 years (which would bring us to around 2000-2005), which is enough time to educate a generation of students and indoctrinate them into a Marxist-Leninist ideology as “useful idiots.” The result of this stage of subversion is that the “useful idiots” will be “contaminated” through ideological and irreversible brainwashing. According to Bezmenov, the demoralized person is unable to assess fact-based information. You can shower him with documents, facts and other solid evidence, and he will refuse to believe it until kicked in his “fat bottom” by troops.”

    Bezmenov said (in 1985), that the demoralization campaign had been active for 25 years. 

    2) Destablization: Once the population has been programmed and “contaminated,” the subverter does not care about your ideas, the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby. It doesn’t matter anymore. This time, and it only takes from two to five years to destabilize a nation, what matters is essentials, economy, foreign relations, defense systems.

    3) Crisis: Once destabilization has occurred, “It may take only six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. You see it in Central America now.”

    4) Normalization: “And after crisis, with a violent change in power, structure, and economy, you have the period of so-called normalization will last indefinitely. Normalization is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda”

    ***

    If Bezmenov was correct about the KGB’s “recipe” for subverting the United States, one need look no further than a generation of pussy-hat wearing, hypersensitive, multi-gendered, ultra politically-correct Social Justice Warrior mentality that’s infiltrated the West – most recently characterized by Justin Trudeau’s recent “peoplekind” admonishment of a young and inquisitive student. 

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

    The tools of subversion are identity politics and the destruction of culture, often conducted under the guise of “equality” and humanitarianism. Has the forced integration of scores of migrants across Europe strengthened or weakened nations with open-border policies? Are Poland and Hungary stronger or weaker for resisting said invasion? 

    Indeed, it can be said that Europe has been demoralized through social-justice identity politics, which has paved the way for the active and ongoing destabilization of Europe’s long-knit social and economic fabric. 

    Next will be crisis brought on by the powder-keg created by “cultural enrichment” and no-go zones, after which Europe will surely be forced to normalize under a brave new regime in which the ongoing threat of civil war will keep Europe weak for decades.

    One has to consider who destabilized North Africa despite Ghadaffi offering to hold migrants at bay for a mere £4bn-per-year. Who then welcomed migrants which were the byproduct of said destabilization? And what will be the end result when we roll the clock forward five, ten, fifteen years? 

    One could make the argument that we are now shifting from demoralization and destabilization, to crisis. 

    Watch Bezmenov’s interview below:

    Short version:

    Long version:

  • 'Ring Of Fire' Quake-Cluster Prompts Scientists To Warn Of "Large Rupture Sooner Than Later"

    Earlier in the week we reported on scientists’ warnings over the “strained” magma chamber within Yellowstone’s supervolcano.

    And now, perhaps even more concerning, The Daily Express reports that scientists in California have analyzed 101 major earthquakes around the Pacific Ring of Fire, a horseshoe-shaped geological disaster zone, between 1990 and 2016.

    They believe a cluster of tremors around the area could indicate a “big one” is due to hit.

    Earthquakes have already struck in Japan, Tawain, Guam and Indonesia in the past few weeks.

    Thorne Lay, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, said: “Based on the clustering of earthquakes in space and time, the area that has just slipped is actually more likely to have another failure.“

    He added that “the surrounding areas have been pushed towards failure in many cases, giving rise to aftershocks and the possibility of an adjacent large rupture sooner rather than later.“

    The Express notes that the study comes after the Ring of Fire was hit by earthquakes in the first two weeks of February.

    More than 180 people were injured and 17 killed when a 6.4 magnitude quake struck Taiwan’s coast on February 6.

    A series of tremors on reaching magnitudes as high as 5.7 shook the US territory of Guam.

    Three earthquakes have hit Japan since February 11, with the largest measuring at 4.8 on the Richter scale.

    Additionally, numerous volcano eruptions, hit the Pacific Rim in January.

    Scientists have. of course, reassured the public saying that the activity is normal for the Ring of Fire.

    Toshiyasu Nagao, head of Tokyo-based Tokai UNiversity’s Earthquake Prediction Research Centre, told Japan Times:

    “The Pacific Rim is in a period of activity. In terms of volcanic history, however the current activity is still regarded as normal.“

    As we concluded previously, is this time to panic? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s interesting that the Ring of Fire is waking up and  coinciding with news that a pole reversal is near, Yellowstone is ‘strained’, and the sun is approaching its solar minimum which could cause a mini ice age.

