- European Parliament Urges Boycott Of Soccer World Cup In Russia
German Green Party member Rebecca Harms has initiated an open letter calling on EU governments to stay away from the FIFA World Cup taking place in Russia in June.
Sixty Members of the European Parliament from 16 member states and 5 different political groups are supporting the call.
The letter (in full below) reads that the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain last month “was just the latest chapter in Vladimir Putin’s mockery of our European values.”
Citing “indiscriminate bombings of schools, hospitals, and civilian areas in Syria; the violent military invasion in Ukraine; systematic hacking; disinformation campaigns; election meddling; trying to destabilize our societies and to weaken and divide the EU.”
Concluding that:
“All this doesn’t make for a good World Cup host.”
Additionally, Harms said on Friday that Putin is responsible for the occupation and war in Ukraine.
Harms letter – and the backing of a growing group of MEPs follows White House representatives warning British and American fans to think twice before going to the World Cup in Russia.
The official said: “We won’t have the same ability to protect our citizens or even just deal with the regular consular affairs.
“If you get into any kind of difficulty there then we just won’t have the wherewithal. People have accidents. They get ill, they need to be medivacked out.”
The official also warned of the threat of Russian hooligans promising to hunt down English fans in the streets and even “kill”.
* * *
To all EU governments,
We, Members of the European Parliament, call on you, as representatives of the people in the European Union, to join the governments of Iceland and the UK in not attending the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia.
The Salisbury attack was just the latest chapter in Vladimir Putin’s mockery of our European values: indiscriminate bombings of schools, hospitals and civilian areas in Syria; the violent military invasion in Ukraine; systematic hacking; disinformation campaigns; election meddling; trying to destabilize our societies and to weaken and divide the EU – all this doesn’t make for a good World Cup host.
While we agree that sport can help build metaphorical bridges, as long as Putin is blowing up real ones in Syria, we cannot pretend this World Cup is just like any other major sporting event.
As long as Putin is illegally occupying Crimea, holding Ukrainian political prisoners and supporting the war in Eastern Ukraine we cannot pretend that this tournament’s host is our welcoming neighbour.
And as long as political dissidents and the free press are in constant danger in Russia and beyond, we cannot turn our backs on them to shake Putin’s hand in a football stadium.
Three days after the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Putin invaded Ukraine, and the world watched in dismay. This time, we can make things right by not cheering at his grave violations of human rights at the 2018 World Cup.
The world is looking at Europe in these difficult times. Our governments should not strengthen the authoritarian and anti-western path of the Russian President, but boycott the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia and raise their voices for the protection of human rights, of democratic values and peace.
Sincerely,
Adaktusson, Lars (EPP, Sweden)
Andrikiene, Laima (EPP, Lithuania)
Auštrevičius, Petras (ALDE, Lithuania)
Boni, Michal (EPP, Poland)
Bové, José (Greens/EFA, France)
Buzek, Jerzy (EPP, Poland)
Childers, Nessa (S&D, Ireland)
Delli, Karima (Greens/EFA, France)
Durand, Pascal (Greens/EFA, France)
Eickhout, Bas (Greens/EFA, Netherlands)
Fjellner, Christofer (EPP, Sweden)
Fotyga, Anna (ECR, Poland)
Gabelic, Aleksander (S&D, Sweden)
Giegold, Sven (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Griffin, Theresa (S&D, UK)
Guteland, Jytte (S&D, Sweden)
Harms, Rebecca (Initiator of this call, Greens/EFA, Germany)
Hetman, Krzysztof (EPP, Poland)
Heubuch, Maria (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Hökmark, Gunnar (EPP, Sweden)
Jadot, Yannick (Greens/EFA, France)
Jávor, Benedek (Greens/EFA, Hungary)
Jazłowiecka, Danuta (EPP, Poland)
Joly, Eva (Greens/EFA, France)
Kalinowski, Jarosław (EPP, Poland)
Kelam, Tunne (EPP, Estonia)
Kozłowska-Rajewicz, Agnieszka (EPP, Poland)
Kudrycka, Barbara (EPP, Poland)
Lambert, Jean (Greens/EFA, UK)
Lewandowski, Janusz (EPP, Poland)
Łukacijewska, Elżbieta (EPP, Poland)
Macovei, Monica (EPP, Romania)
Moody, Clare (S&D, UK)
Olbrycht, Jan (EPP, Poland)
Pabriks, Artis (EPP, Latvia)
Pietikäinen, Sirpa (EPP, Finnland)
Pitera, Julia (EPP, Poland)
Plura, Marek (EPP, Poland)
Rivasi, Michèle (Greens/EFA, France)
Ropé, Bronis (Greens/EFA, Lithuania)
Rosati, Dariusz (EPP, Poland)
Sargentini, Judith (Greens/EFA, Netherlands)
Siekierski, Czesław (EPP, Poland)
Smith, Alyn (Greens/EFA, UK)
Šojodrová, Michaela (EPP, Czech Republic)
Staes, Bart (Greens/EFA, Belgium)
Štětina, Jaromír (EPP, Czech Republic)
Szejnfeld, Adam (EPP, Poland)
Tarand, Indrek (Greens/EFA, Estonia)
Telička, Pavel (EPP, Czech Republic)
Thun und Hohenstein, Róża Gräfin von (EPP, Poland)
Trüpel, Helga (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Turmes, Claude (Greens/EFA, Luxembourg)
Vaidere, Inese (EPP, Latvia)
Valero, Bodil (Greens/EFA, Sweden)
Wałesa, Jarosław (EPP, Poland)
Ward, Julie (S&D, UK)
Wenta, Bogdan (EPP, Poland)
Zdrojewski, Bogdan (EPP, Poland)
Zwiefka, Tadeusz (EPP, Poland) - Is A False-Flag Attack On A US Navy Ship Next?
