- Nightmare Scenario: Operational Miscalculations Could Trigger Nuclear War
Nightmare Scenario: Operational Miscalculations Could Trigger Nuclear War
Submitted by geopolitical and national security analyst Nauman Sadiq,
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have tried to set up phone calls with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Gen. Valery Gerasimov but the Russians “have so far declined to engage,” said Pentagon spokesman John Kirby in a statement Wednesday, March 23.
“A nightmare scenario would be a Russian missile or attack aircraft that destroys a U.S. command post across the Polish-Ukrainian border,” James Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as the Supreme Allied Commander at NATO from 2009 to 2013, told the Washington Post. “A local commander might respond immediately, thinking the event was a precursor to a wider attack. This could lead to rapid and irreversible escalation, to include potential use of nuclear weapons.”
According to a CNN report detailing a rare face-to-face meeting between Russian and US military officials last week, the US believes that the refusal for high-level meetings is due to Kremlin worries that the encounters would show them to be vulnerable if they allowed such meetings, because it risks a tacit admission that an abnormal situation exists, according to the readout of the meeting.
Though the assumption of vulnerability appears misconceived considering while the Pentagon has allegedly attempted to maintain high-level contacts with Russian counterparts, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has not attempted any conversations with his counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, since the start of the conflict last month.
The real reason the Russian military leadership has allegedly shunned maintaining high-level contacts with the Pentagon’s top brass appears to be the duplicitous and treacherous role played by the transatlantic NATO alliance of significantly escalating the conflict by substantially increasing the NATO military footprint in Eastern Europe along Russia’s western flank, publicly providing billions of dollars’ worth lethal weapons to Ukraine’s security forces and allied neo-Nazi militias while asininely claiming to be “peacemakers” extending chivalrous courtesies to the arch-rival.
Ahead of the NATO summit attended by President Biden Thursday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced the transatlantic military alliance would double the number of battlegroups it had deployed in Eastern Europe.
“The first step is the deployment of four new NATO battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, along with our existing forces in the Baltic countries and Poland,” Stoltenberg said.
“This means that we will have eight multinational NATO battlegroups all along the eastern flank, from the Baltic to the Black Sea.”
NATO issued a statement after Thursday’s emergency summit attended by Joe Biden and European leaders: “In response to Russia’s actions, we have activated NATO’s defense plans, deployed elements of the NATO Response Force, and placed 40,000 troops on our eastern flank, along with significant air and naval assets, under direct NATO command supported by Allies’ national deployments. We are also establishing four additional multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia.”
Last week, President Biden announced an unprecedented package of $1 billion in military assistance to Ukraine in addition to $350 million previously pledged which was disbursed within days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. The new package includes 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems, 2,000 anti-armor Javelins, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, 6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems and 100 Switchblade kamikaze drones.
Besides providing abundance of anti-aircraft and anti-armor munitions to Ukraine’s largely conscript military and allied irregular militias, a senior US administration official told Reuters Washington and its allies were also working on providing anti-ship weapons to protect Ukraine’s coast. Ukrainian forces claimed on Thursday to have blown up a Russian landing ship in a Russian-occupied port.
Nonetheless, what must have exasperated Russia’s military leadership is a secret plan for a “peacekeeping mission” involving 10,000 NATO troops from the member states surreptitiously occupying western Ukraine and imposing a limited no-fly zone over Lviv and rest of towns which is allegedly being prepared by the Polish government.
The plan is seemingly on hiatus due to a disagreement between Polish President Andrzej Duda and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the deputy prime minister of Poland and the head of Law and Justice (PiS) Party. Duda wants Washington’s approval before going ahead, whereas Kaczynski appears desperate to obtain political mileage from the Ukraine crisis.
The prime ministers of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia traveled via train to the embattled Ukrainian capital of Kyiv and met with President Volodymyr Zelensky on March 15 in a show of support for Ukraine. De facto leader of Poland, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, accompanied them. Speaking on the occasion, Kaczynski said:
“I think that it is necessary to have a peace mission—NATO, possibly some wider international structure—but a mission that will be able to defend itself, which will operate on Ukrainian territory.”
In response, Russian officials condemned Poland’s proposal to send NATO “peacekeeping forces” into Ukraine as a “very reckless and extremely dangerous” idea that would risk a full-scale war between the alliance and Moscow.
“This will be the direct clash between the Russian and NATO armed forces that everyone has not only tried to avoid but said should not take place in principle,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
Regarding how operational-level miscalculations could lead to all-out war between belligerents, it’s pertinent to recall that on February 7, 2018, US B-52 bombers and Apache helicopters struck a contingent of Syrian government troops and allied forces in Deir al-Zor province of eastern Syria that reportedly killed and wounded scores of Russian military contractors working for the Russian private security firm, the Wagner Group.
The survivors described the bombing as an absolute massacre, and Moscow lost more Russian nationals in one day than it had lost during its entire military campaign in support of the Syrian government since September 2015.
Washington’s objective in striking Russian contractors was that the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which is mainly comprised of Kurdish YPG militias – had reportedly handed over the control of some areas east of the Euphrates River to Deir al-Zor Military Council (DMC), which was the Arab-led component of SDF, and had relocated several battalions of Kurdish YPG militias to Afrin and along Syria’s northern border with Turkey in order to defend the Kurdish-held areas against the onslaught of the Turkish armed forces and allied Syrian militant proxies during Ankara’s “Operation Olive Branch” in Syria’s northwest that lasted from January to March 2018.
Syrian forces with the backing of Russian contractors took advantage of the opportunity and crossed the Euphrates River to capture an oil refinery located to the east of the Euphrates River in the Kurdish-held area of Deir al-Zor.
The US Air Force responded with full force, knowing well the ragtag Arab component of SDF – mainly comprised of local Arab tribesmen and mercenaries to make the Kurdish-led SDF appear more representative and inclusive in outlook – was simply not a match for the superior training and arms of the Syrian troops and Russian military contractors, consequently causing a carnage in which scores of Russian nationals lost their lives.
A month after the massacre of Russian military contractors in Syria, on March 4, 2018, Sergei Skripal, a Russian double agent working for the British foreign intelligence service, and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a public bench outside a shopping center in Salisbury. A few months later, in July 2018, a British woman, Dawn Sturgess, died after touching the container of the nerve agent that allegedly poisoned the Skripals.
In the case of the Skripals, Theresa May, then the prime minister of the United Kingdom, promptly accused Russia of attempted assassinations and the British government concluded that Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Moscow-made, military-grade nerve agent, novichok.
Sergei Skripal was recruited by the British MI6 in 1995, and before his arrest in Russia in December 2004, he was alleged to have blown the cover of scores of Russian secret agents. He was released in a spy swap deal in 2010 and was allowed to settle in Salisbury. Both Sergei Skripal and his daughter have since recovered and were discharged from hospital in May 2018.
In the aftermath of the Salisbury poisonings in March 2018, the US, UK and several European nations expelled scores of Russian diplomats and Washington ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle.
In a retaliatory move, Russia also expelled a similar number of American, British and European diplomats, and ordered the closure of American consulate in Saint Petersburg. The number of American diplomatic personnel stationed in Russia drastically dropped from 1,200 before the escalation to 120, and the relations between Moscow and Western powers reached their lowest ebb since the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in December 1991.
Notwithstanding, five years following a potentially catastrophic incident that could’ve inundated Islamic State’s former capital Raqqa and many towns downstream Euphrates River in eastern Syria and caused more deaths than the deployment of any weapon of mass destruction, the New York Times reported in January that at the height of US-led international coalition’s war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, US B-52 bombers struck Tabqa Dam with 2,000-pound bombs, including at least one bunker-busting bomb that fortunately didn’t explode.
In March 2017, alternative media was abuzz with reports that the dam was about to collapse and entire civilian population downstream Euphrates River needed to be urgently evacuated to prevent the inevitable catastrophe. But Washington issued a gag order to the corporate media “not to sensationalize the issue.”
The explosive report noted that the dam was contested between the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, the Syrian government and the Islamic State. A firefight broke out in which SDF incurred heavy casualties. It was then that a top secret US special operations unit Task Force 9 called for airstrikes on the dam after repeated requests from the Kurdish leadership of the SDF.
“The explosions on March 26, 2017, knocked dam workers to the ground. A fire spread and crucial equipment failed. The flow of the Euphrates River suddenly had no way through, the reservoir began to rise and authorities used loudspeakers to warn people downstream to flee.
“The Islamic State group, the Syrian government and Russia blamed the United States, but the dam was on the US military’s ‘no-strike list’ of protected civilian sites, and the commander of the US offensive at the time, then-Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, said allegations of US involvement were based on ‘crazy reporting.’”
It’s worth noting that it was the same rogue Pentagon General Stephen J. Townsend, currently the commander of US AFRICOM and then the commander of Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) – Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) responsible for leading the war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, whose “operational miscalculation” was responsible for the reckless confrontation a year later in February 2018 when US B-52 bombers struck Russian military contractors, killing and wounding scores, a tragic incident that brought two nuclear powers engaged in the Syrian conflict almost to the brink of a full-scale war.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Af-Pak and Middle East regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to alternative news media.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 23:30 - "It's Become A Real Hindrance": Neighbors Complain About Bill Gates' Sprawling $43 Million Mansion Rebuild In San Diego
“It’s Become A Real Hindrance”: Neighbors Complain About Bill Gates’ Sprawling $43 Million Mansion Rebuild In San Diego
While Bill Gates tackles his pompous mission of vaccinating the entire world, he is apparently having trouble keeping the peace at his homefront.
The billionaire’s $43 million oceanfront mansion in San Diego has become a “nuisance”, according to Gates’ neighbors.
The mansion, purchased before Bill and former wife Melinda were divorced, has landed with the patriarch post-divorce, and Bill has been “customizing it to a T” for his own use, according to the New York Post.
The estate, which was formerly 3.5 bathrooms and 6 bedrooms spread across 5,800 square feet, has been “completely demolished”, according to the report. Gates is rebuilding the property from the ground up.
“They are working around the clock to get it done,” one source told the NY Post.
Photo: NY Post Accompanied by “two bulletproof suburban security details”, Gates has been stopping by and overseeing progress of the project. Construction of the project started about 3 months ago, despite the fact that it was purchased nearly 2 years ago, in March 2020, around the onset of the Covid pandemic.
