$ES_F MOC SELL $650mil $$
$ES_F SPX moc implied imbal $1.3B for SALE $$
$ES_F 02:34:26 TRADINGDATA2: (bshepard) ESM moving the the favored direction of the imbalalce meter ... down $$
$ES_F 81% sell side $$
John_Monaco (13:41:50): 75% sell side on the close
With the S&P closing at 2,099 on Friday, here - courtesy of Citi - is a reminder of the recent monthly highs in the S&P 500, all of which have managed to rise above 2,100 only to slide right back down again.
There is one more trading day in May, or as CitiFX' Brent Donnelly puts it, "here we go again."
Everybody was looking forward to hear what Janet Yellen had to say last week, as people were waiting for a cue about what the Federal Reserve might do next month and later this year. Will the Fed keep the interest rates stable? Or will we indeed see three additional rate hikes to push the benchmark interest rate towards 1.25%?
It’s not a secret the Federal Reserve has been slowly walking back on its previous promises as just five months ago, the institution said it would very likely implement no less than four rate hikes in 2016. We’re now nearing the end of May and not a single rate hike has occurred yet, and the chances of indeed seeing four, or even three rate hikes are now pretty much zero.
In fact, Yellen didn’t really bring any new data or details to light, although she now did go on record stating that a rate hike in June might be likely, but that the Fed would have to be very careful to make sure it’s not ‘choking’ the market. Yellen not hinted at the fact the interest rates would be gradually increased ‘at an appropriate time’, but warns for the impact of increasing the interest rates too fast and too high.
You might want to read between the lines here, and we are interpreting this as seeing a rate hike in June and perhaps one in September or October, but we are pretty certain there won’t be no third rate hike. And we’re not alone. If you’d have a look at the market data from the 30 Day Federal Funds futures, the market clearly doesn’t believe in aggressive rate hikes and still expects a very moderate increase in the interest rates. Just have a look at the futures for September and December:
Source: CME Group
Just to give you a better impression of what this means, the market is now expecting just a 28% chance to see a rate hike in June, but a 68% to see a rate hike by September. As you can see on the next image, the current price levels of the Fed Funds futures are indicating there’s a 32% chance nothing will happen, and a 46% chance the benchmark interest rate will be increased by one step.
Source: CME Group FedWatch
More importantly this also indicated there’s just a 21% chance there will be a two-step rate hike and a very tiny 2.3% chance the Federal Reserve will boost the benchmark interest rate all the way up to 1.25%.
Sounds reasonable, no? But what we cared about the most were the longer-term expectations of the market. The expectations for February next year aren’t very different from September as the market is still just incorporating an 83% chance there will be a rate hike (which is just 15% more than in September), but what’s even more important is that the odds are in favor of just one rate hike, as there seems to be a 55% chance there will be no more than one hike.
This means the market has indeed completely given up on expecting quite a few rate hikes this year and whereas the Fed was making bold statements about 3 or 4 rate hikes in 2016, the futures indicate there’s only an 11% chance there will be 3 rate hikes and a possibility of just 1.5% there will be at least four rate hikes. So that’s a non-existing possibility.
But the markets have also sent another signal. The gold price started to go down after Yellen said a rate hike is still on the table (well, more or less), but we would like to point out a very interesting phenomenon. As you can see on the next image which shows the closing prices of the gold futures on Friday, you can clearly see the June contract fell by $8/oz to $1212.4/oz, but the majority of yesterday’s volume was generated at the August-constracts which didn’t only show a slightly more moderate decline, but confirm the market is still expecting the gold price to increase
Source: CME Group
Indeed, looking at the prices of the gold futures it’s pretty clear the market is expecting the yellow metal to perform pretty well. That really shouldn’t be a huge surprise as gold originally used to be a hedge against inflation, so an increased interest rate on the back of a higher inflation rate would actually be positive for the gold price!
Whether it’s a hedge against inflation or an insurance policy, gold should always have a place in your portfolio.
Secular Investor offers a fresh look at investing. We analyze long lasting cycles, coupled with a collection of strategic investments and concrete tips for different types of assets. The methods and strategies are transformed into the Gold & Silver Report and the Commodity Report.