Authored by Nick via The Saker blog,
The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group left the east coast Naval Station Norfolk, VA on 11th April.
The aircraft carrier is accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy, the guided-missile destroyers USS Burke, Bulkeley, Forest Sherman and Farragut, and the destroyers USS Jason and The Sullivans. The strike group carries 6,500 sailors and Carrier Air Wing One.
Recent announcements about Russia’s hypersonic Kinzhal (‘Dagger’) missile system having made these vessels effectively obsolete, this means that the ships and their crews are essentially being sailed into a bloody scrapyard.
Even without the recent upgrading of the Kinzhal system, the experience of the British fleet in the Falklands conflict illustrates the vulnerability of warships to low-flying missiles. In addition to the sinking of the HMS Sheffield and Sir Galahad, virtually every British ship was hit by at least one of Argentinian’s French-made Exocet missiles – a weapons system which was already 20 years old at the time.
Exocet missile sinks HMS Sheffield during Falklands War:
Reportedly the only thing that saved the UK force from obliteration was that the Argentinians had got their missile altimeter settings wrong. The Russians will not make the same sort of error!
These facts are of course known to the US military planners and – one would assume and hope, for it is duty to know – by Donald Trump. And yet the US fleet is now nearing the coast of Syria, where it will met up with American and other NATO warships already in position. Together, they will make one big flock of sitting ducks.
If the people pushing Trump manage to get him launch a new strike on Syria (and we must expect a new false flag attack) and if the massive increase in NATO firepower means that enough missiles get through to enough targets to kill Russians, then Putin really has no choice but to sink the US fleet.
No choice because, whatever the danger of doing so, failure to respond would signal Russian defeat and retreat in Syria, which would of course lead to a rapid escalation of military pressure against Lebanon and Iran, and mean that when the Empire then rolls on to strike Russia, her most reliable allies will already have gone and her ‘soft underbelly’ will be seriously exposed.
So Putin orders the destruction of the US fleet, and an hour later all that is left is debris and mangled corpses in some oil slicks – and some ‘great’ photos and video clips to illustrate Trump’s declaration of war on account of “Russia’s deadly sneak attack on a US humanitarian force”.
Sounds familiar? It should do. Because we’re not just thinking here of the USS Maine, the Lusitania and the Gulf of Tonkin. The Washington habit of using sunken ships as the causus belli also of course included Pearl Harbor.
Just in case you need a reminder, here’s just one example of the many short videos out there on the truth about the Japanese attack on 7th December 1941 which explain how Roosevelt had advance intelligence of the planned attack, but decided not to pass it on to the anchored sitting duck fleet:
The more or less official excuse (the President’s guilt never having been formally acknowledged) is that to have alerted the fleet would also have tipped off the Japanese that their naval codes had already been broken. But the truth is of course that deliberately didn’t warn the fleet because he knew that the sacrifice would goad the American people into a war against Hitler to which he and those around and behind him were committed, but which the American people opposed.
The circumstances this time are of course somewhat different, not least that everyone with even a passing knowledge of the Russian missile capability already knows that 6,500 sailors are “on their way to Samara”.
Which makes Donald Trump either a criminally incompetent fool, a bad poker player or a wholly controlled puppet of the psychotic Anglo-Zionist elite. If he is one of the first two of these, then there is of course still a chance that he might respond to the disaster by blinking and retreating. In which case, the Beltway elite will use the human tragedy and his humiliation to remove him from office (not a bad consolation prize, from their point of view).
But if he is the third, then the ‘shock’ blitz on the US fleet will lead to the immediate declaration of World War Three.
Indeed, if things get that far (and we’re probably 48 hours and one White Helmets’ video away from it) then the only thing that realistically stands a chance of stopping the racist Anglo-Zionist psychopaths in their tracks is if the Russian attack and its result are such a devastating show of ‘shock and awe’ as to make it impossible for them to ignore a simultaneous public warning by Putin to Netanyahu that any further US hostile response will place Israel directly in the firing line as well.
That might JUST be enough to make the Neocons back off. If not, then World War Three it will be. It might not go nuclear straight away, but even while it is conventional EVERYTHING will change:
Dissident anti-war voices such as this will rapidly be silenced by blanket censorship and internment; your sons and daughters will be conscripted; your taxes will go through the roof – and you will have to live with the ever-present fear that, once China enters the war against Washington and its client states, the tide will run so fast against the ‘democratic allies’ that their ‘humanitarian missiles’ will end up with nuclear tips.
If that disturbs you (and it surely should) then all I ask is that you take the Pearl Harbor analogy and get busy spreading it on social media RIGHT NOW. Because once those young sailors and airmen have been sacrificed, the demand for a war of ‘revenge’ will be unstoppable. But if the warmongers realize that plenty of people have already understood the plan, it might just spook them into backing off.
In which case the fleet can do a few face-saving manoeuvres and then sail home again and we can look forward to a summer which may be warm, but not as uncomfortably hot as it could otherwise become!
- 63% Of The World's Tallest Buildings Are In Asia
Authored by Yuka Kato via Fixr.com,
With tall buildings dominating skylines and creating a sense of wonder and pride for those who call their locations home, we wanted to explore more about the constant and continued race to the clouds. A recent infographic explored the tallest completed buildings in the U.S., but left some to wonder how the skyline looked outside of the U.S. borders.