“When he comes, he checks the house, walks out in the front, inspects it,” a source said.
But neighbors aren’t as happy about the renovations as Gates may be. Those living in close proximity of Gates’ mansion told The Post that the project has “been a nuisance”.
One neighbor said: “They make a lot of noise, my baby can’t sleep. It’s become a real hindrance on the whole neighborhood.”
The noise could be one reason that permitting to make renovations in the area “takes a while and is nearly impossible”. But, as the Post notes, when you have a net worth of $134 billion, it can sometimes be easier to get things done.
“The home they purchased was in immaculate condition, not exactly sure why he would want to tear it down,” a realtor said.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 23:00 - Our Elites Need To Recognize That America's "Unipolar Moment" Is Over
Our Elites Need To Recognize That America’s “Unipolar Moment” Is Over
Authored by Francis Sempa via RealClearDefense.com,
Writing in the current Washington Examiner, Anne Pierce suggests that the United States is today confronted by a new “Axis of Evil” composed of Russia, China, and Iran, which poses an existential threat to U.S. security. Pierce contends that American policymakers mistakenly pivoted to Asia when their focus should have been Russia and Europe. She calls on the Biden administration to wage economic warfare against Russia while providing Ukraine with whatever military material its leaders request, and to catalog Russian atrocities “with the aim of prosecuting Russia for war crimes.” To refuse to do this, she writes, would be a “moral, strategic, and military failure of historic proportions.”
One could be forgiven for thinking that Pierce, who is the author of A Perilous Path: The Misguided Foreign Policy of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, believes that we are still operating in America’s “unipolar moment.” Her article suggests that the United States could and should confront Russia, China and Iran simultaneously and that Russia currently poses the greatest threat to our security.
And while she is right to call Russia, China, and Iran an Axis of Evil, her article exhibits no sense of the limits of America’s power; no recognition that perhaps our resources would be spread too thin by failing to prioritize threats among these three adversaries; no realization that America’s unipolar moment is over.
At the end of the Cold War in 1991, columnist Charles Krauthammer writing in Foreign Affairs, declared that the United States was the unchallenged superpower and was enjoying a “unipolar moment.” Francis Fukuyama (channeling Hegel) envisioned the “end of history” where democracy would be universal. Others predicted that there would be no more “great power wars.” And the George H.W. Bush administration in its defense planning guidance in 1992 (largely written by Paul Wolfowitz) suggested that the primary goal of U.S. national security policy was “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival,” meaning “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” How we were to accomplish that was not fully explained.
It was a time of celebration–the 45-year Cold War was over. The West, led by the United States, had won. The Soviet empire collapsed. China, our de facto ally at the end of the Cold War, appeared to be foregoing communist ideology in favor of economic growth produced by a relaxation of state control over the economy. There was an element of hubris involved in proclaiming the end of a multi-polar world or suggesting that history had ended. Victory sometimes breeds hubris. And hubris can be dangerous.
After the attacks by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001, America’s hubris manifested itself in an effort to spread democracy to the world, but in the first instances to Afghanistan and Iraq. That resulted in two long wars that sapped America’s treasure and spilled the blood of American soldiers in a futile attempt to install democratic governments in regions where the soil for planting democracy was at best thin and at worst non-existent. The George W. Bush administration rightly responded to attacks on our country by hunting down the terrorists responsible and retaliating against some of the regimes that supported the terrorists. But then it got carried away and launched a Wilsonian crusade for democracy.
Meanwhile, the unipolar moment was ending, and the two long wars against non-peer competitors distracted us from the rise of China, which was growing economically and militarily–with the help of Wall Street and other Westerners who reaped economic benefits from “engagement” with the Chinese Communist Party. At the same time, our hubris blinded us to an essential truth about the victory in the Cold War–it was achieved by exploiting the division between Soviet Russia and China (just as our parochial history sometimes blinds us to the fact that our victory in World War II was achieved by exploiting the division between Germany and Soviet Russia). So we hardly paid any attention when Sino-Russian rapprochement transformed into a Chinese-Russian strategic alignment against the U.S.-led world order.
As President Reagan’s U.N. Ambassador and trusted adviser, Jeane Kirkpatrick was one of the intellectual architects of our victory in the Cold War. But Kirkpatrick was not blinded by hubris when the Berlin Wall fell. In the fall of 1990, she wrote an article in The National Interest suggesting that the United States should become a “normal country” in the post-Cold War world. She warned U.S. post-Cold War policymakers against pursuing a “mystical mission” that reached beyond the Constitutional requirement to protect the nation’s vital national security interests. Specifically, she wrote that the United States should not devote itself to establishing democracy around the world. She derided the notion that the conduct of U.S. foreign policy should be “the special province” of elites who too often do not pay its costs or bear its consequences. Such elites, Kirkpatrick warned, often develop “disinterested globalist” attitudes couched in high-minded terms such as “internationalism” instead of focusing on concrete U.S. national security interests.
This did not mean that the United States shouldn’t encourage the growth of democratic institutions where prudently possible, but Kirkpatrick expressly warned that “it is not within the United States’ power to democratize the world.” Instead, the United States, she wrote, should be a normal country – “an independent nation in a world of independent nations.”
The Obama administration pursued, and the Biden administration continues to pursue, a globalist agenda that prioritizes multilateral efforts against climate change; promotes nuclear disarmament; and seeks to transform our armed forces into a “woke” military concerned more with race, gender, and “white nationalism” than being prepared and equipped to win wars. The Biden administration is staffed (as Obama’s was) with elites who appear to be committed to a “disinterested globalist” or “internationalist” agenda. They seem to believe that they are as much “citizens of the world” as they are citizens of the United States.
But more fundamentally, there are far too many members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment who act as if the U.S. unipolar moment never ended; who act as if we can dictate the outcome or impose our will on international events and other nations’ policies; and who refuse to accept that we live and operate in a multi-polar world similar to the 19th century when prudent statesmen sought peace, stability, and a balance of power instead of promoting democratic ideals.
Krauthammer recognized that the unipolar moment would not last forever–that is why he used the term “moment.” In fact, it is questionable if it ever really existed. Yes, for a brief few years, we were the sole superpower in the world. But even superpowers have limits–just think of Afghanistan and Iraq, or before that, Vietnam and Korea.
In U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic, Walter Lippmann famously wrote that the United States needed to keep its international commitments consistent with the limits of its resources. When we don’t do that, it creates a gap between commitments and resources that some later called the “Lippmann Gap.” After George Kennan proposed the containment doctrine in his “X” article in Foreign Affairs in 1947, Lippmann responded with a series of columns that were later collected in a book entitled The Cold War. Lippmann criticized Kennan’s version of containment because it required the United States to react to Soviet aggression everywhere instead of only those geographical regions that were vital to America’s security interests. (Kennan later said that Lippmann’s criticism was well taken). Lippmann understood the limits of American power. So did Jeane Kirkpatrick. Ann Pierce and many others do not.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 22:30 - Why Surging Energy Prices Won't Save America's Oil 'Boom Towns' From Becoming 'Ghost Towns'
Why Surging Energy Prices Won’t Save America’s Oil ‘Boom Towns’ From Becoming ‘Ghost Towns’
As we have pointed out time and time again over the past year, the US is finally beginning to understand the true cost of the Democrats’ green agenda (an agenda that is also being set by the ruling elites of Wall Street – just ask Larry Fink) as surging energy prices squeeze those consumers least able to afford it.
And now, with President Biden pledging to ship more LNG to Europe, one would think that the American energy industry would be booming again.
But as Bloomberg point out in a recent piece about the existential risks faced by America’s energy ‘boom towns’ (which are on the verge of becoming ‘ghost towns’), this couldn’t be further from the case. Across the Permian Basin, small towns are contemplating the long-term consequences of diversifying away from the fossil fuel industry that has sustained them for decades, with many worried that the green revolution will only further the exodus of workers and people from these communities, as the jobs created by the green energy boom fail to even come close to replacing those lost by the fossil fuel industry.
Energy prices are soaring now after years of capex under-investment which left the American energy industry to ossify while being starved of capital by Wall Street. This has created structural issues that will make ramping up investment once again more difficult.
The imminent “green revolution” has made firms reluctant to invest too heavily, lest the war in Ukraine comes to a sudden end, and prices quickly ease lower. And fewer worker are willing to re-skill for jobs that might end up disappearing a few years later.
In the past, periods of low capex across the energy industry have been followed by surging cash flows. But there are serious structural obstacles that could prevent this cycle from playing out again today.
To be sure, some locals – many veterans of the energy industry – aren’t ready to give up the fight just yet. While the younger generation remains fixated on the need to “diversify” the local economy away from fossil fuels, the old timers remain skeptical – and with good reason.
In its latest piece on this trend, Bloomberg interviewed Morse Haynes, a local official in charge of economic development in Andrews, Texas, explained that energy his the backbone of his community. And he believes this will remain the case for decades to come.
Recent volatile swings in the oil market are a stark reminder that even as prices rally, the next bust could be just around the corner. The current geopolitical situation makes the contradiction even more acute. If Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means prolonged disruptions for energy supplies in the coming months, the world will become even more dependent on U.S. oil. But in the bigger picture, governments across the globe have pledged to wean themselves off of fossil fuels, and some analysts say peak oil demand could become a reality within a decade.
For America’s small oil communities, getting the timing right can mean the difference between losing out on the last great boom and turning into a ghost town. At stake is not only hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, but also more than $138 billion generated annually through tax revenues for localities, states, tribes, and the federal government.
Morse Haynes, 63, runs economic development for Andrews, Texas. Having spent all his life in or around the Permian Basin, Haynes knows what the industry means for his town of almost 15,000, and he’s not ready to move on.
“So much of our community, that’s just who we are. All these businesses, they’re here because of the oil field,” Haynes said. “We still think fossil fuels will be around a while.”
But on the other end of the spectrum, we have Haynes Apple-watch-sporting son, who has a drastically different vision for his community that’s built around “future proofing” it by bringing in more renewables.
But Morse’s son, Heath Haynes, sees things differently. He followed in his father’s footsteps and is also in charge of economic development for a small West Texas town. But unlike dad, Heath has his eyes farther down the field.