Exxon Mobile filed court papers in Texas last month seeking to block a subpoena issued in March by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands which alleges that Exxon is deceiving the public and shareholders about the effects of climate change. Exxon has said that the subpoena is an unwarranted fishing expedition into Exxon's internal records and violates its constitutional rights; "The chilling effect of this inquiry, which discriminates based on viewpoint to target one side of an ongoing policy debate, strikes at the protected speech at the core of the First Amendment" the court filing said according to the WSJ.
As we reported last year, Exxon found itself on the shocking receiving end of an administration with a clear agenda for payback.
Exxon signed an agreement which deepened ties with Russia's state-owned oil company Rosneft just as the Obama administration was trying to isolate Russia and its economy. That payback, which had the added bonuses of cementing Obama's liberal global warming climate change crackdown (which incidentally benefits none other than carbon credit powerhouse Goldman Sachs the most) came when the New York Attorney General launching a sweeping investigation of Exxon mobile to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change, or to investors about how that risk might hurt the oil business.
Given that the U.S. Virgin Islands AG has now joined in, one thing that has become clear is that Exxon is now being targeted by the government for its alleged views on climate change, which implicitly run contrary to Obama's. Of course, the government applying pressure to those with opposing views is nothing new, with the government finally admitting to its targeting of conservatives through the IRS as a recent example.
In light of the continued push by state AGs to go after Exxon on climate change, five senators have sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch demanding that in two weeks, the Department of Justice "immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time - climate change." Or, said otherwise, to end the government witch hunt against political opponents of president Obama's energy agenda.
As Breitbart adds, the five republican Senators warned the DOJ her that any improper assertion of federal investigatory or prosecutorial power is an abuse of power.
Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), David Vitter (R-LA), and David Perdue (R-GA), signed the letter warning Lynch that “As you well know, initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity’s opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.”
They add, “These actions provide disturbing confirmation that government officials at all levels are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change.”
The U.S. senators note in their letter that “in 2015, the [DOJ] was asked by a ‘coalition of environmentalists and lawmakers’ to investigate whether the past decisions of a private sector company to adopt and publicly disclose certain views on climate issues, and to refrain from adopting and publicly disclosing others, may have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and related laws.”
Statements from a March 29, 2016, press conference held by Democrat attorneys general from five states, and staff from Democrat AG offices in eleven other states, clearly exposed that similar investigations are ongoing, they write.
The 'coalition of environmentalists and lawmakers' consists of about a dozen people formed to "establish in public's mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm". Members include including environmental campaign veteran Kenny Bruno and Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, two activists who helped lead the successful fight to block the Keystone XL pipeline according to the WSJ. Interestingly, the Rockefeller Family Fund hosted a closed door event in January that brought this group together. The Rockefeller family is run by heirs of John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, which eventually became ExxonMobil.
The senators had strong comments on the subject, all of them sharing the same sentiment, which is that there is government intrusion on private lives in order to silence opposing views.
“Freedom of thought and inquiry is at the very heart of liberty,” Sen. Cruz said. “Sadly, the Obama administration and its allies in state attorney general offices across the country are threatening to use the power of government to intimidate and ultimately silence companies and researchers who do not agree with the government’s opinions about the allegedly harmful effects of climate change and what should be done about it. This is an abuse of power and a direct assault on the First Amendment. The Obama Justice Department should immediately cease any further consideration of such action and should instead do everything in its power to protect the freedom of thought of all Americans.”
“Threatening prosecution of those who dare to challenge the most outlandish scaremongering by climate activists strikes at the very heart of the Free Speech protections on which this nation was founded,” Sen. Lee said. “Issuing subpoenas to harass researchers and academics with whom they have communicated, as some state attorneys general offices have done, shows a basic disregard for Americans’ Freedom of Association. The public expects us to prevent such abuses, not perpetrate them. It is our responsibility to contain the inevitable chilling effects by calling for an end to any consideration by the Department of Justice of such harassment at once.”