Defining a “tall building” is harder than it seems as there is no absolute definition on what constitutes one; however, once a building reaches 328 ft (100 m), it can be called a skyscraper. At heights over 984.3 ft (300 m) it is designated “supertall” and at 1,968.5 ft (600 m) it boasts the title “megatall”. As of today, there are 129 supertalls and only three megatalls completed globally.
This article and the above infographic, which visually depicts the most up to date data, collected and grouped by CTBUH into building height ranges of +492.1 ft (150 m), +656.2 ft (200 m), and +984.3 ft (300 m), will focus on skyscrapers that extend upwards to heights at or exceeding 492.1 ft (150m).
The Clear Leader and The Distant Runner Up
With over 63% of the world’s tallest buildings, Asia leads the globe in reaching skywards. In total, Asia is home to more than 3,600 buildings that reach over 492.1 ft (150 m) in height according to the data available at the CTBUH. Of that same data, China enjoys the lion’s share of 63.6% for a total of 2,306 giants. The majority (72.3%) of China’s giants fall into the +492.1 ft (150 m) range and they have more than double (57) the number of buildings that reach upward of 984.3 ft (300 m) than any other country.
North America’s position is a distant second to Asia in terms of sheer number of tall buildings; however, it must be noted that North America is comprised of two countries; whereas, Asia is comprised of 18, making it a smaller region overall. The United States leads not only the North America region but the entire Americas region too, with 943 giants in total. Over 78% of those buildings are +492.1 ft (150 m), 19% over 656.2 ft (200 m), and the remaining make up the buildings over 984.3 ft (300 m) in height.
The Biggest of the Big
China and the U.S. are definitively ahead of other countries in the number of tall buildings that sit on their soil; however, when it comes to the tallest of the tall, it is another country that soars. There are 11 countries which are home to more than 100 buildings that reach heights of 492.1 ft (150 m) or more. Of those, the U.A.E. has the largest proportion of supertall and megatall structures with 7.2% (25) of their buildings exceeding 984.3 ft (300 m). One building in particular, the Burj Khalifa located in Dubai, reaches as astronomical height of 2,717 feet (828 m) and holds the record of the World’s Tallest Completed Building. It is 31% (643 ft / 196 m) taller than the world’s second tallest completed building, the Shanghai Tower in China. Despite the fact that the U.S. ranks second in terms of total number of tall buildings, it’s tallest completed building, One World Trade Center, currently ranks sixth in terms of height.
Tall Trends Today and Tomorrow
In 2015 China completed 62 new skyscrapers while the U.S. completed two. The following year China reached 84 newly completed; whereas, the U.S. again only completed two. Although likely to the chagrin of Donald Trump, it is no surprise that economist Tyler Cowen jokingly refers to this trend as “The Great Skyscraper Stagnation”.
There are some new predictions for future trends too. For example, Philadelphia’s Comcast Technology Center, located in a 4-season climate, is a potential indicator that the high-rise sky-garden model is moving beyond warm climates. The timber trend is taking hold too. With the TallWood House in Vancouver being completed in 2017 and the HoHo in Vienna still under construction, a Japanese company has come forward to announce plans to build the world’s tallest wooden skyscraper to mark its 350th anniversary in 2041.
The distribution of behemoths across the globe is not equally balanced, and while there may not be a straightforward answer as to why, there are some clues. In a 2017 CTBUH research paper, the authors reached the conclusion that a country’s GDP was a causal factor in predicting the amount of skyscraper floor space available. Another study done by Schläpfer, Bettencourt and Lee found correlation between the size and density of cities and the height of skyscrapers.
Regardless of the reason for building a tower, and the bragging rights that come along with it, one thing is for sure: Based on the data explored here, the trends witnessed to date, and impending projects like the Jeddah Tower, it can be surmised that they will continue soaring onwards and upwards for years to come.
- Lies And Deception In The Failed US Strike On Syria
Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
At 4am on April 14, the United States, France and the United Kingdom executed a strike on Syria.
The Syrian Free Press reported:
US Navy warships in the Red Sea and Air Force B-1B bombers and F-15 and F-16 aircraft rained dozens of ship- and air-launched cruise missiles down on the Syrian capital of Damascus, an airbase outside the city, a so-called chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, and an equipment-storage facility and command post, also near Homs. B1-Bs are typically armed with JASSM cruise missiles, which have a 450 kg warhead and a range of 370 kms. US Navy warships launched Tomahawks, which have 450 kg warheads and an operational range of between 1,300 and 2,500 kms. The British Royal Air Force’s contingent for the assault consisted of four Tornado GR4 ground-attack aircraft armed with the Storm Shadow long-range air-to-ground missile, which the UK’s Defense Ministry said targeted ‘chemical weapons sites’ in Homs. These weapons have a range of 400 kms. Finally, France sent its Aquitaine frigate, armed with SCALP naval land-attack cruise missiles (SCALP is the French military’s name for the Storm Shadow), as well as several Dassault Rafale fighters, also typically armed with SCALP or Apache cruise missiles. According to the Russian defense ministry, the B-1Bs also fired GBU-38 guided air bombs. Undoubtedly weary of the prospect of having their aircraft shot down after Israel lost one of its F-16s over Syria in February, the Western powers presumably launched their weapons from well outside the range of Syrian air defenses, with all the targets located just 70-90 kms from the Mediterranean Sea, and having to fly through Lebanon first.
Recapping the information on the strike, the US and its allies used the following assets:
-
2 destroyers (USS Laboon, USS Higgins)
-
1 US cruiser (USS Monterey)
-
1 French frigate (Georges Leygues)
-
5 Rafale jets
-
4 Mirage 2000-5F
-
4 British Tornado fighter-bombers
-
Virginia-class submarine USS John Warner
-
2 US B-1B bombers
Their ordnance brought to bear consisted of the following:
-
The cruiser Monterey launched 30 Tomahawk missiles
-
The destroyer Higgins 23 Tomahawks
-
The destroyer Laboon 7 Tomahawks
-
The submarine John Warner 6 Tomahawks
-
2 B-1 bombers 21 JASSM missiles
-
4 British Tornado GR4 fighter bombers 16 Storm-shadow missiles.
-
The French Languedoc fired 3 MdCN land-attack missiles.