“We have conversations like that all the time, going back and forth,” Heath, 29, said. Sporting an Apple watch and grey dress slacks, Heath doesn’t dress much like a cowboy. His eyes light up with anticipation when he talks about wanting to “future-proof” his community of Denver City, named for a petroleum company, not the capital of Colorado. It’s impossible to miss the scores of rusty crude wells scattered around town, even bumping up against City Hall – at sunset, the bobbing heads of the pumpjacks are silhouetted against the horizon, like a herd of grazing donkeys on the open plains.
The younger Haynes sees potential for investment in ESG projects like wind farms. Of course, those who endured the 2021 Texas cold snap that killed dozens in the state as frigid temperatures wreaked havoc on the state’s energy infrastructure should remember all too well how this strategy has worked out so far.
Source: Bloomberg
To the old guard, focusing on renewables at the expense of oil and gas is tantamount to “staring into the abyss”.
For Heath, thinking about transitioning into solar or wind, and planning for the day when oil no longer supports these corners of the U.S. can feel a bit like an adventure. For his father, Morse, it’s more like staring into the abyss.
“It’s him kind of talking about, ‘Well, that’ll never happen, we’re never gonna do that,'” Heath said of his father. “I’m like: ‘There’s opportunity out there.'”
And as the fossil fuel industry tries to rally for ‘one last boom’, the severity of the last bust has created structural inefficiencies, one of the most vexing being a shortage of labor.
For a century, oil has basically done right by these regions (the occasional bust not withstanding). And in the immediate future, things still look prosperous.
Houston oil giant Halliburton Co. is forecasting a multi-year boom, and many companies have said hiring enough workers has been a challenge. Disruptions for wind and solar power mean the energy transition has run into its first big setback. And even the administration of President Joe Biden, who campaigned on promises to combat climate change, has signaled it won’t get in the way of companies that want to increase crude production right now.
In the midst of a boom, it’s hard to see why any city should start turning its back on oil. But that short-sightedness could leave these communities destined to encounter the fate that befell coal towns years earlier, with the global energy transition threatening to blindside this swath of the U.S. with a huge and dramatic bust.
Out of all the major energy-producing states in the US, Texas has the most to lose from a long-term transition away from the fossil fuel industry. The ESG revolution being planned by Fink and a coterie of Wall Street banks (who are now reluctant to lend to any firm that doesn’t meet their stringent ESG standards) could deprive the state of billions of dollars of tax revenue a year.
But it’s Texas that stands out as having the most to lose. Even after rapid diversification in its economy over the last several decades, the state still generates almost $15 billion annually from fossil fuels, the most in the nation. That’s about 7% of all state and local own-source revenue, the Resources for the Future data show.
Put another way, if oil goes away, it would leave Texas with gaping holes for funding that would normally go to schools, hospitals and public services. By 2050, a worst-case scenario could mean an annual budget shortfall of $5.8 billion for K-12 education alone, according to research from Rice University’s Baker Institute.
Already, the Biden Administration’s policies are contributing to these imbalances by making it difficult to recruit workers, who fear that the administration has no intentions of keeping its promise that no jobs will be lost during the transition away from fossil fuels. Demand for these workers is higher than it has been in years. And yet, headcount in the US oil patch still remains about 40% below 2014’s peak levels at 315,700 workers today.
To prevent their communities from transforming into ‘ghost towns’, older locals like the elder Haynes – who remembers the energy crash of the 1980s all too well – have come to accept that the renewables industry could create a potential lifeline, even if he doesn’t agree with the younger generation’s view that the local economy must inevitably transition away from fossil fuels. The elder Haynes fears that the ‘green revolution’ could eventually make the 1980s bust look mild by comparison.
“All of a sudden there’s 2,000 less people,” he said. “That town got run down.”
But one major problem with renewables is that they just don’t create the number of jobs that fossil fuels do – even if many of the communities dominated by the fossil fuel industry are also among the most competitive areas for renewables production.
Source: Bloomberg
As Wall Street uses the war in Ukraine to justify further “diversification” away from oil and gas, the old notion that high prices are self correcting is facing a serious test. And by the looks of it, the American people will be paying the price.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 22:00 - USA Today Defends Brown Jackson's Inability To Define "Woman"
USA Today Defends Brown Jackson’s Inability To Define “Woman”
Authored by Thomas Lifson via AmericanThinker.com,
The media and other Democrats realize they have a problem when their president’s nominee for the nation’s highest court embraces postmodern BS like transgenderism’s claim that merely thinking of oneself as the opposite sex magically transforms that person into the opposite sex. Yet that is what Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson effectively did when she told Senator Blackburn that she couldn’t define what a woman is because “I’m not a biologist.”
The mockery that ensued was painful because it exposed part of the nonsense that has become gospel on the left. Judge Jackson took that nonsense position because she fears the transgender lunch mobs that, under the banner of ”intersectionality,” are able to mobilize the angry identity groups that bully the rest of the left and much of the middle into compliance with their madness.
Into the fray, however, jumped USA Today, which has become one of the most dogmatic left-wing outlets in the nation. In a “news” story written by Alia E. Dastagir, dishonestly headlined, “Marsha Blackburn asked Ketanji Brown Jackson to define ‘woman.’ Science says there’s no simple answer.”
In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” https://t.co/Ikgkqxj83h
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) March 24, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Twitchy collected some of the resulting mockery that made it past the censors in Twitter:
I guess science is a social construct. pic.twitter.com/70a7hDW0l4
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 24, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Those quotation marks need to be taken off the word, woman, and put around the word, science
— Gavin 🏴🇬🇧 (@Gavin_B_Hayes) March 24, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But for a properly satisfying rebuke, I suggest reading the Ace of Spades version, which ladles on a full measure of the contempt that Ms. Dastagir and her propaganda rag so richly deserve. Some excerpts:
Actually science says that a “woman” is an adult human with two X chromosomes.
Oh, and a vagina and breasts, if you don’t have a chromosome test kit available.
Seems pretty simple. (snip)
Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson’s response was commendable, though perhaps misleading.
First you said “science” can’t answer this question, but now it turns out you’re not asking scientists, you’re asking “gender law scholars” and “philosophers of biology.”
Who are not scientists. (snip)
Ketanji Brown Jackson is asked to define “woman” by Sen. Blackburn “I don’t want to see this question punted to biology as if science can offer a simple, definitive answer,” said Rebecca Jordan-Young, a scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College whose work explores the relationships between science and the social hierarchies of gender and sexuality.
That’s your scientist?
Oh, a “scientist and a gender studies scholar.”
Her bio says she’s a “feminist scientist.” You know — the famous scientific field of Feminism.
I wonder which branch of Feminism Science she works in — Theoretical Feminism? Applied Feminism? Experimental Feminism?
I am an interdisciplinary feminist scientist and science studies scholar whose work explores the reciprocal relations between science and the social hierarchies of gender, sexuality, class, and race.
“Interdisciplinary” means you mix fields, and you’re saying you’re a “feminist scientist,” which is already Not a Scientist, and you mix that with “gender studies scholar[ship],” making you even more Not a Scientist.
Her degree which she claims makes her a “feminist scientist” is in Noted Scientific Field “Sociomedical Sciences.” Um, again, adding in “social” into the mix.
Not a Scientist.
And she’s attached, of course, to the Women’s and Gender Studies Department — not to any scientific department. Not to the “Sociomedical Science” department, which of course does not exist because it’s not a real thing.
So no, she’s not a “scientist.” She brands herself that way so she can make her gender studies claims sound “scientific” to idiots, such as those who populate the media.
You’re not a “scientist” just because you “feel science-y.” You’re a scientist if you do the work of an actual scientist. She does not. She’s just another idiot Gender Studies Marxist.
But Jordan-Young said she sees Jackson’s answer, particularly the second half of it, reflecting the necessity of nuance. While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary — if you are born with a penis, you are male and identify as a man and if you are born with a vagina, you are female and identify as a woman — the reality, gender experts say, is more complex.
“There isn’t one single ‘biological’ answer to the definition of a woman. There’s not even a singular biological answer to the question of ‘what is a female,'” Jordan-Young said.
We’re still quoting this single non-scientist as the “scientists — note the plural — this propagandist said she’d consulted?
And now we’re off of the “scientists” completely, and on to the “philosopher of biology.”
There is much more.
Now that Joe Manchin has announced his support for confirming for the Supreme Court, there is no hope of keeping her off the bench, where she will be free to apply postmodernism’s tenets – its willingness to pretend words mean whatever they want them to mean — to interpreting the Constitution. But she will forever be associated with this nonsense, and the Democrat senators who voted to confirm her will be held responsible for installing her.
Justice-to-be Jackson will take her seat alongside Justice Sotomayor, who has recently spouted nonsense from the bench about abortion and children and Covid. Respectively graduates of Harvard and Yale law schools, the two justices are fanning suspicions about the effect of affirmative action on quality control at the elite law schools.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 21:30 - White House Unveils 20% "Billionaire Minimum Tax" Proposal In 2023 Budget
White House Unveils 20% “Billionaire Minimum Tax” Proposal In 2023 Budget
As President Biden struggles to revive his domestic agenda after Sen. Joe Manchin torpedoed ‘Build Back Better’, the White House revealed on Saturday evening that it would include a proposal to impose a “minimum tax” on all families (and individuals) with more than $100 million in assets in its 2023 budget proposal, according to a Washington Post report.
If enacted, it would mandate that the wealthiest Americans pay an annual rate of at least 20% on all income, including unrealized capital gains on all liquid assets.
The quasi-wealth-tax comes as Biden and Manchin look to revive a scaled back version of ‘Build Back Better’. The White House is also planning on including a budget placeholder known as a “deficit-neutral reserve fund” – essentially a blank space that the final BBB proposal can be plugged into later, after negotiations have been finalized, according to Bloomberg. But given the fiasco from late last year, the administration is extremely wary of doing anything that could disrupt negotiations.
The NYT pointed out that the proposal marks the first time Biden has explicitly called for a wealth tax (although it’s not quite as extreme as the wealth tax envisioned by ultra-liberal Dems like Elizabeth Warren). The tax will reportedly impact the 700 wealthiest Americans, WaPo said. What’s more, the White House has christened the plan “the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax”.
According to the proposal, billionaires who already pay more than 20% of their total income plus capital gains in taxes won’t owe more. But those who pay less will be required to make up the difference. If enacted, the White House believes the tax would raise roughly $360 billion in new revenue over the next 10 years.