“Unnecessary government intrusion of private citizens’ lives is an unfortunate characteristic of the reign of the Obama Administration,” Sen. Vitter said. “It is contemptible for the Justice Department to target and threaten individual American citizens and private or non-profit organizations in pursuit of its far-left environmental agenda.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange have filed a motion to intervene in the case involving Exxon's subpoena from U.S. Virgin Islands AG Claude Walker, who is seeking decades worth of internal records concerning the company's public statements over the potential impacts of climate change. Walker is seeking to determine if the company committed securities fraud, or violated the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
"This case is about abusing the power of the subpoena to force Exxon to turn over many decades' worth of records, so an attorney general with an agenda can pore over them in hopes of finding something incriminating." Paxton said, adding that it could "set a precedent that anyone can be criminally investigated" for views that differ from the federal government.
* * *
Whether or not this is enough to stop the inquiry into Exxon, the message is clear: disagree with the government, especially on deeply liberal issues, at your own risk - few have pockets deep enough to fight these types of battles in court, even fewer can ride out the witch hunt that will lead many businesses to going under, something the government understands very well.
Full letter here:
I have recently posted a piece in which I tried to debunk a few popular myths about modern warfare. Judging by many comments which I received in response to this post, I have to say that the myths in question are still alive and well and that I clearly failed to convince many readers. What I propose to do today, is to look at what Russia is really doing in response to the growing threat from the West. But first, I have to set the context or, more accurately, re-set the context in which Russia is operating. Let’s begin by looking at the AngloZionist policies towards Russia.
The West’s actions:
First on this list is, obviously, the conquest by NATO of all of Eastern Europe. I speak of conquest because that is exactly what it is, but a conquest achieved according to the rules of 21st century warfare which I define as “80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military”. Yes, I know, the good folks of Eastern Europe were just dreaming of being subjugated by the US/NATO/EU/etc – but so what? Anyone who has read Sun Tzu will immediately recognize that this deep desire to be ‘incorporated’ into the AngloZionist “Borg” is nothing else but the result of a crushed self-identity, a deep-seated inferiority complex and, thus, a surrender which did not even have to be induced by military means. At the end of the day, it makes no difference what the locals thought they were achieving – they are now subjects of the Empire and their countries more or less irrelevant colonies in the fringe of the AngloZionist Empire. As always, the local comprador elite is now bubbling with pride at being, or so they think, accepted as equals by their new masters (think Poroshenko, Tusk or Grybauskaite) which gives them the courage to bark at Moscow from behind the NATO fence. Good for them.
Second is the now total colonization of Western Europe into the Empire. While NATO moved to the East, the US also took much deeper control of Western Europe which is now administered for the Empire by what the former Mayor of London once called the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” – faceless bureaucrats à la François Hollande or Angela Merkel.
Third, the Empire has given its total support to semi-demonic creatures ranging from al-Khattab to Nadezhda Savchenko. The West’s policy is crystal clear and simple to the extreme: if it is anti-Russian we back it. This policy is best exemplified with a Putin and Russia demonization campaign which is, in my opinion, far worse and much more hysterical than anything during the Cold War.
Fourth, the West has made a number of highly disturbing military moves including the deployment of the first elements of an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, the dispatching of various forms of rapid reaction forces, the deployment of a few armored units, etc. NATO now has forward deployed command posts which can be used to support the engagement of a rapid reaction force.
What does all this add up to?
Right now, nothing much, really. Yes, the NATO move right up to the Russian borders is highly provocative, but primarily in political terms. In purely military terms, not only is this a very bad idea (see cliché #6 here), but the size of the actual forces deployed is, in reality, tiny: the ABM system currently deployed can, at best, hope to intercept a few missiles (10-20 depending on your assumptions) as for the conventional forces they are of the battalion size (more or less 600 soldiers plus support). So right now there is categorically no real military threat to Russia.
So why are the Russians so clearly upset?
Because the current US/NATO moves might well be just the first steps of a much larger effort which, given enough time, might begin presenting a very real danger for Russia.
Furthermore, the kind of rhetoric coming out of the West now is not only militaristic and russophobic, it is often outright messianic. The last time around the West had a flare up of its 1000 year old chronic “messianic syndrome” condition Russia lost 20 (to 30) million people. So the Russians can be forgiven if they are paying a great deal of attention to what the AngloZionist propaganda actually says about them.