  • America's Forever Wars: Guantanamo Bay "Prepared" For New Inmates, Says US Admiral

    On Thursday, Kurt Walter Tidd, a high ranking United States Navy admiral, currently serving as the Commander of the United States Southern Command, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is now “prepared” to receive an influx of new detainees.

    “We have 41 detainees who are there right now. We are prepared to receive more should they be directed to us,” Admiral Kurt Tidd, told lawmakers.

    “As of today we have not been given a warning order that new detainees might be heading in our direction, but our responsibility will be to integrate them in effectively,” he added.

    During President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech last month, Trump said he had signed an executive order directing Secretary of Defense James Mattis to “re-examine our military detention policy and to keep open the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay.”

    “I am asking Congress to ensure that in the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda we continue to have all necessary power to detain terrorists wherever we chase them down, wherever we find them. And In many cases for them it will now be Guantánamo bay,” Trump said during his speech.

    The executive order is a significant reversal of his predecessor Barack Obama’s administration.

    AFP notes that Guantanamo Bay has not received any new inmates since 2008, but that could be changing under the Trump administration, as he plans on expanding the forever war on terrorism.

    US military officials have been openly discussing the fate of Islamic State group detainees, mainly foreign fighters, held by US-backed militias in northern Syria. Guantanamo has not received any new inmates since 2008 but on the campaign trail, Trump vowed to load the facility with “bad dudes,” and said it would be “fine” if US terror suspects were sent there for trial. During his State of the Union speech in January, Trump said IS captives would in “many cases” end up in Guantanamo. 

    Earlier last month, we reported on the Arizona National Guard unit deploying to Cuba to support operations in Guantanamo Bay. Despite the rumors of the prison closing, it appears that the Trump administration is preparing for a ramp-up period. The soldiers won’t have contact with the detainees and they are expected to serve a nine-month rotation which started at the beginning of January.

    These soldiers leaving for Guantanamo Bay in the coming days in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

    “There was some discussion some time back about actually shutting it down. Right now that’s not what’s going to happen so it’s still very important for us service members to be prepared to go and continue that mission,” said Arizona Army National Guard Command Sergeant Major Fidel Zamora. 

    That’s exactly what nearly 50 Arizona Army National Guard soldiers will soon be doing.

    “Part of that is being able to inform and advise the Joint Task Force Commander there on military police tasks and procedures and part of that is just making sure that the staff runs effectively on a day to day basis,” said Colonel Rich Baldwin, the Land Component Commander of the Arizona Army National Guard.

    This mission is so sensitive we were asked not to show the faces of these soldiers and their families.

    “We don’t want to telegraph to the world who is going, who’s there and who’s performing this mission because they all have families that are still back here while they’re overseas doing this mission,” Colonel Baldwin said.

    Last November, Trump said, “Would love to send the NYC terrorist to Guantanamo but statistically that process takes much longer than going through the Federal system…”

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

    After more than 15-years of America’s never-ending wars on terror, the one thing that President Trump has failed to mention is an exit strategy.

    Nevertheless, America’s war spending has not just bankrupted this once great nation to the tune of trillions, it has depleted the inner core of the American economy. The one question we ask: With the Trump administration rapidly preparing for an influx of new prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, who will those new prisoners be?

  • China Steps Into The Middle East Maelstrom

    Submitted by James Dorsey,

    The Middle East has a knack for sucking external powers into its conflicts. China’s ventures into the region have shown how difficult it is to maintain its principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.

    China’s abandonment of non-interference is manifested by its (largely ineffective) efforts to mediate conflicts in South Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan as well as between Israel and Palestine and even between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is even more evident in China’s trashing of its vow not to establish foreign military bases, which became apparent when it established a naval base in Djibouti and when reports surfaced that it intends to use Pakistan’s deep sea port of Gwadar as a military facility.

    This contradiction between China’s policy on the ground and its long-standing non-interventionist foreign policy principles means that Beijing often struggles to meet the expectations of Middle Eastern states. It also means that China risks tying itself up in political knots in countries such as Pakistan, which is home to the crown jewel of its Belt and Road Initiative — the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

    Middle Eastern autocrats have tried to embrace the Chinese model of economic liberalism coupled with tight political control. They see China’s declared principle of non-interference in the affairs of others for what it is: support for authoritarian rule. The principle of this policy is in effect the same as the decades-old US policy of opting for stability over democracy in the Middle East.