“The Billionaire Minimum Income Tax will ensure that the very wealthiest Americans pay a tax rate of at least 20 percent on their full income,” the White House document says. “This minimum tax would make sure that the wealthiest Americans no longer pay a tax rate lower than teachers and firefighters.”
The White House released a terse statement on the plan to the press, claiming that Biden believes it’s “wrong” for the wealthiest Americans to pay a lower rate than working families, while asserting that Biden is indeed a “capitalist”.
“President Biden is a capitalist and believes that anyone should be able to become a millionaire or a billionaire,” the White House said in a statement. “He also believes that it is wrong for America to have a tax code that results in America’s wealthiest households paying a lower tax rate than working families.”
The proposal, which has undoubtedly been crafted with an eye toward this year’s midterm election, has arrived a time when Biden is struggling with a persistently sagging approval rating.
WaPo also speculated that the proposal is related to the quiet restart of talks between Biden and Sen. Joe Manchin. The Democrats are reportedly working on a scaled-back version of ‘Build Back Better’, something that Manchin’s camp recently confirmed.
According to one White House insider quoted (anonymously, of course) by the Associated Press, Dems hope the new tax will show that they can shrink the deficit without compromising economic growth (whether they’ll actually succeed in walking this tightrope, of course, remains to be seen).
Last year, ProPublica stoked anger among Democrats when it published a report purporting to show that the wealthiest Americans, including Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, pay a “true tax rate” of just 3.4%.
Musk vehemently denied this, countering that he recently paid an annual tax bill of roughly $11 billion, the highest single bill paid by an individual American in the country’s history (he has also given billions to charity). Under the Biden proposal, Jeff Bezos would have to pay $35 billion, and Elon Musk would have to pay $50 billion, according to ProPublica.
Under a billionaires’ tax that Biden is proposing, Jeff Bezos would have to pay $35 billion and Elon Musk would have to pay $50 billion.
Why so much? Because, as ProPublica revealed, they paid bubkas before. #journalismmatters https://t.co/r5P3kOv6xY pic.twitter.com/mDcPbMj0QW
— Eric Umansky (@ericuman) March 26, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s assertion in an interview last month that Musk had paid “zero” in taxes, Musk “clapped back” at the senator, and joked that he would pop by IRS headquarters next time he visited Washington DC, “just to say high.”
“Maybe I can have a cookie or something,” he joked.
Will visit IRS next time I’m in DC just to say hi, since I paid the most taxes ever in history for an individual last year. Maybe I can have a cookie or something …
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 20, 2022
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 21:00 - How Bill Barr's Silence Impacted The Outcome Of An Election
How Bill Barr’s Silence Impacted The Outcome Of An Election
Submitted by The Epoch Times, authored by By Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke
On May 18, 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr made a statement to the media, declaring that special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russiagate hoax wasn’t focused on either former President Barack Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden, stating that “I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.”
In his new book, Barr has revealed that he made that statement in response to a series of tweets by then-President Donald Trump. A week earlier, Trump had started using the term “Obamagate” on Twitter, alleging that both Obama and Biden had “led the charge” on the FBI’s phony Russiagate investigation.
Barr recounts in his book that he felt it was unacceptable for Trump to attempt to drag his presidential election opponent into the Russiagate scandal and that Barr felt that it was incumbent upon him to make a public statement.
The corporate media immediately seized upon Barr’s statement, with The Washington Post running a same-day headline that “Barr says he does not expect Obama or Biden will be investigated by prosecutor reviewing 2016 Russia probe.” The New York Times’ headline went further, claiming that “Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot.”
Barr’s May 18 claim is an often underappreciated statement, the fallout of which was felt throughout the 2020 presidential election. Although Barr now claims that he issued his statement from a position of fairness, what he actually did was insert himself and the Department of Justice (DOJ) into the presidential campaign, and in doing so, he set the stage for the media’s whitewashing of questions of corruption that swirled around Biden throughout the campaign.
It’s also worth noting that Barr’s decision to make a public statement contrasts sharply with former FBI Director James Comey, who claimed that as a matter of DOJ policy he wouldn’t confirm or deny if President Trump was actually under investigation in 2017.
More importantly, Barr’s May 18 statement stands in stark contrast to his decision to remain silent after the second presidential debate in October 2020, when Biden falsely blamed the story about his son Hunter’s laptop on a “Russian plot.”
Barr recently recounted that he “was very disturbed during the debate when candidate Biden lied to the American people about the laptop.” Barr told Fox News in an interview that Biden “was squarely confronted with the laptop and he suggested that it was Russian disinformation. … And I was shocked by that. … When you’re talking about interference in an election, I can’t think of anything more than that kind of thing.”
Barr’s supposed “shock” over Biden’s claims of Russian disinformation during the debate begs a simple question: If Barr actually felt that Biden’s assertions of “Russian disinformation” amounted to “interference in an election,” why didn’t Barr say anything at the time?
The only discernible action taken by Barr’s DOJ was an Oct. 20 written reply from an FBI congressional affairs liaison to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). That letter, which preceded the second debate, was intentionally vague and, rather than countering potential narratives, it allowed the media to advance Biden’s claim that the laptop was a Russian plot. Crucially, the letter took pains to conceal that the FBI had physical possession of Hunter’s laptop at the time the letter was written—a fact that eliminated any possibility of a Russian plot.
During the second 2020 debate, Biden had asserted that his claims of “Russian disinformation” were backed by our intelligence agencies by citing a letter written by Obama-era intelligence officials such as former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director Leon Panetta. That letter was issued on Oct. 19, 2020, just days before the debate on Oct. 22, 2020, and was widely circulated by the media as proof of Biden’s claims.
In their letter, the intelligence officials claimed that the information from Hunter’s laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation,” and stated that “this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election,” noting that “we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”
That four different CIA directors would be willing to publicly promote false allegations about Russia in order to shield a presidential candidate from public attention is particularly troubling. These former CIA directors—whose tenure spanned more than 10 years of U.S. foreign policy activity—invoked their government positions and lied to the American public in order to protect and get their preferred candidate, Joe Biden, elected.
During his recent interview, Barr conceded that he knew that letter from our nation’s intelligence officials “was baseless” and that he believed Biden himself fully understood that it “was a lie.” Unlike Trump, Biden was citing published claims by intelligence officials that Barr now says he knew to be inaccurate at the time those claims were made. But, in contrast to his earlier actions regarding Trump’s tweets, Barr chose to stay silent on Biden’s claims.
In doing so, Barr decisively interfered in the election through his inaction.
The sharply differing stances that Barr took in those months preceding the 2020 presidential election are puzzlingly contradictory. Barr apparently felt that it was necessary to make sure that U.S. citizens were aware that Biden wasn’t under investigation as a part of Durham’s probe, but he didn’t feel it was important to counter a false narrative from former intelligence officials, including four CIA directors, that Barr knew to be untrue.
At the time of that second presidential debate, the FBI already had Hunter’s laptop in its possession—and had held the device for 10 months. The FBI had also opened an investigation into Hunter Biden for multiple offenses—including allegations of money laundering and possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Hunter’s laptop contained emails and other information that were directly connected to these allegations.
Barr’s differing treatment of Biden and Trump leaves many questions unanswered. Although many in the media, along with Biden’s current spokeswoman Jen Psaki, have claimed that Hunter is a private citizen who wasn’t running for office, Hunter’s laptop directly implicated Joe Biden in a number of dubious foreign dealings. Biden repeatedly lied about these matters while on the campaign trail.
In one particularly notable instance, Biden had personally met with Hunter’s Ukrainian business partner only a few months before that same partner demanded that Hunter end the investigations into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that was paying Hunter $1 million per year. On the campaign trail, Biden declared that he had never talked to his son about his foreign business dealings.
Not only did Barr choose to remain silent about Hunter’s laptop, but he had also, in fact, “instructed prosecutors and senior colleagues to prevent word of investigations into Hunter Biden from becoming public and keep the Justice Department out of campaign politics,” according to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal.
As we now know, Hunter’s emails and laptop are real. Indeed, shortly after the election, Hunter Biden suddenly released a statement acknowledging that he was under federal investigation.
The silence from Barr enabled the media’s blackout on the laptop story that had direct ramifications on the 2020 election. A poll by Media Research showed that 45 percent of the Biden voters were unaware of the allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden and that 16 percent of Biden voters–well over the margin of victory–wouldn’t have voted for him had they known this crucial information.
In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign accused Russia of trying to help elect Trump. Then-CIA Director John Brennan played an important role in advancing the Clinton campaign’s narrative. In an eerie parallel to those events, the Biden campaign, again with the help of Brennan and other intelligence officials, falsely accused Russia of trying to help elect Trump in 2020.
Barr argues in his book that Trump’s claims about Biden required Barr to insert himself because he didn’t want a repeat of the Russia collusion claims that plagued the 2016 election; that same argument, however, should have required Barr to speak out on Biden’s debate claims that Hunter’s laptop was a Russian plot.
If Barr was truly concerned about a potential repeat of the 2016 election, it would have been incumbent on him to step forward publicly as soon as Biden made his false accusations against Russia, particularly given the involvement of Brennan, who was himself entangled in the 2016 election interference.
The national security implications from Biden’s repeated invocations of Russia is another important factor that should have required Barr to act.
“Russiagate was not only a despicable dirty trick that hobbled the first part of the president’s administration, but it also affected [sic] great damage to the United States,” Barr acknowledged in his recent interview with Fox News.
“Russiagate essentially froze the Trump administration from engaging with Russia.”
While Barr acknowledged the massive geopolitical damage caused by the Clinton campaign’s Russiagate hoax, he inexplicably ignored Biden’s false claims about his son’s laptop, which has served to undermine our national security in ways that are perhaps even worse than the actions taken by Clinton.
Both Clinton and Biden recklessly leveled false accusations against Russia, jeopardizing national security for their own personal and political gain. Clinton, among other things, had her 30,000 deleted emails to contend with. However, while no one has seen Clinton’s emails, the emails on Hunter’s laptop contain a multitude of damning disclosures of foreign dealings and payoffs involving the Biden family.