The Russians are most dismayed at the re-colonization of western Europe. Long gone are the days when people like Charles de Gaulle, Helmut Schmidt or François Mitterrand, were in charge of Europe’s future. For all their very real faults, these men were at least real patriots and not just US colonial administrators. The ‘loss’ of Western Europe is far more concerning for the Russians than the fact that ex-Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe are now under US colonial administration. Why?
Look at this from the Russian point of view.
The Russians all see that the US power is on the decline and that the dollar will, sooner or later, gradually or suddenly, lose its role as the main reserve and exchange currency on the planet (this process has already begun). Simply put – unless the US finds a way to dramatically change the current international dynamic the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. The Russians believe that what the Americans are doing is, at best, to use tensions with Russia to revive a dormant Cold War v2 and, at worst, to actually start a real shooting war in Europe.
So a declining Empire with a vital need for a major crisis, a spineless Western Europe unable to stand up for its own interest, a subservient Eastern Europe just begging to turn into a massive battlefield between East and West, and a messianic, rabidly russophobic rhetoric as the background for an increase in military deployments on the Russian border. Is anybody really surprised that the Russians are taking all this very, very serious even if right now the military threat is basically non-existent?
The Russian reaction
So let us now examine the Russian reaction to Empire’s stance.
First, the Russians want to make darn sure that the Americans do not give in to the illusion that a full-scale war in Europe would be like WWII which saw the US homeland only suffer a few, tiny, almost symbolic, attacks by the enemy. Since a full scale war in Europe would threaten the very existence of the Russian state and nation, the Russians are now taking measures to make darn sure that, should that happen, the US would pay an immense price for such an attack.
Second, the Russians are now evidently assuming that a conventional threat from the West might materialize in the foreseeable future. They are therefore taking the measures needed to counter that conventional threat.
Third, since the USA appears to be dead set into deploying an anti-ballistic missile system not only in Europe, but also in the Far East, the Russians are taking the measures to both defeat and bypass this system.
The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planing, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:
- The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army (in progress)
- The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (done)
- The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM (in progress)
- The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo (in progress)
The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army
It is hard to believe, but the fact is that between 1991 and 2016 Russia did not have a single large formation (division size and bigger) in its Western Military District. A few brigades, regiments and battalions which nominally were called an “Army”. To put it simply – Russia clearly did not believe that there was a conventional military threat from the West and therefore she did not even bother deploying any kind of meaningful military force to defend from such a non-existing threat. By the way, that fact should also tell you everything you need to know about Russian plans to invade the Ukraine, Poland or the Baltics: this is utter nonsense. This has now dramatically changed.
Russia has officially announced that the First Guards Tank Army (a formation with a prestigious and very symbolic history). This Guards Tank Army will now include the 4th “Kantemirov” Guards Tank Division, the 2nd “Taman” Guards Motorized Rifle Division, the 6th Tank Brigade, the 27th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade Sevastopol and many support units. This Army’s HQ will be located in the Odinstovo suburb of Moscow. Currently the Army is equipped with T-72B3 and T-80 main battle tanks, but they will be replaced by the brand new and revolutionary T-14 Armata tank while the current infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers will be replaced by the new APC and IFV. In the air, these armored units will be protected and supported by Mi-28 and Ka-52 attack helicopters. Make no mistake, this will be a very large force, exactly the kind of force needed so smash through an attacking enemy forces (by the way, the 1TGA was present at the Kursk battle). I am pretty sure that by the time the 1TGA is fully organized it will become the most powerful armored formation anywhere between the Atlantic and the Urals (especially in qualitative terms). If the current tensions continue or even worsen, the Russians could even augment the 1TGA to a type of 21st century “Shock Army” with increased mobility and specializing in breaking deep into the enemy’s defenses.
The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system
The new Iskander-M operational tactical missile system is a formidable weapon by any standard. While technically it is a short-range tactical missile (under 1000km range, the Iskander-M has an official range of 500km), it can also fire the R-500 missile has the capability of striking at an intermediate/operational range (over 1000km, the R-500 has a range of 2000km). It is extremely accurate, it has advanced anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically undetectable on the ground (see here for more details). This will be the missile tasked with destroying all the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe and, if needed, clear the way for the 1TGA.