The US Pentagon reports the strike group targeted:
– 76 missiles at the Barzah research center in Damascus:
(Source)
– 22 missiles at an undefined “chemical” structure:
(Source)
– 7 missiles against an undefined “chemical bunker”:
(Source)
The Syrian anti-aircraft forces responded, firing a total of 112 air-defence missiles:
-
the Pantsyr system fired 25 missiles and hit 24 targets;
-
the Buk system fired 29 missiles and hit 24 targets;
-
the Osa system fired 11 and hit 5 targets;
-
the S-125 system fired 13 missiles and hit 5 targets;
-
the Strela-10 system fired 5 missiles and hit 3 targets;
-
the Kvadrat system fired 21 and hit 11 targets;
-
the S-200 system fired 8 and hit no targets.
(Source)
The Russians have stated that the target of the raids and the effectiveness of the missiles have resulted in a big fiasco for the Americans:
-
4 missiles were launched targeting the area of the Damascus International Airport; these 4 missiles were intercepted.
-
12 missiles were launched targeting the Al-Dumayr Military Airport; these 12 missiles were intercepted.
-
18 missiles were launched targeting the Bley Military Airport; these 18 missiles were intercepted.
-
12 missiles were launched targeting the Shayarat Military Airport; these 12 missiles were intercepted.
-
9-15 missiles were launched targeting the Mezzeh Military Airport; 5 of them were intercepted.
-
16 missiles were launched targeting the Homs Military Airport; 13 of which were intercepted.
-
30 missiles were launched targeting targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani; 7 of which were intercepted.
The effectiveness of the attack is called into question, especially in light of the prompt reaction of the civilian population that took to the streets in support of Bashar al Assad and the Syrian government only a few hours after the US-led attack.
(Celebrations the morning of the 14th of April in Umayyad Square, Damascus )
What emerges immediately from the Syrian/Russian and American narratives are contrasting assessments of the outcome of the attack.
We can certainly try to dispute some statements.
The Americans repeated that at least two chemical-weapons laboratories together with a chemical-weapons storage center were affected. As evidenced by the images shot by PressTV a few hours after the attack, the structure is destroyed but there are no chemical contaminations. To confirm this, the television operators were able to perform interviews and live footage a few meters from the site of the strike without experiencing any physical effects, which would have been impossible were the American version of events true, given that the release of chemical agents would have made the whole area inaccessible.
Further confirmation comes from Ammar Waqqaf interviewed on The Heat on CGTV, claiming that his relatives were about 500 meters from one of the alleged chemical-weapons research centers attacked by the Americans. Ammar says that even in this case, no chemical agent appears to have been released, thus disproving Washington’s claims.
Another important consideration concerns the targets. For Washington, the targets were limited to research laboratories (Barzah and Jaramani) and storage centers. But Moscow revealed that the objectives also included military bases as well as the civilian Damascus International Airport, namely: Al-Dumayr Military Airport, Bley Military Airport, Shayarat Military Airport, Mezzeh Military Airport, Homs Military Airport. These were mostly unsuccessful attacks.
In light of the foregoing, we can assume that the operational goal of the Americans was twofold.
On the one hand, it was aimed at the media, to show a response to the (false) accusations of a chemical attack in Douma (Robert Fisk has just dismantled the propaganda and RT reminds us of the various false flags perpetrated by the US in the past to start wars); on the other, it was used by the military to actually permanently damage the Syrian Air Force, as suggested by the warmongering neocon Lindsey Graham. The failure of this latter objective could be seen in the following hours when the Syrian planes resumed operational tasks.
What does all this information tell us? First of all, the American goal was not to hit the non-existent chemical weapons or their production sites. The aim was to reduce as much as possible Syrian Air Force assets at different military airports. The mission was a failure, as reported by the Russian military envoy in Syria thanks to the air-defense measures of the Syrian forces as well as probably a high electronic-warfare (EW) contribution from the Russian forces present in the country. Very little has been leaked out in technical terms from the Russian Federation, which officially states that it did not contribute towards defending against the attack. It is probable that Russia played a decisive role in terms of EW, with its little-known but highly effective systems as demonstrated in previous attacks in 2017.
Moscow has no interest in promoting its cutting-edge EW systems, and often does not confirm the reports issued by more or less government agencies, as in the case of the USS Donald Cook in 2014. Yet Russia Beyond explains EW as probably being fundamental in foiling the American attack:
Before the electronic jamming system kicks in, the aircraft scans the radio signals in its zone of activity. After detecting the traffic frequencies of the enemy’s equipment, the operator on board the aircraft enables the jamming system in the required bandwidth,” a defense industry source told Russia Beyond. In addition to onboard systems, there are ground-based Krasnukha-4 EW complexes stationed around the Khemeimim airbase, Russia’s key stronghold in the Middle East. Their purpose is to suppress enemy “eavesdropping” and weapons guidance systems. The Krasnukha-4 blinds enemy radar systems to targets at a distance of 250 km.
The general public is yet to understand that the American attack was a complete fiasco, much to the irritation of Lindsey Graham, thereby confirming Damascus’s narrative, which presented Syria’s response as decisive and effective.