    It is now a risky policy for the United States and China to engage in given the region’s post-Arab Spring history with brutal and often violent transitions. If anything, instead of having been ‘stabilised’ by US and Chinese policies, the region is still at the beginning of a transition process that could take up to a quarter of a century to resolve.

    There is no guarantee that autocrats will emerge as the winners.

    China currently appears to have the upper hand against the United States for influence across the greater Middle East, but Chinese policies threaten to make that advantage short-term at best.

    Belt and Road Initiative-related projects funded by China have proven to be a double-edged sword. Concerns are mounting in countries like Pakistan that massive Chinese investment could prove to be a debt trap similar to Sri Lanka’s experience.

    Chinese back-peddling on several Pakistani infrastructure projects suggests that China is tweaking its approach to the US$50 billion China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. The Chinese rethink was sparked by political volatility caused by Pakistan’s self-serving politics and continued political violence — particularly in the Balochistan province, which is at the heart of CPEC.

    China decided to redevelop its criteria for the funding of CPEC’s infrastructure projects in November 2017. This move seemingly amounted to an effort to enhance the Pakistani military’s stake in the country’s economy at a time when they were flexing their muscles in response to political volatility. The decision suggests that China is not averse to shaping the political environment of key countries in its own authoritarian mould.

    Similarly, China has been willing to manipulate Pakistan against its adversaries for its own gain. China continues to shield Masoud Azhar (who is believed to have close ties to Pakistani intelligence agencies and military forces) from UN designation as a global terrorist. China does so while Pakistan cracks down on militants in response to a US suspension of aid and a UN Security Council monitoring visit.

    Pakistan’s use of militants in its dispute with India over Kashmir serves China’s interest in keeping India off balance — a goal which Beijing sees as worthy despite the fact that Chinese personnel and assets have been the targets of a low-level insurgency in Balochistan. Saudi Arabia is also considering the use of Balochistan as a launching pad to destabilise Iran. By stirring ethnic unrest in Iran, Saudi Arabia will inevitably suck China into the Saudi–Iranian rivalry and sharpen its competition with the United States. Washington backs the Indian-supported port of Chabahar in Iran — a mere 70 kilometres from Gwadar.

    China is discovering that it will prove impossible to avoid the pitfalls of the greater Middle East. This is despite the fact that US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia’s powerful Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman seem singularly focussed on countering Iran and Islamic militants.

    As it navigates the region’s numerous landmines, China is likely to find itself at odds with both the United States and Saudi Arabia. It will at least have a common interest in pursuing political stability at the expense of political change — however much this may violate its stated commitment to non-interference.

    *  *  *

    Dr James M Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

  • CIA Argues The Public Can't See Classified Information It Has Already Leaked To Favored Reporters

    Authored by Will Racke via The Daily Caller,

    Intelligence officials can selectively release classified information to trusted journalists while withholding the same information from other citizens who request it through open records laws, CIA lawyers argued Wednesday.

    In a motion filed in New York federal court, the CIA claimed that limited disclosures to reporters do not waive national security exemptions to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies frequently deny records requests on the basis of protecting sensitive national security information, one of nine exemptions written into the federal FOIA law.

    The case stems from lawsuit against the CIA by New York-based independent journalist Adam Johnson, who had used FOIA to obtain emails between the agency’s public information office and selected reporters from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and The New York Times. The emails the CIA provided to Johnson were redacted, leading him to question why he was not allowed to see the same information that had been given to uncleared reporters.

    Johnson challenged the redaction in court, arguing that the CIA, once it has selectively disclosed information to uncleared reporters, cannot claim the same information is protected by a FOIA exemption.

    The judge in the case appeared to find Johnson’ argument compelling. In a court order last month, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York said FOIA laws do not authorize limited disclosure, to favored journalists or otherwise.

    “In this case, CIA voluntarily disclosed to outsiders information that it had a perfect right to keep private,” she wrote.

    “There is absolutely no statutory provision that authorizes limited disclosure of otherwise classified information to anyone, including ‘trusted reporters,’ for any purpose, including the protection of CIA sources and methods that might otherwise be outed.“

    McMahon also said it didn’t matter if the journalists in question published the information they received, only if the CIA waived its right to deny the information.

    “The fact that the reporters might not have printed what was disclosed to them has no logical or legal impact on the waiver analysis, because the only fact relevant to waiver analysis is: Did the CIA do something that worked a waiver of a right it otherwise had?” she wrote, asking CIA lawyers to come up with a stronger defense for non-disclosure.