The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM
Neither the 1TGA nor the Iskander-M missile will threaten the US homeland in any way. Russia thus needed some kind of weapon which would truly strike fear into the Pentagon and White House in the way the famous RS-36 Voevoda (aka SS-18 “Satan” in US classification) did during the Cold War. The SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. The RS-28 “Sarmat” (SS-X-30 by NATO classification) brings the terror to a totally new level.
The Sarmat is nothing short of amazing. It will be capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.
The Sarmat will also be capable of delivering conventional Iu-71 hypersonic warheads capable of a “kinetic strike” which could be used to strike a fortified enemy target in a non-nuclear conflict. This will be made possible by the amazing accuracy of the Sarmat’s warheads which, courtesy of a recent Russian leak, we now know have a CEP of 10 meters (see screen capture)
The Sarmat’s silos will be protected by a unique “active protection measures” which will include 100 guns capable of firing a “metallic cloud” of forty thousand 30mm “bullets” to an altitude of up to 6km. The Russians are also planning to protect the Sarmat with their new S-500 air defense systems. Finally, the Sarmat’s preparation to start time will be under 60 seconds thanks a a highly automated launch system. What this all means is that the Sarmat missile will be invulnerable in its silo, during it’s flight and on re-entry in the lower parts of the atmosphere.
It is interesting to note that while the USA has made a great deal of noise around its planned Prompt Global Strike system, the Russians have already begun deploying their own version of this concept.
The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo
Do you remember the carefully staged “leak” in November of last year when the Russians ‘inadvertently’ showed a super dooper secret strategic torpedo on prime time news? Here is this (in)famous slide:
What is shown here is an “autonomous underwater vehicle” which has advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. This vehicle can dive as deep as 1000m, at a speed up to 185km/h and it has a range of up to 10’000km. It is delivered by specially configured submarines.
The Status-6 system can be used to target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frighting configuration, it can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system would be a new version of the T-15 torpedo which would be 24m long, 1,5m wide weigh 40 tons and capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57 megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.
Keep in mind that most of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks (be it Sakharov’s proposed “Tsunami bomb” or the Status-6 system). And, just as in the case of the Iskander-M or the Sarmat ICBM, the depth and speed of the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to incerception.
* * *
There is really nothing new in all of the above, and US military commanders have always known that. All the US anti-ballistic missile systems have always been primarily a financial scam, from Reagan’s “Star Wars” to Obama’s “anti-Iranian ABM”. For one thing, any ABM system is susceptible to ‘local saturation': if you have X number ABM missile protecting a Y long space against an X number of missiles, all that you need to do is to saturate only one sector of the Y space with *a lot* of real and fake missiles by firing them all together through one small sector of the Y space the ABM missile system is protecting. And there are plenty of other measures the Russians could take. They could put just one single SLBM capable submarine in Lake Baikal making it basically invulnerable. There is already some discussion of that idea in Russia. Another very good option would be to re-activate the Soviet BzhRK rail-mobile ICBM. Good luck finding them in the immense Russian train network. In fact, the Russians have plenty of cheap and effective measure. Want me to list one more?
Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commerical container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Check out this excellent video which explains this:
Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, an nobody would even see it coming.
The reality is that the notion that the US could trigger a war against Russia (or China for that matter) and not suffer the consequences on the US mainland is absolutely ridiculous. And yet, when I hear all the crazy talk by western politicians and generals I get the impression that they are forgetting about this undeniable fact. Frankly, even the current threats against Russia have a ‘half-backed’ feel to them: a battalion here, another one there, a few missiles here, a few more there. It is like the rulers of the Empire don’t realize that it is a very, very bad idea to constantly poke a bear when all you are carrying with you is a pocket-knife. Sometimes the reaction of western politicians remind me of the thugs who try to rob a gas station with a plastic or empty gun and who are absolutely stunned with they get gunned down by the owner or the cops. This kind of thuggery is nothing more than a form of “suicide by cop” which never ends well for the one trying to get away with it.