The logic of the matter must also be considered. We know that the US and her allies launched 105 missiles aimed at various targets, including some military bases, but none of them hit the targets indicated, except for two buildings already emptied previously and a non-existent chemical-weapons depot. The Pentagon amplified the military report with the lie that only two research centers and a chemical-weapons depot were intentionally bombed with something like 105 missiles; this in order to account for the number of missiles launched and to drown out other assessments that contradict the preferred narrative. But it is ridiculous to believe that the US used 76 missiles to hit three buildings. A much more plausible explanation is that there were many more targets but only three of them were hit, this measly success carrying zero tactical or strategic importance.
We should ask ourselves what the real goal of Washington was.
First, let us split the story into two parts. On the one hand we have a PR exercise, and on the other an intended military strategy.
In the first case, Washington was able to pursue its self-assigned role as “protector of the weak”, like those victims of the alleged Douma chemical attack. The intended optics were those of a humanitarian intervention, in line with the West’s self-assigned role of regent of the post-World War II neoliberal world order. In reality, we know very well that US hegemony is based on millions of deaths in dozens of wars scattered around the globe. According to the fictitious narrative of the media, it all boils down to good-guys-versus-bad-guys, and Assad is the bad guy while the US is the good guy punishing the regime for the use of chemical weapons.
The success of PR exercise depends very little on the military outcome and much more on the story as told by the media. It is based solely on the affirmation of the role taken up by the US and her allies, that of being in the right and driven only by the noblest interests. But such a series of unreasonable lies has only served to drag the world into chaos, diminished the role of the mainstream media, and destroyed the credibility of practically the whole Western political class.
From a military point of view, however, the goals, intent and results show a far more disturbing result for Washington and her allies. Soviet-era weapons that were updated by Moscow and integrated into the Russian air defense infrastructure network severely degraded the effectiveness of the American attack. Washington wanted to ground the entire Syrian air force, hitting air bases with precision, but failed in this objective. It remains to be seen whether this attack was a prelude to something bigger, with the USS Harry S Truman Carrier Strike Group currently heading towards Syrian territorial waters. Following the logic of deconfliction with Russia, it seems unlikely that a more intense attack will occur, rumors even circulating that Mattis dissuaded Trump from targeting Russian and Iranian targets, being well aware of the risks in a Russian response.
Let us focus for a moment on the risks in this kind of scenario. We are told that it would have brought about World War Three. This is probably true. But the consequences could also entail something much worse for Washington than for the rest of the world. The rhetoric that an American attack on Russian forces in Syria would trigger a direct war between the two superpowers is certainly true, but perhaps it is wrong in its interpretation. The danger seems to lie less in the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse and more in exposing the US’s inability to go toe to toe with a peer competitor.
While we cannot (and hope not to) test this hypothesis, we can certainly join the dots. If Soviet-era systems, with a slight Russian modernization, can nullify an American attack, what could the Russian forces do themselves? They could probably even block an attack of the scale visited on Baghdad, where several hundred missiles were directed towards civilian and military targets. It would be highly unlikely in such a scenario for Washington to peddle the false propaganda of a successful attack with little in terms of bomb-damage assessment commensurate with the number of missiles launched.
Already in the April 14 attack, the explanation that 76 cruise missiles were directed against three buildings is ridiculous but is nevertheless sustained thanks to the lies of the mainstream media and the paucity of available information. However, when thinking of 500 Tomahawks launched with limited damage to the Syrian infrastructure, even that would be impossible to sell to a very ignorant and deceived public. It would be the definitive proof of the decline in American military effectiveness and the potency of Russian air-defense systems. Just like during Putin’s presentation of new weapons some months back, when the Empire feels its core (military power) is threatened, it simply dismisses such reports as false, in the process becoming a victim of its own propaganda.
Yet one would only need to listen to the words of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Michael Griffin, in a conference at the Hudson Institute where he explained how Moscow and Beijing capabilities are far more advanced in hypersonic and supersonic missile defense and attack capabilities. He openly explained that Washington takes about 16 years to implement a paper-to-service idea, while its rivals in a few years have shown that they can move from concept to practical development, gaining a huge advantage over rivals like Washington.
The problem is inherent for the United States in its need to keep alive a war machine based on inflated military spending that creates enormous pockets of corruption and inefficiency. Just look at the F-35 project and its constant problems. Although Moscow’s spending is less than twelve times that of the United States, it has succeeded in developing systems like hypersonic missiles that are still in the testing phase in the United States, or systems like the S-500, which the US does not possess.
The S-300, S-400, P-800 anti-ship missiles and the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missiles, in addition to EW, pose a fundamental problem for Washington in dealing with attacks against a peer competitor. The military in Washington are probably well aware of the risks of revealing the US to be a paper tiger, so they prefer to avoid any direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, more for the purposes of maintaining military prestige than out of a desire to avoid risking World War Three. If Russian forces ever were targeted by the US, in all probability Moscow would simply disable the electronics of the US ship rather than sinking it, leaving it to float in the Mediterranean uncontrolled for days.
The last fig leaf hiding the US military’s inadequacy rests in Hollywood propaganda that presents the US military as practically invincible. Accordingly, some sites have spread stories that Russia had been forewarned of the attack and that the whole bombing event was the same sort of farce as a year ago. In the first place, it is important to clarify that Moscow had not been given advanced warning of the targets, and the reason for this is simple: the attack was real and, as explained above, did not succeed precisely because of Moscow and Damuscus’s effective parries and blocks.
In reality, Washington has failed in its military strategy, and the media have turned to the usual propaganda of chemical weapons and the need to enforce justice in the world and proclaim a non-existent success. In the meantime, Moscow fine-tunes its weapons and prepares to deliver the S-300 to the Syrian state and its allies (Lebanon?), effectively limiting Washington’s ability to attack in the Middle East. This is a fitting conclusion for a story that has only damaged the status of the United States and her allies in the Middle East, bringing Syria closer to a final victory.