    The CIA’s response on Wednesday centered on the contention that the information disclosed to favored reporters had not actually entered the public domain. As such, the limited disclosure did not constitute a waiver of the FOIA exemption, government lawyers said.

    “The Court’s supposition that a limited disclosure of information to three journalists necessarily equates to a disclosure to the public at large is legally and factually mistaken,” the CIA motion stated. “The record demonstrates beyond dispute that the classified and statutorily protected information withheld from the emails has not entered the public domain.”

    Selective disclosure of classified information to uncleared reporters is a fairly common practice recognized by Congress, which requires briefings by the CIA on such disclosures, according to Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. Johnson’s case, if decided in favor of the CIA, could end up ratifying the practice via the courts, Aftergood says.

    Johnson has until March 1 to reply to the government’s motion, which asks for a summary judgement in favor of the CIA.

    Another ‘win’ for The Deep State looms…

  • Eric Peters: "Toxic" Risk Parity Funds Could Trigger The Next Market Blowup

    On this week’s MacroVoices podcast, host Erik Townsend interviews Zero Hedge regular contributor, Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management who – having correctly predicted the recent record VIX spike (See “Why Eric Peters Is Betting All On A Volatility Eruption” from Jan 7)- discusses the latest explosion of volatility, and its implications for markets as the global economy exits what has become one of the longest business cycles in history and heads toward the next recession.

    The discussion begins with what has been the most talked-about topic of the past month: the blowup of short-volatility products that had earned retail traders millions of dollars in profits during the expansion.

    While pundits on CNBC have given investors the all-clear to buy the dip and get back in, believing that all the fiscal stimulus from the Trump tax plan will almost certainly drive asset prices higher again, Peters is much more circumspect: As growth slows and inflation creeps higher, Peters believes markets will anticipate the recession by dumping stocks and bonds lower before the next recession even begins.

    And risk parity, which has been a reliable strategy for years, will quickly turn toxic, helping establish a negative feedback loop that will continue to drive bonds and stocks lower…

    The problem with products like XIV, which make it possible for retail investors to place extremely risky bets on volatility in a manner that makes them extremely exposed to their own ignorance…

    Peters

    But what, specifically, triggered this blowup, Townsend asked? Was it, as we suggested earlier this month, an intentionally malicious attempt by traders spoofing the VIX complex to manipulate the VIX and trigger the cascading selloff amplified by the product’s explicitly high convexity?

    Peters believes there are several fundamental factors that contributed to the selloff, but the poor design of products like the XIV greatly contributed to the selloff.

    There’s no question that, in an economy and in a financial system where there’s the level of debt that we have and the sensitivity to interest rates, rising rates are kind of a pre-condition to equity market disruptions and selloffs. I think that the level of volatility selling and its integration into risk models across virtually every type of investment strategy are contributors.

    And, having gone through such a long period with very, very little movement, I’d say that many people’s trading books were robust for relatively small moves. But once you’ve passed a certain move – and I think in this case it was probably the S&P down 3-ish% that triggered a whole series of different adjustments that people needed to make to their books and their option books – that then amplified the move in volatility and led to this blowup in the VIX product. But you have to remember that these VIX products were extremely ill-designed. And they were very vulnerable to this. They’re a rare thing that you see in our industry, which is they had a predefined stop loss. And markets are pretty good at finding stop losses and triggering them.

    I started my career in the commodity pits, and I witnessed firsthand how the commodity pit is built around finding stop losses on the top side of the bottom side of markets. So I think the market did a great job of finding the stops – and in this case finding the weakest ones, which were in the VIX complex – and hitting them.

    But I don’t think that that really explains why this move happened. Why did we get the first leg down, and why are markets starting to move with very little news flow? And, again, that’s something that’s difficult to explain for a lot of people that are trying to do it.

    To be sure, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that XIV and other short-volatility products behaved exactly as they were supposed to during this month’s volocaust. So, what does Peters mean when he says these products are poorly designed?

    Specifically, he’s referring to the fact that the larger these products become, the easier it becomes for sophisticated investors to suss out where the stops are, and bet against the fun accordingly…

    Number one, I think they were very likely inappropriate for a lot of people that bought them. They’re classic late-cycle type products that, in many respects, are designed to try to create returns in a world where it’s difficult to find returns. And late cycle you tend to see these things pop up that provide enhanced levels of carry, or some type of return that looks safe and is a lot less so.