Beyond the direct ramifications from the emails on Hunter’s laptop, Biden’s fabricated accusations regarding Russia would have immediately been understood by the Kremlin as a fundamental weakness. There is no doubt that Biden’s statement worsened relations with Russia and might have contributed to the current situation in Ukraine.
By first speaking out and then remaining silent, Barr very directly put his thumb on the scale, leading to material ramifications for our country—including the geopolitical landscape we now face.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 20:30 - "It's Been Difficult" – Small US Trucking Fleets Squeezed By Skyrocketing Diesel Prices
“It’s Been Difficult” – Small US Trucking Fleets Squeezed By Skyrocketing Diesel Prices
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, disrupting commodity markets, and the worsening diesel shortage are wreaking havoc on small trucking companies pressured by soaring petroleum prices.
WSJ spoke with US trucking fleets and found smaller ones are susceptible to spiking fuel prices versus larger ones because they don’t have the hedging capacity and working capital.
The latest data from AAA shows the average price for a gallon of diesel at the pump is around $5.079, a record high and up more than 28% since the Ukrainian invasion in late February.
A price shock of this magnitude in such a short time has been brutal for small trucking operators with less leverage than larger fleets.
“It’s been difficult,” said Derek Crusenberry, director of business development at JSG Trucking Co. in Acampo, California, which has 20 trucks hauling lumber, steel, and canned products across Northern California.
“We have had to find ourselves diving into our margins to support operations, to keep the wheels turning, quite literally,” Crusenberry said.
Geopolitical turmoil in Eastern Europe and what Reuters’ head commodity analyst John Kemp has described, “worsening diesel shortages in the United States and the rest of the world are intensifying upward pressure on petroleum prices and threaten to recreate the conditions that led to the record price spike in 2008,” have led to JSG and many other smaller trucking fleets to react slower to changing fuel prices and inability to pass on additional fuel expenses.
To cover unpredictable swings in fuel markets, trucking operators use fuel surcharges. According to freight management company Truckstop, surcharges have doubled to 43 cents a mile from 19 cents since the beginning of the year.
Some trucking firms, especially larger ones, were able to insulate their business ahead of the Ukrainian invasions.
A. Duie Pyle Inc., a trucking firm with 1,800 trucks serving the Northeast and specializing in less-than-truckload hauls, bought 430,000 gallons of diesel before the sudden spike in fuel prices. The carrier is now adjusting fuel surcharges.
“Nobody contemplated back then we could see diesel costs in excess of $5 a gallon.
“The velocity of the increase has really been dramatic,” said Peter Latta, chairman of A. Duie Pyle. He noted customers “have been very understanding.”
Another issue for smaller trucking operators, besides their inability or limited capacity to hedge soaring fuel costs, is the time it takes to receive payment.
Larger firms have credit and working capital lines and are cushioned as they are paid 30 or 45 days after hauling loads. However, smaller firms don’t have that luxury as larger ones, as explained by Avery Vise, a freight analyst at FTR Transportation Intelligence.
“But a smaller carrier, even if it’s getting surcharges, if it’s not getting that surcharge paid until a month or month-and-a-half down the road, they’re going to have to float that difference in the interim,” Vise said. “And that’s potentially problematic.”
To weather the storm, smaller firms reject long-haul jobs, cut down on highway speed, and reduce idling time.
Sadaya Morris, a small truck operator in the Northeast, said her fuel costs have jumped from around $250 to $400 in the last several weeks. She has since moved her business away from freight brokers to working directly with customers for better rates to compensate for rising fuel costs.
A small fleet of eleven trucks in Stockton, California, called Superior Modular Transport Inc, said their weekly fuel costs are up $10,000. Drivers are working fewer hours as customers refuse to pay higher freight costs.
“Ultimately, if it continues, we could possibly have to park trucks,” said President Daniel Titus. There has been a “shock factor,” he added, because Superior’s customers tell the carrier they can’t pass the higher cost of freight transport along to their own customers quickly enough to keep up with the rising prices.
The Biden administration has a real mess on their hands as they might panic release another SPR dump to reign in fuel prices. So far, the other dumps have yet to work.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 20:00 - What Is Holding U.S. Nuclear Energy Back?
What Is Holding U.S. Nuclear Energy Back?
By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles of OilPrice.com
Global energy markets are in turmoil over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy sanctions imposed by western nations. As we recently wrote, both renewables and nuclear energies are the two immediate beneficiaries of this conflict and the related allied response. For example, on March 19, Belgium announced a ten-year delay in the planned closure of two nuclear plants, Doel 4 and Tihange 3 while doubling its commitment to offshore wind. The most interesting aspect of the Belgian press release, especially for those seeking large amounts of base-load, fossil-free energy quickly, was the government’s emphasis that the life-extended units would not be available for winter heating season until after 2025.
We think this underscores a popular misconception about how quickly major capital allocation and operating decisions can be reversed. The ten-year life extension in this case begins sometime in 2026.
The Ukrainian conflict also appears to have ended a deadlock about financing and ownership of nuclear construction in the Czech Republic. The government finally acceded to utility CEZ’s demand for full government financing and what seems like a UK-style sum of the differences tariff for all plant output. However, in the new plant bidding process, both Russian and Chinese companies will be excluded “for security reasons”. Thus far in Europe, only the Germans have stood by their earlier no nuclear pledge.
But what really struck us is the relative timidity of US nuclear power advocates to seize on this obvious moment. Instead, much of our political commentary regarding energy self-sufficiency for the US amounts to “drill, baby, drill.” Contrast this with the announcement last week by Chinese officials that they planned to construct 150 new nuclear plants within the next fifteen years. In the spirit of re-emerging cold war competition, our question amounts to, “what would it take for the US to do the same thing?” We should add that the Chinese government estimated a $440 billion price tag for these 150 new reactors or about $2.9 billion apiece. (Southern Company’s two-unit Plant Vogtle is estimated to cost $34 billion or $17 billion per reactor.)
There are three basic business risks associated with nuclear power for an investor-owned utility: financing, operating, and sales. (Four if you add in new construction risk which is not inconsequential.) The simple reason no US investor-owned utility — apart from Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle—- is building or considering new nuclear investments is the first risk, financing. To paraphrase a former NYC mayoral candidate, the capital costs are “too damn high”. By any metric, nuclear power is economically uncompetitive. According to the recent Lazard study comparing the cost of new power generation, it is about three times more costly than natural gas and five times more costly than new wind and solar.
This begs an obvious question. How can we have more of something if it is wildly, economically uncompetitive? The answer is simple: eliminate the consideration of economics from new power plant development. Take for example a large nuclear construction project at Turkey’s four-unit Akuyu nuclear power station. In the US that is a $40+billion capital project. No US investor-owned utility has the balance sheet to handle multiple unit projects of that size. Only the US government has the borrowing capacity for projects of that magnitude and risk. This, in turn, suggests that new nuclear power plant development will only occur in the US If we compromise on our free enterprise principles and take new nuclear plant development out of the private sector entirely. These enormous financing risks are now impossible to comfortably absorb in a corporate setting where they must be constantly balanced against shareholder interests.
As a final note, for those who say the cost to match China’s new nuclear commitment is inordinately large even for the US government, assuming a cost of $10 billion per new reactor. this enormous sum would barely equal two years of the US Defense Department’s budget before supplementary allocations. And once in service, the plant costs could be spread over 40-60 years. Who would notice?
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 19:30 - Former Goldman Banker Charged In Bitcoin Laundering Scheme Linked To Online Drug Market
Former Goldman Banker Charged In Bitcoin Laundering Scheme Linked To Online Drug Market
A former Goldman Sachs banker has been charged with a sweeping scheme to launder millions of dollars in bitcoin, offering a glimpse at the new prosecutorial paradigm being employed by American prosecutors to punish bitcoin tax cheats and individuals seen as critical intermediaries between the crypto market and organized crime.
According to the NYT, Thomas Spieker, a former party producer and ex-Goldman equities banker, was charged this week in federal court in Manhattan with laundering more than $2.3 million in Bitcoin for criminals around the world from 2018 to 2021.
Prosecutors described Mr. Spieker, 42, as a virtual Bitcoin A.T.M., exchanging cash for cryptocurrency. In addition to the $2.3 million in Bitcoin he was charged with laundering, he was accused of converting more than $380,000 in cryptocurrency into cash.
Mr. Spieker was charged with several counts of money laundering and unlicensed money transmission. He pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance. His lawyer, Richard Verchick, declined to comment.
Spieker was charged alongside a colorful cast of alleged criminals, including a ring of drug dealers charged with operating a Silk Road-style drug website (text courtesy of the NYT):
-
Zashan Khan, 30, and Cosmas Siekierski, 25, of Manhattan, who prosecutors said sold illegal drugs over the dark web, a part of the internet where illegal activity thrives and which is accessible also only though special software. An online storefront the two operated, OVO sweatshop, took its name from the rapper Drake’s record label, October’s Very Own.
-
Anderson LaRoc, 33, of Brooklyn, who prosecutors said targeted 30 victims in an identity-theft scheme.
-
Dustin Sites, 33, of Brooklyn, who prosecutors said helped Mr. Spieker by opening bank and cryptocurrency accounts to help launder money.
-
John Humphrey and Fidello Palermo of Rochester, N.Y., both 51, who prosecutors said took over the OVO sweatshop operation, and who were stopped on a trip to Brooklyn and found with 1.7 kilograms of powder and crystalline ketamine and 140 clear vials of liquid ketamine.
All six have pleaded not guilty and have been released on their own recognizance.
Spieker has reportedly been a “bitcoin aficionado” since the early days of the cryptocurrency.
We’d be curious to hear what Lloyd Blankfein, the former Goldman CEO who has been particularly vocal on Twitter in recent days, has to say about this.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 19:00 -
- Oil Stimmy
Oil Stimmy
By Ryan Fitzmaurice of Rabobank
Summary:
- Oil prices have rallied more than $25 a barrel off the recent lows and in short order
- A plethora of supply-side issues have come to light amid an already tight supply backdrop
- The average trading range for Brent has fallen from above $12 per day to below $8 recently
In last week’s note, we wrote that oil prices had likely found a bottom given that the widespread forced selling that occurred the prior two weeks had neared its end. This week we got confirmation of that notion with oil prices rallying sharply while putting in a strong V-bottom on the charts. Further to that end, the spot Brent price traded as high as $123.74 on Thursday, more than $25 a barrel off the recent lows and all in just six trading sessions as a plethora of supply side issues came to light amid an already extremely tight supply backdrop.