-
- IMF Blasts New Zealand's "Discriminatory" Ban On Home Sales To Foreigners
Amid reports that 40,000 kiwis were living on the streets or in emergency shelters thanks to an acute housing crisis in the nation of nearly 5 million, New Zealand’s Labour-led government knew it needed to take drastic action to cool the country’s white hot housing market – or at least convince the public that it was doing something.
So late last year, lawmakers proposed a bill that would limit home purchases to people who carry residential visas. It is called the Overseas Investment Act.
As we’ve pointed out, home prices in New Zealand have risen dramatically since the financial crisis. Over the past ten years, New Zealand home prices have risen by roughly 60% due to a combination of factors, including limited supply, low interest rates fueling a boom in borrowing, and – of course – foreign speculation.
And on Sunday, the chorus of critics against the measure – which hasn’t been passed into law – gained another voice: That of the International Monetary Fund. In its annual report on the New Zealand economy, the IMF said the measure would be “unlikely to have a significant impact on housing affordability,” and that the rest of the government’s “ambitious policy agenda” would likely be more than enough to help make homes more affordable.
The government has initiated an ambitious policy agenda to restore housing affordability, which appropriately focuses on strengthening supply and lowering tax distortions . The agenda includes several work streams.
The KiwiBuild program aims to increase housing supply at affordable price points. The Urban Growth Agenda aims to address regulatory, planning and other policies that reduce development capacity for growth, along with the under-funding of local infrastructure development and maintenance. The government has already announced the extension of the bright-line test on sale of residential property from within two years of purchase to within five years and also proposes to limit negative gearing from rental properties. A Tax Working Group is considering possible additional reform, including a broader capital gains tax on real estate investment and land tax reform, although its mandate is narrow on the latter. These reforms are complementary, and the success of the housing policy agenda will depend on well-coordinated progress on all fronts.
A ban of residential real estate purchases by nonresidents is unlikely to have a significant impact on housing affordability. The proposed ban in the draft amendment to the Overseas Investment Act is a capital flow management measure (CFM) under the IMF’s Institutional View on capital flows. The measure is unlikely to be temporary or targeted, and foreign buyers seem to have played a minor role in New Zealand’s residential real estate markets recently. The broad housing policy agenda above, if fully implemented, would address most of the potential problems associated with foreign buyers on a less discriminatory basis.
Should the measure become law, foreigners would be allowed to build new developments, but only as long as they have plans to sell the property as soon as its finished.
However, it would include an exception for people who can convince New Zealand’s Overseas Investment Office that they intend to live in the country long term (a group that might soon include a handful of US-based billionaires). Australian citizens are also exempt from the rule.
Ironically, reports about the rule led to a surge in home sales as foreigners scrambled to buy ahead of the ban.
Local critics of the law, including the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, agree with the IMF that the measure is unnecessary because foreigners just aren’t that big of a factor in the country’s housing market: The organization estimates that less than 4% of home buyers are foreigners, per the Independent.
As we’ve previously pointed out, it’s probable that banning foreign speculators will cool off the country’s property market. But the problem that the government is missing is that it risks triggering a real-estate crash. And when housing prices crash, people feel poorer, so they spend less, a pattern that threatens to afflict the broader economy. In its report, the IMF applauded New Zealand’s “solid economic expansion in recent years” and noted that “household debt-related vulnerabilities are expected to decrease…”
- "Our Hands Are On The Trigger": Iran Threatens To "Annihilate" Israel
The head of Iran’s military, Abdolrahim Mousavi, said that the Iranian Army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) – another branch of the Iranian military, will “move hand in hand” to ensure that the “arrogant system will collapse and the Zionist regime will be annihilated” within 25 years, reports FARS news agency.
“When the arrogant powers create a sanctuary for the Zionist regime to continue survival, we shouldn’t allow one day to be added to the ominous and illegitimate life of this regime,” General Moussavi added, addressing the ceremony.
Mousavi’s remarks come one day after IRGC Lieutenant Commander Brigadier General Hossein Salami warned Israel not to engage in further saber-rattling against Iran – claiming that their airbases are “within reach,” putting them “in the dragon’s mouth.”
#BREAKING#Iran‘s #IRGC vice-commander Salami warns enemies: Hands are on the trigger & missiles are ready & will be launched at any moment that enemy has a sinister plot. North & west of #Israel are at the intersection of fire; you will not escape. You live in the dragon’s mouth pic.twitter.com/T0mjYi8Adc
— Hossein Dalirian (@HosseinDalirian) April 20, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
”Don’t trust your airbases. They’re within reach,” said Salami, adding that “wherever you are in the occupied land, you’ll be under fire from us, from east and west. You became arrogant. If there’s a war, the result will be your complete elimination.”
Salami noted that Iran’s “Hands are on the trigger & missiles are ready & will be launched at any moment that the enemy has a sinister plot.”
“We know you well, you are too vulnerable,” Salami said, addressing Israel. “You have no depth and no backyard, you are the size of our Beit-ul-Moqaddas operations (during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war), any point in the land under your occupation is a cross point of fire from North and from West, and this is a new phenomenon. You have no way out to escape and you are living in the dragon’s mouth.”
General Salami told the Zionists to be aware that in case of outbreak of any war “you can be assured that it will result in wiping you off, the smallest target is your existence, there is no smaller target than that“. –FARS
Salami also told Israel that they shouldn’t count on the help of the UK, Britain and France, saying “You are gone when they arrive there like an ambulance sent to a dead man that can only take him to the graveyard; then, behave yourselves and avoid doing dangerous calculations.”