So sometimes things have to be said directly and unambiguously: western politicians better not believe in their own imperial hubris. So far, all their threats have achieved is that the Russians have responded with a many but futile verbal protests and a full-scale program to prepare Russia for WWIII.
As I have written many times, Russians are very afraid of war and they will go out of their way to avoid it. But they are also ready for war. This is a uniquely Russian cultural feature which the West has misread an innumerable number of time over the past 1000 years or so. Over and over again have the Europeans attacked Russia only to find themselves into a fight they would never have imagined, even in their worst nightmares. This is why the Russians like to say that “Russia never starts wars, she only ends them”.
There is a profound cultural chasm between how the West views warfare and how the Russians do. In the West, warfare is, really, “the continuation of politics by other means”. For Russians, it is a ruthless struggle for survival. Just look at generals in the West: they are polished and well mannered managers much more similar to corporate executives than with, say, Mafia bosses. Take a look at Russian generals (for example, watch the Victory Day parade in Moscow). In comparison to their western colleagues they look almost brutish, because first and foremost they are ruthless and calculating killers. I don’t mean that in a negative way – they often are individually very honorable and even kind men, and like every good commander, they care for their men and love their country. But the business they are in in not the continuation of politics by other means, the business they are in is survival. At all cost.
You cannot judge a military or, for that matter, a nation, by how it behaves when it triumphs, when it is on the offensive pursing a defeated enemy. All armies look good when they are winning. You can really judge of the nature of a military, or a nation, at its darkest hour, when things are horrible and the situation worse than catastrophic. That was the case in 1995 when the Eltsin regime ordered a totally unprepared, demoralized, poorly trained, poorly fed, poorly equipped and completely disorganized Russian military (well, a few hastily assembled units) to take Grozny from the Chechens. It was hell on earth. Here is some footage of General Lev Rokhlin in a hastily organized command post in a basement inside Grozy. He is as exhausted, dirty and exposed as any of his soldiers. Just look at his face and look at the faces of the men around him. This is what the Russian army looks like when it is in the depth of hell, betrayed by the traitors sitting in the Kremlin and abandoned by most if the Russian people (who, I am sorry to remind here, mostly were only were dreaming of McDonalds and Michael Jackson in 1995).
Can you imagine, say, General Wesley Clark or David Petraeus fighting like these men did?
Check out this video of General Shamanov reading the riot act to a local Chechen politician (no translation need):
Shamanov nowadays is the Commander in Chief of the Airborne Forces (see photo) whose size Putin quietly doubled to 72’000, something I mentioned in the past as highly relevant, especially in comparison with the rather tepid force level increases announced by NATO (see “EU suidice by reality denial”). To get a feel for what modern Russian airborne forces are like, check out this article.
It is not my intention here to glorify nuclear war or the Russian Armed Forces. The reason for this, and many other, articles is to try to raise the alarm about what I see is happening nowadays. Western leaders are drunk on their own imperial hubris, nations which in the past were considered as minor stains on a map now feel emboldened to constantly provoke a nuclear superpower, Americans are being lied to and promised that some magical high tech will protect them from war while the Russians are seriously gearing up for WWIII because they have come to the conclusion that the only way to prevent that war is to make absolutely and unequivocally clear to the AngloZionists that they will never survive a war with Russia, even if every single Russian is killed.
I remember the Cold War well. I was part of it. And I remember that the vast majority of us, on both sides, realized that a war between Russia and the West must be avoided at all costs. Now I am horrified when I read articles by senior officials seriously discussing such a possibility.
Just read this article, please: What would a war between the EU and Russia look like? Here is what this guy writes:
To the poetically inclined, the Russian military looks more like a gigantic pirate crew, than a regular army. The ones who rule are the ones with the sharpest cutlass and biggest mouth, typically some scurvy infested mateis who rely on the support of their mates to make any unpopular “officer” walk the plank… Or, more apt, they resemble the members of the cossack horde, run by the brashier warriors… While these troops can be very brave, at times, they are not effective in the field against a well regulated and trained modern military machine. Given this, it is improbably, ney, impossible for ordinary Russian troops to conduct operations of major consequence at more than platoon level against any disciplined armies, especially the US, British, German, or French.