On that note, the oil market rallied early in the week on reports that the Houthis rebels had launched another drone attack on Saudi oil facilities, this time causing modest supply disruptions. The attack even prompted an official Saudi warning to the international community of the potential for consequential supply losses unless more is done to prevent these rather consistent and hard-to-defend drone attacks from the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Then it was a surprise outage for a major oil pipeline that moves 1.2mb/d of crude from Kazakhstan to Europe, and which just so happens to run through Russia. The pipeline maintenance, which is expected to take up to two months, is occurring in Russia, and is said to be the result of damage suffered during a recent storm in the Black Sea.
To our minds, the timing of the outage is certainly interesting and further limits Europe’s ability to completely shift away from Russian oil supplies in the near-term despite the ongoing war in Ukraine. In addition to the bullish fundamental developments this week, quantitative factors are also likely to support oil prices in the coming weeks as volatility begins to normalize. Moreover, the spike in volatility that triggered the recent de-risking event has started to subside with average trading ranges for spot Brent prices shrinking to below $8 per day from recent highs of more than $12 per day and with aggregate open interest finding a bottom too. This drop in oil market volatility should begin luring big traders back to the market, increasing open interest and helping to stabilize oil prices at much higher levels than before the war.
Stimulating demand
As is clear, the supply-side of oil markets is razor thin at the moment given the West’s ongoing and proactive shift away from Russian energy imports, in addition to the other factors we just laid out. Given this backdrop it’s no surprise that oil prices are trading at multi-year highs, and inflation is soaring as a result. In the past, we have discussed at length the feedback loop between investors and inflation i.e. Investors rush to buy commodities to hedge inflation, thereby putting upward pressure on commodities prices and driving inflation higher, holding all else equal. Now, we are seeing another feedback loop develop with oil stimulus checks being discussed by lawmakers across the globe to offset the impact from rising gasoline and diesel prices, in an effort to gain favor with constituents. In our view, these politically motivated actions would only exacerbate the current oil market deficits, while opening the door for new record oil prices. To expand on that, sending oil stimulus checks would be encouraging oil demand at a time when supply is dangerously tight, and with record demand already expected this summer given mobility is finally returning following the recent covid measure relaxations in key regions.
Furthermore, looking at other asset classes as a guide, it is well-known that a lot of the covid stimulus checks wound up in financial markets and were partially to blame for the “meme” stock trading trend that developed in 2020 and carried on in to 2021. In a way, this would be similar, and like adding fuel to a market that is already on fire, especially as we approach the high demand driving season. Already, diesel markets are experiencing significant shortages in Europe as Russian supplies are proving to be difficult to replace. In fact, the diesel crack spread has surged since the start of the war in Ukraine, further highlighting Russia’s importance to global diesel supplies and particularly so in Europe. The tightness in diesel markets was and is clear even before the full brunt of the West’s shift away from Russian supplies has been felt, and stockpiles in Europe and the US are already at multi-year lows and with less refining capacity than before the pandemic. Moreover, the backwardation in diesel markets has risen to historic levels in an attempt to push demand further out the curve. As such, oil stimulus checks would counteract this dynamic by dragging demand forward when and if these potential bills are voted into law.
Looking Forward
Looking forward, we remain bullish oil prices and are encouraged by the strong recovery this week. As we noted, the recent supply-side developments are keeping traders on edge and even a small unplanned outage could send prices soaring given how tight things are. At the same time, lawmakers appear ready to issue nonsensical oil stimulus checks, to help ease political vulnerabilities from rising inflation. Ironically, if this unnecessary demand stimulus becomes a trend, then that would all but guarantee new record high oil prices this summer. Importantly, there is also plenty of dry powder on hand to bid prices higher following the recent de-risking.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 18:30 - Dubai's Economy Booms As Wealthy Russians Seek Refuge In Local Property Market
Dubai’s Economy Booms As Wealthy Russians Seek Refuge In Local Property Market
A couple of weeks ago, we highlighted a report claiming that crypto firms in the UAE (which is fast becoming a hotbed for the regional crypto industry) had seen a massive influx of demand from brokers trying to liquidate billions of dollars’ worth of crypto on behalf of wealthy Russian clients, in the hopes that the money could then be stashed in the UAE, which has pledged to remain neutral as the conflict in Ukraine rages.
While at least one US megabank expressed skepticism that oligarchs were using crypto as a means to evade sanctions, it was quickly revealed that most of these transactions involved foreign currencies instead of rubles, effectively masking the source of the buying.
Now, as the US threatens to seize US properties belonging to oligarch Roman Abramovich (who recently moved two of his megayachts to Turkey, and is in the process of divesting his ownership of Chelsea Football Club), Bloomberg reports that Abramovich (and his fellow oligarchs) are increasingly turning to the UAE, where they’re looking to park money in property and other assets.
While western watchdogs like the Financial Action Task Force have expressed their displeasure with the UAE’s “Open Door Policy” by placing the country on a “grey list” of jurisdictions that don’t do enough to combat financial crime, the locals are simply seeing dollar signs.
“In Dubai there’s an old saying that goes: when the region does well, we do well, but when there’s a crisis, we do really well,” said Chirag Shah, the founder of the consultancy 1 International FinCentre Associates, who was previously the chief strategy and business development officer at Dubai’s financial free zone, speaking broadly about the city’s ability to navigate global upheaval from wars to politics to the coronavirus pandemic.
But the real threat perceived by the west has nothing to do with white-collar crime. As Bloomberg pointed out in its report, “the money flowing in from Moscow has left some US Treasury officials concerned that CIPS – the Chinese cross-border yuan payment system seen as a potential rival to the global SWIFT transaction messaging system – may be turning into a key vehicle for Russians to route their money to the UAE using the offshore Chinese yuan to circumvent US sanctions.”
For more on these risks, we would direct you, dear reader, to these comments from a senior IMF official, who recently parroted one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s favorite criticisms of Washington’s financial sanctions.
While they were specifically discussing the risks that sanctions could push the central banks to diversify their foreign-currency reserves away from the dollar (for fear that these reserves could someday be forcefully expropriated by a vengeful west), the same argument holds.
What’s more, it’s not just the oligarchs who see opportunity in Dubai. Pretty soon, even less-wealthy, and even middle-class Russians, might follow in their footsteps, moving their assets to Dubai, and perhaps snapping up property or other assets, safe in the notion that they will be out of the reach of the West. This could be true even for Russians with few, or no, links to the state, or sanctioned individuals.
Even Russians with transparent sources of income and without links to state authorities are afraid that they will be lumped together with sanctioned businessmen or that their assets could be taken away, said Daria Nevskaya, a partner at the Moscow-based lawfirm FTL Advisers, which serves wealthy Russians. Some rich Russians are trying to restructure ownership of their assets “so that they are not subject to a witch hunt,” she said.
Nevskaya recently arrived in Dubai herself because the firm has seen a surge in demand from Russians to register companies in the UAE to hold their assets, including financial ones, she said.
Even before the war in Ukraine, demand for property from Russian buyers was surging. Car dealerships in the country are moving to hire more Russian speakers. It has all the hallmarks of a financial boom. Local stores stock Russian-style sour cream and cottage cheese, along with Russian ice cream brands and other delicacies popular with Russians.
The increasing appeal to rich Russians is also evident. Demand from Russians for Dubai property is up 40% so far in March compared with February, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported, citing real estate firm Golden Brown Group.
Nevskaya, the lawyer, said a popular way for Russians to obtain a residence visa in the emirate is via the purchase of real estate worth 5 million dirhams ($1.5 million), while a cheaper option is to obtain a residence visa by opening a company.
“If we talk in absolute numbers about UAE residency, the demand has increased by 100%” from Russians, said Polina Kuleshova from residency and citizenship advisory firm Henley & Partners.
…
But for now the Russian influx is underpinning a high-end boom in Dubai. Hotel lobbies echo to the sound of Russian and one car dealer – who asked not to be identified discussing the matter – is going so far to hire more Russian speakers after seeing a big uptick in demand for luxury vehicles from Moscow migrants.
Seeing this, nearby Qatar is also trying to get in on the action. And Israel, which has been reluctant to jeopardize its relationship with Moscow, also remains relatively hospitable (although perhaps not for individuals on the sanctions list).
As European leaders struggle to find ways to eliminate “loopholes” in the sanctions regime, the situation in Dubai is just the latest example of how trying to cut Russians off from the international financial system is a bit like squeezing a balloon – when pressure is applied to one area, the air inside simply moves elsewhere.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 18:00 - Bitcoin Is Peace For The 9/11 Generation, Part 1: The Dollar Is Not Safe
Bitcoin Is Peace For The 9/11 Generation, Part 1: The Dollar Is Not Safe
Authored by Joe Consorti via Bitcoin Magazine,
The perpetual warfare of the last two decades will lose its source of funding as we transition from fiat money to Bitcoin…
ENDLESS WARS — ENDLESS PRINTING
Sunday, April 29, 2001: for four months and 13 days, I was alive prior to the attacks on September 11. For practically my entire life, the United States has been embroiled in endless conflict.
After Afghanistan’s refusal to extradite Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush declared war on Al Qaeda, dubbed the “war on terrorism.” This was the next evolution in a series of wars on the abstract. That statement is not to take away from the tremendous grief and tragedy of the situation. Thousands of Americans lost their lives on 9/11, and thousands more would lose their lives in the decade-long wars to follow.
When the United States engages in war in its many forms, how do we finance it? The U.S. used to issue war bonds, and in times of strife the country would band together and purchase these bonds to help our brothers overseas — it was an act of patriotism. However, after the U.S. left the gold peg initially during WWI in 1913, there was no going back. Issuing paper currency during the battle was far easier, especially considering how frequently we’d be going to war in the decades after The Great War. To finance war, the government increases the supply of U.S. dollars domestically and abroad, both devaluing its own debt and increasing the invisible monetary burden of inflation on its citizens.
However, this essay seeks to lay out the utility of going to war — why does the United States roll out its printing press at the first sign of trouble? Why are we seemingly eager to engage in a conflict, whether it’s a physical threat abroad or a metaphysical threat at home?