Two Israeli aircraft struck the T-4 airbase in central Syria April 9, approximately 48 hours after an alleged chemical attack in the city of Douma – and five days before U.S. led coalition forces bombed three Syrian targets in retaliation. RT reported that two Israeli F-15 jets fired eight guided missiles at the airfield from Lebanese airspace. The jets never entered Syria.
Of these, Syrian air defenses intercepted five. The attack left roughly 14 people dead, including Iranians and Syrians, the Associated Press reported.
Russia and the Syrian military blamed Israel for a pre-dawn missile attack Monday on a major air base in central Syria, saying Israeli fighter jets launched the missiles from Lebanon’s air space. A war-monitoring group said the airstrikes killed 14 people, including Iranians active in Syria.
Last Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conferred with US President Donald Trump before ordering the April 9 strike which targeted Iranian air-defense and other military hardware such as a drone program.
After conferring with President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a strike on the newly arrived antiaircraft battery to prevent Iranian forces from using it against Israeli warplanes carrying out increasing numbers of operations in Syria, some of these people said.
Israeli officials told the Trump administration about the planned strike in advance so that the U.S. was aware of their plans to directly target an Iranian base, according to two people briefed on the plans.
Israeli leaders have kept silent about the strike, but Russia, Iran and Syria all accused Israel of carrying it out. Information provided by intelligence officials and others briefed on the strike offered new details on the specific target, Israel’s goals, and the discussions with Washington. –WSJ
In response, Israel’s Netanyahu fired back at Salami on Friday.
“We hear the threats from Iran. IDF fighters and the security branches are ready for any development. We will fight anyone who tries to harm us.”
Israel has carried out over 100 airstrikes in Syria since 2013 – primarily targeting Hezbollah, an Iranian-funded Lebanese militia group. Beginning in 2018, however, Israel began targeting Iran directly.
A missile strike earlier this month, which killed seven Iranian military advisors from the country’s elite Quds Force in the Syrian city of Homs, has been neither confirmed nor denied by Israel’s government.
However, New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that a senior Israeli military official admitted to him that Israel attacked the Syrian base known as T4, in a separate attack. “It was the first time we attacked live Iranian targets – both facilities and people,” the official reportedly said. –Yahoo!
“Tel Aviv will be punished for its aggressive action,” said Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi last week. “The occupying Zionist regime will, sooner or later, receive an appropriate response to its actions.”
That said, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zerif said in CBS interview that while further Israeli strikes in Syria will have “consequences,” he suggested that a major military escalation is unlikely.
“I do not believe that we are headed towards regional war but I do believe that unfortunately, Israel has continued its violations with international law, hoping to be able to do it with impunity because of the U.S. support and trying to find smokescreens to hide behind,” Zarif told CBS News.
- Iran Officially Switches From Dollar To Euro
Just two weeks after “panic” hit the streets of Tehran as the Iranian government attempted to ‘fix’ the freefall of the Rial against the USDollar…
Middle East Monitor reports that Iran’s feud with the US is set to get worse after Tehran announced this week that it will start reporting foreign currency amounts in euros rather than US dollars, as part of the country’s effort to reduce its reliance on the American currency due to political tension with Washington.
Central bank governor Valiollah Seif said last week that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had welcomed his suggestion of replacing the dollar with the euro in foreign trade, as the “dollar has no place in our transactions today”.
Iran does hardly any trade with the US due to decades of economic sanctions. It’s most important trading partner is the UAE, which accounts for around 24 per cent of all Iranian imports and exports. China is not far behind with 22 per cent, followed by Turkey, India and the EU, all of which account for around six per cent of Iran’s trade.
Iran’s leaders have been threatening for some time to ditch the dollar for a different currency. The shift towards euro took on added urgency after the appointment of Donald Trump and his decision to include Iran on a list of mainly Muslim majority countries banned from entering the US.
Trump has also threatened to exit a 2015 nuclear deal Iran made with world powers. The next major test for the deal is 12 May when Trump will be required to re-endorse the deal, which he has derided as “the worst deal ever”.
The move is seen by Iranian officials as a logical and necessary step. The threat of further US sanctions has destabilised Iran’s foreign exchange market in recent months. Bank transactions involving the dollar are already difficult for Iran; sanctions have made US banks unwilling to do business with Tehran; foreign firms can be exposed to sanctions if they do Iranian deals in dollars, even if the operations involve non-US branches.
According to Reuters, Ali Khamenei, who has welcomed the decision to replace the dollar, blamed foreign enemies for the “recent issues in the currency market” and asked Iran’s intelligence services to defuse the plots against the Islamic Republic.
- "Ice Nine" Comes To China
Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,
The war on cash has been going on for decades. The U.S. abolished the $500 bill in late 1969. (The old $500 bill featured a portrait of President William McKinley, by the way. I remember seeing a few when I was a kid.)
Today’s $100 bill is only worth 10 cents on the dollar compared with the $100 bill of 1969.
Europe will abolish the 500 euro this year. We all recall what happened in India in late 2016 when India abolished the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes (worth about $10 and $20, respectively); there was mass chaos as peasants lined up to turn in the old notes for digital credit.
ATMs were shut down because the replacement notes were too big for the ATMs!
Now the war on cash is being taken to a new level. China, the world’s most populous country and the world’s second-largest economy, has said that physical cash may soon become obsolete.
China has huge digital payments platforms developed by their own companies Tencent and Alibaba, in addition to traditional credit and debit cards and mobile phone payments.