This kind of writing really scares me. Not because of the imbecilic and racist stupidity of it, but because it largely goes unchallenged in the mainstream media. Not only that, there are plenty such articles written elsewhere (see here, here or here). Of course, the authors of that kind of “analyses” make their money precisely the kind of manic cheer-leading for the western forces, but that is exactly the mindset which got Napoleon and Hitler in trouble and which ended with Russian forces stationed in Paris and Berlin. Compare that kind of jingoistic and, frankly, irresponsible nonsense with what a real military commander, Montgomery, had to say on this topic:
The next war on land will be very different from the last one, in that we shall have to fight it in a different way. In reaching a decision on that matter, we must first be clear about certain rules of war. Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule.
So who do you trust? Professional cheerleaders or professional soldiers? Do you really believe that Obama (or Hillary), Merkel and Hollande will do better than Napoleon or Hitler?
If the AngloZionist ‘deep state’ is really delusional enough to trigger a war with Russia, in Europe or elsewhere, the narcissistic and hedonistic West, drunk on its own propaganda and hubris, will discover a level of violence and warfare it cannot even imagine and if that only affected those responsible for these reckless and suicidal policies it would be great. But the problem is, of course, that many millions of us, simple, regular people, will suffer and die as a consequence of our collective failure to prevent that outcome. I hope and pray that my repeated warnings will at least contribute to what I hope is a growing realization that this folly has to be immediately stopped and that sanity must return to politics.
Last Tuesday the Senate Intelligence Committee approved the annual Intelligence Authorization Act for 2017, which is now set to be considered by the full Senate.
The bill is used to authorize funding for the intelligence community, sets policy and authorizes resources for intelligence purposes. We bring this up because the only committee member to vote against the bill was Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore), who later released a statement on why he did not vote for the bill - notably, that the FBI would be allowed to obtain Americans' email using only a national security letter, meaning it will now be able to access email without a court order.
While the intrusion of civil liberties is something that everyone lets the government get away with in today's society (as long as there are ample episodes of Keeping Up With the Kardashians on to keep people's mind occupied), it's nice to see that at least somebody is paying attention, let alone cares enough to warn the public about what is taking place.
Here is the full statement
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Washington, D.C. –Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., today voted against the 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The bill includes provisions to expand warrantless government surveillance and takes aim at a valuable independent oversight board.
“This bill takes a hatchet to important protections for Americans’ liberty,” Wyden said following the vote. “This bill would mean more government surveillance of Americans, less due process and less independent oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies. Worse, neither the intelligence agencies, nor the bill’s sponsors have shown any evidence that these changes would do anything to make Americans more secure. I plan to work with colleagues in both chambers to reverse these dangerous provisions.”
Wyden opposes multiple provisions to the bill, including;
-Allowing the FBI to obtain Americans’ email records with only a National Security Letter. Currently, the FBI can obtain email records in national security investigations with an order from the FISA Court. The bill would allow any FBI field office to demand email records without a court order, a major expansion of federal surveillance powers. The FBI can currently obtain phone records with a National Security Letter, but not email records.
-Narrowing the jurisdiction of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), for the second consecutive year. The bill would limit the PCLOB to examining only programs that impact the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. Wyden has supported the PCLOB’s focus on the rights of US persons. Wyden opposed this provision, however, since global telecommunications networks can make it difficult to determine who is an American citizen, and this provision could discourage oversight of programs when the impact on Americans’ rights is unclear. Furthermore, continually restricting a small, independent oversight board sends the message that the board shouldn’t do its job too well.
The bill does include one proposal from Wyden, which would allow the PCLOB to hire staff even when the board’s Chair is vacant. Currently the PCLOB is prohibited from hiring staff unless a Senate-confirmed Chair is in place. This proposal is also included in separate bipartisan legislation introduced by Wyden and Representative Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii. PCLOB Chairman David Medine is scheduled to step down on July 1.
Warning: array_slice() expects parameter 1 to be array, null given in /home/content/36/7927636/html/news/wp-content/themes/news_aggregator/index.php on line 43