Bitcoin offers a solution. A fixed supply of money, with no internal control over new issuance in times of great need. Sound money fixes irresponsible spending, because it introduces a higher price tag to every decision that gets made. This new cost is that of scarcity — do we dare wager our finite supply of money on this new venture?
Bitcoin is difficult to seize. During war time, the government cannot barge into homes and demand families to forfeit their bitcoin, since bitcoin can be kept privately in a cold wallet using a private key, which can be memorized. Taxation isn’t so easy when you can store your wealth in your head — with seizure near impossible, a return to a fiat standard for those acclimated to a bitcoin standard would be improbable.
With sound money, programmatic issuance, and immutable protocol rules, those with the tanks are forced to make prescient decisions about when, where, and why to spend their money.
Bitcoin is sound money. The United States has no control over its issuance rules. The government is more than welcome to fire up some ASICs, mint new supply, and capture some transaction fees, but in times of great need, there is no way to magically create money to finance whatever efforts the government deems fit.
Since unfettered money printing is no longer an option, this puts a far greater cost on entering new wars. Whereas currently, the incentives are aligned with going to war, so new money issued means debasement of the national debt at the expense of the currency-holders’ real wealth; on a bitcoin standard however, the incentives are aligned to avoid war at all costs, opting instead to make prudent decisions that are in the interest of upholding security at home.
This infeasibility to engage in endless foreign conflict is why bitcoin represents peace for the 9/11 generation.
THE DOLLAR IS NOT SAFE
Your dollars get debased when wartime spending kicks in. When the United States government identifies a threat which they deem a matter of national security, the buck lies with them to lay out the best course of action.
According to “The Bitcoin Standard,” by the end of WWI, Germany and Austria had seen 48.9% and 68.9% currency depreciation in comparison to the Swiss franc — which was still on a gold standard.
In the fiat monetary system, the solution to every problem is to always create new money. Instead of strategizing prudently, the incentives are structured to benefit the central bank if more money is created instead.
Think about it:
At the time of writing, the United States government is burdened by approximately $30 trillion of debt. How do you suppose the United States is planning on paying that down? They won’t be austere — no politician would be elected on a platform that limits spending. They can’t have every citizen explicitly pay it off through taxes — no politician would be elected on a platform that taxes each citizen over $90,000.
They can devalue their debt in real terms by creating new money. Ultimately, the burden lies with the citizens — as their savings lose value to the invisible tax of inflation. The government penalizes people trying to opt out of this melting ice cube with capital gains and appreciation taxes. The return to a sound money standard is unlikely at the current moment, given that responsible decision-making from the United States government would be required.
So, at the governmental level, the problem of preventing your decaying wealth will not be solved. At an individual level, you can circumnavigate the devaluing of your wealth through savings technologies like Bitcoin. With a fixed 21 million supply, rest assured your savings cannot be diluted.
“You are welcome to keep your savings in USD, but when bad things happen, they will create more USD, diluting your share of total USD.” — Blockware Solutions Bitcoin Mining Analyst, Joe Burnett
With bitcoin, your ownership percentage of the asset will always remain constant, your share can never be diluted.
When bad things happen, the powers that be fire up the money printers, add to their balance sheet like there’s no tomorrow, and pass the flaming hot potato to the population — letting them deal with their imprudent spending. Anybody else getting Marie Antoinette, “let them eat cake” vibes?
In part two, we’ll explore some of the abstract wars the U.S. has engaged in over the last half-century, to build out the case as to why the dollar is not safe and how commodities like bitcoin represent peace for the war-torn and weary citizens of the United States.
* * *
You can find me on Twitter @JoeConsorti, thanks for reading.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 17:30 - Blackstone Plots Major Expansion Of NYC Office Space
Blackstone Plots Major Expansion Of NYC Office Space
Private equity giant Blackstone is one of America’s largest landlords, and it’s among a handful of financial behemoths (another being similarly named BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with more than $9 trillion AUM) that have helped drive the real-estate frenzy that’s sent home prices soaring over the past couple of years, a trend that’s only now just beginning to fade.
Unfortunately for Blackstone, many firms are embracing the work-from-home lifestyle, which has left investors in commercial real-estate (especially in NYC) in the lurch, as they struggle to find tenants.
In the face of this trend, the firm has found an interesting strategy to try and shore up demand for commercial office space in the Big Apple. It’s looking to expand its office footprint, as the firm pushes its employees to return to the office full-time.
Here’s more from Bloomberg:
The New York-based private equity firm is hunting for roughly 1.5 million square feet (140,000 square meters) of space as it considers relocating from its longtime headquarters on Park Avenue, according to people familiar with the matter.
As it explores its options, Blackstone is looking at sites across Manhattan and could opt to redevelop a building given how much space it needs. The firm may also end up expanding at 345 Park, one of the people said. The building, owned by Rudin Management Co., has housed the firm more than 30 years.
To be sure, Blackstone isn’t the only firm plotting a major expansion of office space in NYC. Ken Griffin’s Citadel is also looking for more space in Manhattan, as are a handful of tech firms.
It’s a strategy that we imagine other corporate landlords may embrace, especially if demand for office space remains lackluster in the years ahead. Struggling to find tenants? Maybe try renting to yourself.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 17:00 - Buchanan: Is Victory For Ukraine Worth Risking Nuclear War?
Buchanan: Is Victory For Ukraine Worth Risking Nuclear War?
During the 70 years that the Soviet Union existed, Ukraine was an integral part of the nation.
Yet this geographic and political reality posed no threat to the United States.
A Russia and a Ukraine, both inside the USSR, was an accepted reality that was seen as no threat for the seven decades that they were united.
Yet, today, because of a month-old war between Russia and Ukraine, over who shall control Crimea, the Donbas and the Black and Azov Sea coasts of Ukraine, America seems closer to a nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
Why?
Time to step back and reflect on what is at stake.
Exactly what threat does Russia’s invasion of Ukraine present to us that is so grave we would consider military action that could lead to World War III and Russia’s use of battlefield nuclear weapons against us?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly hinted at the use of such weapons, should NATO intervene in the Ukraine war and Russia face defeat, or in the event of an “existential” threat to the Russian nation.
We hear from our moral elites that morality commands us to intervene to save the Ukrainian people from the ravages of a war that has already taken thousands of Ukrainian lives.
But what would be the justification for U.S. military intervention in Ukraine, absent a congressional authorization or declaration of war?
Consider. The year the Liberal Hour arrived in America with the New Deal, 1933, a newly inaugurated Franklin D. Roosevelt formally recognized Joseph Stalin’s murderous regime as the legitimate government of a Russia-led USSR.
FDR met personally with Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov even as the Holodomor, the forced starvation of Ukrainian peasants and small farmers, the kulaks and their families, was far advanced.
Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter in Moscow, won a Pulitzer for covering up that crime of the century with its estimated 4 million dead.
The question remains: When did the relationship between Russia and Ukraine become a matter of such vital interest to the U.S. that we would risk war, possible nuclear war, with Russia over it?
How did we get here?
We got here by exploiting our Cold War victory as an opportunity to move NATO, our Cold War alliance, into a dozen countries in Central and Eastern Europe, up to the borders of Russia. Then, we started to bring Ukraine into NATO, the constituent republic of the old Soviet Union with the longest and deepest history with Mother Russia.
Thus, while Putin started this war, the U.S. set the table for it.
We pushed our military alliance, NATO, set up in 1949 to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia, 1,000 miles to the east, right into Russia’s face.
In the 1930s, when Britain’s Lady Astor was asked if she knew where Hitler was born, she answered: “Versailles.”
At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which produced the Versailles Treaty, millions of Germanic peoples and the lands they had inhabited were severed from German rule and distributed to half a dozen nations across Europe.
When we get back on our feet, we will take back all that we have lost, said Gen. Hans von Seeckt of the German General Staff.
We hear warnings that if Russia uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, NATO will react militarily. But if no NATO ally is attacked, why would NATO respond to a Russian attack on Ukraine?
Though outlawed today, chemical weapons were used by all the major participants in World War I, including the Americans.
As for atomic weapons, only Americans have used them.
And while we did not introduce the bombing of cities — the British and Germans did that — we did perfect the carpet-bombing of cities like Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden and Tokyo.
The Ukrainian war, now a month old, has demonstrated the utility of nuclear weapons. Putin’s credible threat to use them has caused the U.S. and NATO to flatly refuse Kyiv’s request to put a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
And as Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons has deterred NATO from intervening on Ukraine’s side in this war, other nations will not miss the message: Possession of nukes can deter even the greatest nuclear powers.
The longer this war goes on, the greater the suffering and losses on all sides. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are already dead, with 10 million uprooted from their homes, a third of that number having fled into neighboring states of Eastern Europe.
The longer the war goes on, the greater the likelihood Putin resorts to indiscriminate bombing and shelling to kill off the resistance, and the greater the possibility that the war expands into NATO Europe.
Meanwhile, in the secure American homeland, 5,000 miles from Kyiv, there is no shortage of foreign policy scholars beating the drums for a “victory” over Putin’s Russia and willing to fight to achieve that victory – right down to the last Ukrainian.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 16:30 - Daily Mail Drops Hunter Biden Emails Linking Him To Ukraine Biolab Funding
Daily Mail Drops Hunter Biden Emails Linking Him To Ukraine Biolab Funding
Emails from Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop reveal that the first son helped secure millions of dollars for a DoD contractor – Metabiota – which specializes in researching pandemic-causing diseases that could be used as bioweapons, according to the Daily Mail, which obtained Hunter’s emails.
Moscow’s claim that Hunter Biden helped finance a US military ‘bioweapons’ research program in Ukraine is at least partially true, according to new emails obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com.
The commander of the Russian Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Forces, claimed there was a ‘scheme of interaction between US government agencies and Ukrainian biological objects’ and pointed to the ‘financing of such activities by structures close to the current US leadership, in particular the investment fund Rosemont Seneca, which is headed by Hunter Biden.’ -Daily Mail
Hunter also appears to have introduced Metabiota to Burisma for a “science project,” ostensibly involving biosecurity labs in Ukraine.
On its face, Metabiota appears to be a simple medical data company – however a 2014 email from its Vice President to Hunter described how they could ‘assert Ukraine’s cultural and economic independence from Russia’ – an odd goal for a biotech firm at the time Hunter’s Dad was US point-man for Ukraine’s ‘reconstruction’ involving the Obama administration.