Movements like this might start slowly, but they gain momentum and end quickly. Cash can be expensive to handle because vendors have to hire armored cars to move it, buy machines to count it, pay premiums to insure it and risk losses due to theft.
Those costs only make sense if they can be spread among a high volume of cash. Once cash usage falls below that critical threshold, the handling costs per unit are too high and merchants quickly abandon cash altogether.
China may be getting close to that tipping point, and will get there sooner if the government pushes cash off the ledge by regulation.
This is consistent with the Communist plan for total control of their people.
Once physical cash is gone, your liberty is gone because government can easily monitor and freeze all digital payments. The only recourse for the Chinese people once their cash is gone will be physical gold and silver.
This brings me to what I’ve warned about for years…
It’s what I call “ice-nine.” This refers to government’s ability to lock down the financial system in the next global crisis. And it won’t be just China.
In the 2008 crisis, governments met the demand for liquidity by printing money, guaranteeing banks and money market funds and engaging in trillions of dollars of currency swaps.
The problem is that the central banks still have not normalized their balance sheets and interest rates since the last crisis and are unlikely to be able to do so before the next one. Money printing won’t be an option, because central banks have printed too much already. Any more money printing would trigger a complete loss of confidence in fiat money and a mad scramble for hard assets.
Instead of money printing, central banks and governments plan to lock down the system and not let investors get their money out.
This will begin with money market funds and then spread quickly to bank accounts, ATMs and stock exchanges until the entire system is frozen.
Then an international monetary conference will be convened to create a new global monetary standard, probably based on special drawing rights (SDRs), which will be printed by the trillions and handed out to governments to gradually reliquify the system.
Governments can see this coming and are already taking steps to prepare for more extreme measures.
A few years ago, the SEC changed the rules so that U.S. money market funds can suspend redemptions. Recently, China announced that it would follow suit and allow its money market funds to also suspend redemptions. Now China has halted trading in the stock of one of its largest companies, HNA.
This comes on top of the government takeover of another giant Chinese corporation, Anbang Insurance, at the end of February.
The bottom line is governments are preparing for ice-nine and the lockdown of banks and stock exchanges. That includes the U.S. government.
You should prepare also by buying physical gold and silver to be kept outside the banking system.
- Most Millionaires Expect To Live To 100 According To UBS
Thanks to modern scientific advancements, people are living much longer than their ancestors – decades in fact. The average lifespan in China, the U.S. and the majority of Eastern Europe is now the late 70’s, while those living in Western Europe and Japan can expect to become octogenarians – according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Most millionaires, however, expect to live a century thanks to their ability to buy the healthiest, cleanest, lowest risk lifestyle. Statistically speaking, that’s true.
In the U.S., for example, the richest 1 percent of American women by income live more than 10 years longer than the poorest 1 percent, a 2016 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found. For men, the gap between the richest and poorest Americans is almost 15 years. –Bloomberg
In 1930, the average life expectancy for American men was only 58, and 62 for women, according to the SSA. 50 years before that, one could expect to live to around 35 years-old.
Expectations of living to 100 vary widely by country, with 76% of Germans expecting to become centenarians, while only 30% of Americans think they’ll make it that far. On average, 53% of investors with at least $1 million in investible assets say they expect to live to 100.
Extending your life isn’t cheap
The wealthy know that if they’re going to make it to 100, they will need to spend money on the best healthcare, food, exercise and other services that can extend life. Then of course, there’s all of the other standard living expenses one must plan for if one is to try and stick around as long as possible.
UBS says that 91% of the 5,000 investors surveyed are “making financial changes due to increased life expectancy.”
The rich are more than willing to sacrifice money for extra longevity. Nine of 10 wealthy people agreed that “health is more important than wealth.” Asked by UBS how much of their fortune they’d be willing to give up “to guarantee an extra 10 years of healthy life,” the average responses varied by wealth level. Investors who are barely millionaires, with $1 million to $2 million in net worth, were willing to give up a third of their nest egg for an additional decade of life. Investors with more than $50 million were willing to part with almost half of their fortune. –Bloomberg
In recent years, life expectancy of Americans has surprisingly declined for two years in a row, a phenomenon Bloomberg suggests is due in part to the country’s opioid abuse crisis. It could also be because Americans are fatter than ever, with 40% of adults considered obese, according to the CDC.
A troubling new report released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that almost 40 percent of American adults and nearly 20 percent of adolescents are obese — the highest rates ever recorded for the U.S.
“It’s difficult to be optimistic at this point,” said Dr. Frank Hu, chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. “The trend of obesity has been steadily increasing in both children and adults despite many public health efforts to improve nutrition and physical activity.” –NBC
A study from Georgia Southern University revealed that it’s not just poor eating habits that’s causing Americans to pack on the pounds...extreme laziness and binge watching the latest Netflix series are also contributing factors.
“There’s still a huge amount of cheap, accessible, highly processed food available everywhere almost anytime,” says Hu. “And despite people doing more recreational activity these days, the overall activity level, household activity and occupational activity has decreased in recent years.”
No wonder just 30% of the Americans millionaires UBS surveyed thought they’d make it to 100. That said, Bloomberg says they should cheer up – as the wealthy in the United States have been “increasingly insulated from the depressing health trends afflicting most Americans.”
A 2016 study by University of California at Berkeley professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman compared the death rates for American men aged 65 to 79 across several decades by wealth. If these men’s wealth placed them in the top 1 percent, their mortality rates in the early 1980s were 12 percent lower than average. Twenty-five years later, the wealthiest American men’s death rates had plunged to 40 percent below average. –Bloomberg
Of course, if you’ve eaten yourself into a blissful state of deadly obesity, there’s always the hail mary option of freezing one’s body until science can find a way to cure whatever ails.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