    They were likely inappropriate for people. But I assume that people had a sense for that. I think the design flaw, specifically, is to have a large retail product that has the ability to fall to zero in a day, provided there are a number of conditions met. But, principally, the front month VIX future has to go up 100% for it to lose 100% of its value – means that product, by design, the bigger it gets, the more likely it is that as the VIX moves up in a rapid way the market is able to anticipate that there is a very, very large fire.

    And they know exactly where to stop losses. And the market will tend to suck itself up, or the VIX market will tend to suck itself up to that level, because it knows that it has a forest fire at that level.

    One of the most befuddling phenomenons to emerge this year across markets is the unraveling correlation between the US dollar and Treasury yields. Typically, they move in lockstep. But recently the dollar has been sinking while yields have continued to climb?

    So, how does Peters square this? He believes markets are anticipating that the US economy is heading for a debt-induced recession, which will only be exacerbated by the Trump tax bill and deficit-expanding budget agreements. Because of this, investors are reasoning that interest rates can’t rise too much before causing serious harm to parts of the US’s economy – which explains the dollar’s move.

    For rates, political factors like rising wealth inequality across the developed world are creating a loss of confidence in the US economy and the belief that politicians will continue to implement what Peters calls “de-globalization” policies…

    The rates, it’s a tricky – and I say it’s tricky because we can all recognize that we have extremely low nominal interest rates relative to history. And we’re not far above 5,000-year lows. We still have major central banks in the world with severely negative interest rates. And there’s still an awful lot of bonds that are trading at negative interest rates globally.

    So interest rates, just generally speaking, are very low. Debt is extremely high. And inflation has remained low. So we’re somewhat caught in a dynamic where it’s extremely difficult for rates to go up very high without raising a significant burden on economies. The only way to alleviate that burden is to create more inflation.

    But I think, as everyone looks at the world as they see it today, they go, well, it’s going to be difficult for inflation to go up very far. Consequently rates can’t go up very far, because if they do they’ll, essentially, bankrupt economies. And obviously they won’t bankrupt the whole economy.

    They’ll pressure it enough that the economy will tip into a significant recession. People’s mental model is, roughly speaking, that. And so they look at it, and they go, well, rates are very low, but they can’t really go much higher without sinking economies and recession – consequently, they’re going to be around the same unless inflation moves up substantially.

    That last part I think is what’s necessary. And, ironically, it’s what the major economies in the world are really seeking to deliver right now. They’re not looking to deliver a 1970s-type inflation.

    We’ve reached that tipping point within society where income inequality has become sufficiently large that we’re seeing political shifts, whether it’s here in the US, in the UK, in Germany – certainly in those three places – where there’s clear pushback by the mid-skill worker against low wages, low wage growth.

    As these things happen, as political winds shift, we’re seeing some of the natural consequences. Which is, let’s call it de-globalization. I don’t think it’s going to be a radical de-globalization. But it’s pretty clear that we’re seeing policies in these various countries that, on balance, are going to lead to less globalization.

    Those factors, combined with already very low unemployment, should lead to higher levels of inflation. I think we’re starting to see that right now. And that’s the thing that’s going to allow interest rates to move higher.

    Peters says he envisions a correction happening before a recession begins because the Fed is already signaling that it can’t afford to be there to rescue markets without introducing even more risk into the financial system. This shift in the Fed’s stance from actively interventionist to passive – which is necessary for the central bank to position itself to react to the next crisis – is one factor that could contribute to a marked drop in equity valuations. The government’s carefree spending will push inflation higher in an economy where low unemployment and high debt levels will create a natural constraint on growth…and equity markets will internalize this in the form of a correction that could arrive months before the next recession begins.

    The Fed will continue to welcome this volatility, Peters says, for fear that markets will end the business cycle with P/E on the S&P 500 above 25, setting them up for a massive, destabilizing correction…

    But the Fed is anticipating this “nightmare scenario,” and its shift in communication reflects that.

    I think that your insight is absolutely correct in that the world that I’m framing is one where monetary policy and its ability to interact with financial markets and the economy is going to look awfully different from what we’ve grown accustomed to. And that’s going to create a really interesting market.

    Incidentally, I think that you’re seeing clear confirmation of this in the way the Fed is speaking. So, unlike 10% correction out of the blue that I’ve seen over many years, this time around we haven’t seen a Fed member come out and say we’re going to be really supportive of the Markets.