Emails and defense contract data reviewed by DailyMail.com suggest that Hunter had a prominent role in making sure Metabiota was able to conduct its pathogen research just a few hundred miles from the border with Russia.
The project turned into a national security liability for Ukraine when Russian forces invaded the country last month. -Daily Mail
In April 2014, Metabiota vice president Mary Guttieri wrote a memo to Hunter outlining how they could ‘assert Ukraine’s cultural and economic independence from Russia’. ‘Thanks so much for taking time out of your intense schedule to meet with Kathy [Dimeo, Metabiota executive] and I on Tuesday. We very much enjoyed our discussion,’ Guttieri wrote (Daily Mail) 
Four days after Guttieri’s April 2014 email, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi wrote to Hunter revealing that the then-Vice President’s son had pitched a ‘science project’ involving Burisma and Metabiota in Ukraine. ‘Please find few initial points to be discussed for the purposes of analyzing the potential of this as you called, ‘Science Ukraine’ project,’ Pozharskyi wrote (Daily Mail) 
Government spending records show the Department of Defense awarded an $18.4million contract to Metabiota between February 2014 and November 2016, with $307,091 earmarked for ‘Ukraine research projects’ Digging deeper, we find that Metabiota was working under Black & Veatch – a US defense contractor tied to US intelligence, which built the Ukraine labs that analyzed bioweapons and deadly diseases.
Earlier this month US officials warned congress that ‘Russian forces may be seeking to gain control’ of these ‘biological research facilities’, prompting fears that deadly and even engineered pathogens could fall into Russian hands.
Hunter and his colleagues at his investment firm Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners (RSTP) routinely raised millions of dollars for technology companies, hoping the firms would take off and make them all fortunes.
Metabiota was one of those firms. Emails between Hunter and his colleagues excitedly discuss how the company’s monitoring of medical data could become an essential tool for governments and companies looking to spot outbreaks of infectious diseases. -Daily Mail
Hunter and pals invested $500,000 in Metabiota via Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners – and raised several million through various investment firms, including Goldman Sachs.
In Ukraine, the younger Biden was more intimately involved in Metabiota’s operations – which he bragged about in pitches to investors. Hunter and his partner Eric Schwerin even discussed housing Metabiota in their office space, April 2014 emails reveal.
That same month, Metabiota VP Mary Guttieri wrote Hunter to wax eloquent on how the company could “assert Ukraine’s cultural and economic independence from Russia.”
Mary Guttieri, Metabiota vice president, is seen at a meeting with U.S. and Ukrainian military 
Russia’s Defense Ministry on Thursday put out a diagram with arrows connecting Biden, Soros and the Democratic Party to Ukrainian biolabs 
The president’s son and his colleagues invested $500,000 in Metabiota through their firm Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners. They raised several million dollars of funding for the company from investment giants including Goldman Sachs 
Emails between Hunter and his colleagues at Rosemont Seneca excitedly discuss how the company’s monitoring of medical data could become an essential tool for governments and companies looking to spot outbreaks of infectious diseases Read the rest of the report here…
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 16:00 - Court Rules Democrats Engaged In "Extreme Partisan Gerrymander" In Maryland
Court Rules Democrats Engaged In “Extreme Partisan Gerrymander” In Maryland
I recently wrote a column on the hypocrisy of Democratic activists and members denouncing attacks on democracy as they engage in raw gerrymandering in states like New York. Marc Elias, the former Clinton Campaign general counsel accused of hiding the funding of the Steele Dossier, filed in support the gerrymandered map. The case is Szeliga vs. Lamone.
This is the first time that a congressional map has been thrown out in the history of the state. (It is important to note that Republicans have also had courts rule against them in states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania).
While only 55 percent of Maryland identifies as Democratic, the map would have given Democrats a huge advantage in every district by carefully “cracking” or distributing Republican voting pockets to diffuse their power.
Anne Arundel County Senior Judge Lynne A. Battaglia was scathing in the effort to rig the election by dividing the state into seven Democratic districts and one Republicans district. The court found that, in their 2021 Congressional Plan, the Democrats not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses.
The court concluded:
“Finally, with respect to the evaluation of the 2021 Plan through the lens of the Constitution and Declaration of Rights, it is axiomatic that popular sovereignty is the paramount consideration in a republican, democratic government. The limitation of the undue extension of power by any branch of government must be exercised to ensure that the will of the people is heard, no matter under which political placard those governing reside. The 2021 Congressional Plan is unconstitutional and subverts the will of those governed.”
(MSNBC/via YouTube)
Elias has been accused of making millions from gerrymandering and challenging election victories by Republicans (while condemning such actions by Republicans as “anti-Democratic”). He was involved in the New York redistricting that was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters to end such gerrymandering but effectively negating the votes of Republican voters.
Elias has long been a controversial figure in politics. I previously described news accounts linking the firm and Elias to the dossier scandal:
Throughout the campaign, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the so-called Steele dossier’s allegations of Trump-Russia connections. However, weeks after the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the dossier made to a research firm, Fusion GPS, as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the campaign’s law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias, with the law firm of Perkins Coie, denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
The Washington Post also reported that “Elias drew from funds that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were paying Perkins Coie.” Elias has featured prominently in the ongoing investigation of John Durham.
That history has not stopped media like CNN asking Elias “what should we be doing differently” in covering elections. He chastised the media for not having enough of a a “pro-democracy slant,” which appears to mean a more Democratic slant.
Elias and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee defended the map despite being given an “F” by the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.
Here is the opinion: Szeliga vs. Lamone.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 15:30 - Biden Administration Set To Approve 2nd Booster Dose For Americans Over 50
Biden Administration Set To Approve 2nd Booster Dose For Americans Over 50
As COVID ‘experts’ including Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Scott Gottlieb urge Americans to beware another wave of COVID driven by subvariant BA2, the Biden Administration has reportedly decided to approve a second round of booster shots for Americans over 50 – much to the delight of Moderna and Pfizer, the biggest producers of said shots.
According to the NYT, the FDA could approve the next round of shots as soon as next week.
However, “major complications” have reportedly plagued the decision, leading to a lengthy delay. These complications include:
-
How long the protection from a second booster would last.
-
How to explain the plan to the public.
-
And even whether the overall goal is to shield Americans from severe disease or from less serious infections.
But the FDA has apparently decided to err on the side of caution, believing that, should BA2 cause a resurgence in the US (like it’s doing in Western Europe and the UK), that making boosters available could potentially save lives. However, if the next wave doesn’t hit until the fall – or doesn’t hit at all – then the decision to authorize the shots could be criticized as a major waste of resources.
After all, as the WHO has repeatedly warned, the priority for the American-made vaccines should be to distribute them across the developing world, to guard against the possibility of a more virulent mutation emerging in an area with far lower vaccination rates than the US. The BA2 subvariant is driving another wave o cases in Europe, but so far, it’s believed to only be responsible for roughly one-third of new cases in the US.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 15:00 -
- Biden Says "Butcher" Putin "Cannot Remain In Power" In Call For Regime Change In Russia
Biden Says “Butcher” Putin “Cannot Remain In Power” In Call For Regime Change In Russia
Update(1435ET): Quite awkwardly and bizarrely, and a mere minutes after multiple headlines hit which emphasized that Biden just called for regime change in Russia with the words “this man cannot remain in power” in reference to Putin, the White House is seeking to clarify that supposedly it was “not” a call for regime change:
White House official explains what Biden actually tried to say: “The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.”
White House official: “The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.” https://t.co/SGy7zJLydD
— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) March 26, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The Bloomberg headline which pointed out the obvious: that Biden did issue a statement clearly pointing to regime change…
JUST IN: President Joe Biden called for regime change in Russia, saying in a speech in Poland that Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” after the Ukraine invasion https://t.co/nieYE8eGn6
— Bloomberg Asia (@BloombergAsia) March 26, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So in a mere 24 hours Biden seems to have leaked or let slip that we’re eventually going to likely have boots on the ground and that regime change in Russia is the goal.
KREMLIN SAYS NEW BIDEN COMMENTS ABOUT PUTIN FURTHER NARROW POSSIBILITIES FOR MENDING RELATIONS -TASS
Here’s what he said only yesterday, also from Poland…
BIDEN SLIPS AND TELLS 82nd AIRBORNE THEY’RE GOING TO UKRAINE?pic.twitter.com/lUiB8w2Ibk
— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 25, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
Update(1410ET): President Biden during his important address on Ukraine from Warsaw, Poland just issued his strongest words thus far since the start of the conflict aimed directly at Putin:
“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Biden said at the end of the speech.
Biden on Putin: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” pic.twitter.com/atNZtCPvAM
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Biden also at one point called out Putin as a “butcher” on the sidelines of the speech when questioned by a reporter, and additionally hailed what he called the “strategic failure” of Russia to reach its military objectives since the Feb.24 invasion.
“Let there be no doubt that this war has already been a strategic failure for Russia,” Biden said in the speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw.
“He’s a butcher” — Biden on Putin pic.twitter.com/yvRjLqATIc
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
He also stipulated that ordinary Russians are “not our enemy” – but that the West’s far reaching sanctions which are isolating the Russian economy and population should be blamed only on Putin.
“It’s Vladimir Putin who is to blame,” Biden said, and warned the Russian forces must not move even an “inch of NATO territory.” The US president said, “Today, Russia has strangled democracy” and
“We need to steel ourselves for a long fight ahead.“Rather than breaking Ukrainian resolve, Russia’s brutal tactics have strengthen the resolve.” President Biden stated. “Rather than driving NATO apart, the West now is stronger and more united than it has ever been.” pic.twitter.com/XkHNYzt5gt
— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 26, 2022
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Given the Kremlin days ago already warned it’s on the brink of cutting off all diplomatic relations with Washington after Biden referred over a week ago to Putin as a “murderous dictator” and “thug” – Biden’s fresh words could be the tipping point for the severing of official relations, leading toward continued dangerous escalation between NATO and Moscow.
* * *
President Biden delivers remarks on the united efforts of the free world to support the people of Ukraine for Warsaw, Poland.
The White House statement says Biden will discuss how the west will hold Russia accountable for its brutal war, and defend a future that is rooted in democratic principles…
Watch Live:
Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/26/2022 – 14:35
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