    In fact, every single Fed governor who’s spoken in – there have probably been five in the past couple of weeks. And then there was Yellen a couple of Fridays ago on her way out. They all said that it is rather capable of dealing with the decline in equity markets and asset prices, and you should do just fine, and we’re not really worried.

    I think that what they are in the process of doing is they are beginning to shift the way they communicate with the markets and they’re signaling that they’re no longer going be there the way that they have been.

    And there are a few reasons for that. I think number one is because they recognize that, at 4.1% unemployment, and a trillion-and- a-half- dollar tax cut, and a 300-billion- dollar budget boost, and a 90-billion- dollar hurricane recovery spend, and then something that amplifies it with infrastructure spending – they’re looking at this and saying, there’s just literally no way this is not going to lead to higher levels of inflation.

    This growth-constrained scenario that Peters envisions, will create major problems for risk parity funds as the new economic environment causes stocks and bonds to plunge, creating a scenario for risk parity funds where deleveraging leads to a vicious feedback loop.

    RiskParity

    The eventual blowup could make their horrific performance during this month’s selloff look tame by comparison…

    There’s a short answer and a long answer to that. Maybe I’ll try for a medium answer. The biggest problem in the investment industry today, the portfolio construct that investors have come to rely on, which is a brilliant construct really pioneered by Ray Dalio – he naturally has done incredibly well from this, and it’s been a fantastic strategy – this risk parity strategy.

    And, while there’s certainly more complexity to it that just being long equities and leveraged funds, let’s just view it as that strategy for a moment. It’s essentially what the dominant portfolio has become at all the major investors, pensions, endowments, etc. in the industry. And the beauty of that portfolio has been that you’ve been able to own risk assets and then you’ve been able to own a hedge, which is a leveraged bond portfolio, and that hedge has actually paid you a positive return.

    The problem is when equity valuations become very high and interest rates get very low it’s difficult for that strategy to continue to perform very well. All else being equal. Now, however, if you add modest inflation into the formula, that portfolio actually becomes pretty toxic.

    That’s the environment I think we’re entering into. And that’s why, ultimately, I see some of these shocks like this most recent market shock as just being trail markers on this path to a much more difficult investment environment.

    In summary, while Peters doesn’t envision a return to 1970s-style inflation, given the structural shifts in the US economy, combined with anti-globalist policies instituted by politicians across the West, markets are looking extremely precarious, and investors who are optimistic about the growth prospects of the Trump administration’s fiscal policies should keep this in mind.

    Listen to the whole interview below:

  • "He Has Her Blood On His Hands" – Father Of Florida Shooting Victim Viciously Attacked Online For Supporting Trump

    Authored by Alex Thomas via SHTFplan.com,

    Leftist social media users have spent the day viciously attacking the father of one of the victims of the horrific Florida school mass shooting over the fact that he wore a Trump 2020 t-shirt during an interview with a local news outlet.

    That’s right, in the new America it is apparently perfectly acceptable to attack and even blame the parent of a teenager who was murdered, all because his political beliefs do not line up with the leftist orthodoxy.

    Both Andrew Pollack and his wife were interviewed outside of Broward Health North hospital, hoping to hear from their daughter hours after the attack that left 17 dead and over a dozen injured. During the interview, Pollack committed the thought crime of wearing a t-shirt for his preferred presidential candidate, a fact that apparently gave leftists on twitter the cover to viciously attack him.

    The attacks ranged from actually blaming Pollack himself for his own daughters death, to disgustingly claiming that they did not feel sorry for him simply because he supports Trump and presumably the NRA. Keep in mind that the anti-gun left has spent BILLIONS of dollars to push their agenda while at the same time pretending that the NRA is this all powerful group that cannot be stopped.

    One user even went as far as to claim that Trump, the NRA, and all Republicans themselves were actually RESPONSIBLE for the attack itself.

    Make no mistake, the following tweets are representative of a large portion of the new left which openly hates all their political opposition to the point where they simply do not care if someone’s daughter was literally just murdered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Additionally, the social media giants themselves (Facebook, Twitter, etc) seemingly support the vicious attacks on Pollack as they have allowed them to continue unimpeded while at the same time censoring dozens of conservatives for a variety of fake reasons.

    As I noted above, this is the new America folks, where all it takes is wearing a Trump shirt to be attacked and even blamed for your own daughters murder.

    *  *  *

    ZH: One could interject that these vicious attacks are not from real left-leaning Americans, they are all Russian bots, aiming to divide our nation even further?

Digest powered by RSS Digest