Menu Icon

Debt Rattle October 24 2024

Oct 242024
 
 October 24, 2024  Posted by at 8:45 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  61 Responses »


René Magritte Popular panorama 1926

 

• Trump Likely to Win in All Swing States – Election Betting Odds (Sp.)
• Nate Silver Predicts Trump Will Win Presidential Election Next Month (JTN)
• Polymarket Is Scanning For US Users As Election Odds Skew Toward Trump (CT)
• GOP Early-Voting Turnout In Nevada Amazes Veteran Observer, Alarms Dems (ZH)
• Tulsi Gabbard Joins Republican Party (RT)
• Bill Gates Funds Harris With $50 Million Donation (Sp.)
• Harris To Deliver ‘Closing Argument Speech’ On The Ellipse Next Week (JTN)
• LA Times Owner Blocks Harris Endorsement (RT)
• World ‘Tired’ of US-led West – RT Editor-in-Chief (RT)
• BRICS Summit: Marching Towards A New World Order (Bordachev)
• Kremlin Orders Delay In New Electric War Attacks (Helmer)
• Ukraine War Ending Scenarios (Barton)
• THAAD Idea Is Like All Of Biden’s So Far With Israel. A Miscalculation (Jay)
• Musk Mania (Jonathan Turley)
• Meteorite That Caused Earth’s Oceans to Boil Helped Early Life Thrive (Sp.)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1849067926940492006
https://twitter.com/i/status/1849111488847548516

Rasmussen
https://twitter.com/i/status/1848812774593356219

CNN Poll

Amish

Check your ballot

531,000+

Sex slavery

Ackman

Kamala: Donald Trump is Hitler.

Liz Cheney
https://twitter.com/i/status/1848757362816921610

Rogan SNL

Tucker

RFK

BBC

Dana

 

 

 

 

After declaring Hillary a sure win in 2016, pollsters are no longer trusted. It’s betting firms now.

• Trump Likely to Win in All Swing States – Election Betting Odds (Sp.)

Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is likely to win in all swing states and get reelected as a result, according to the data released by Election Betting Odds on Tuesday. The betting firm put Trump’s odds of winning Arizona at 72.1%, Georgia at 70.5%, North Carolina at 66.5%, Pennsylvania at 61.5%, Nevada at 60.7%, Michigan at 59.5% and Wisconsin at 57.5%, while Trump’s Democratic rival Kamala Harris is projected to lose them all. Trump’s odds of winning the election stand at 60.3%, while Harris’ chances are estimated at only 39.1%. The analysis predicts that Trump will secure 312 electoral votes, versus Harris’ 226. The service sums up data provided by Betfair, Smarkets, PredictIt, Polymarket and Kalshi, and updates the information every 20 minutes.

According to a poll conducted by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Trump is leading Harris by four percentage points in the swing state of Georgia. The Republican candidate got 47% support, while the Democratic nominee was supported by 43% of those polled. However, the daily noted that 8% of likely voters said they were still undecided, which could change the outcome. The poll was conducted on October 7-16 among 1,000 likely voters in Georgia, with a 3.1 percentage point margin of error. A separate Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Harris leading Trump by three percentage points nationally, 46% to 43%.

When asked about their approach to immigration and economic challenges, respondents favored Trump, who led 46% to 38% on the economy and 48% to 35% on immigration. Over 4,100 US adults took part in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was conducted online nationwide on October 15-21. Trump and Harris have been running neck-and-neck in the seven swing states ahead of the November 5 presidential election. These states, also referred to as battleground states, are seen as pivotal for either candidate to secure victory.

Read more …

You expect some kind of scientific method, but you get: ‘C’mon, Nate, what’s your gut say?’

• Nate Silver Predicts Trump Will Win Presidential Election Next Month (JTN)

Veteran pollster Nate Silver on Tuesday said his “gut feeling” is that former President Donald Trump will win the presidential election next month, but that the race is still up in the air. The prediction, which was published in a New York Times op-ed, comes as an aggregate of polls on RealClearPolling shows Trump winning the electoral college, while Vice President Kamala Harris leads in the popular vote. But Trump’s lead in the swing states are within the margin of error in most polls. Silver has been tracking presidential elections since former President Barack Obama’s victory in 2008. “In an election where the seven battleground states are all polling within a percentage point or two, 50-50 is the only responsible forecast,” Silver wrote.

“Yet when I deliver this unsatisfying news, I inevitably get a question: ‘C’mon, Nate, what’s your gut say?’ So OK, I’ll tell you. My gut says Donald Trump. And my guess is that it is true for many anxious Democrats.” The pollster defended the gut feeling by observing that polls have underestimated Trump in the past two presidential elections. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the clear favorite in 2016, but lost to Trump, and Trump fared better than expected against President Joe Biden in 2020. Silver also noted that if Trump does win, one clear sign could be that Democrats no longer have the “clear edge” when it comes to party identification, because many more people now identify as Republicans.

The FiveThirtyEight founder also warned that polls could be wrong about Harris, since the pollsters are too focused on measuring support for Trump. One way these polls could be wrong is by weighing people based on who they believe they voted for in 2020. “People often misremember or misstate whom they voted for and are more likely to say they voted for the winner,” Silver wrote. “That could plausibly bias the polls against Harris because people who say they voted for Biden but actually voted for Trump will get flagged as new Trump voters when they aren’t.”

Read more …

“Almost $2.3 billion in bets have been placed in Polymarket’s “Presidential Election Winner 2024” market..”

• Polymarket Is Scanning For US Users As Election Odds Skew Toward Trump (CT)

Crypto predictions platform Polymarket is reportedly checking to ensure whales placing big bets on the United States presidential election are based overseas, as US users are banned from the platform. “Polymarket is in the process of re-checking the details of users of its platform, particularly those making large wagers, to ensure compliance with its rules,” a report from Bloomberg said on Oct. 22, citing a person familiar with the matter. While Polymarket has systems in place to block US users from its website, concerns have been raised that US residents may be circumventing the blockage via virtual private networks — prompting Polymarket to do more due diligence. It follows speculation that a handful of large whales are skewing the odds for the November US presidential election in favor of Republican candidate and former President Donald Trump.

Almost $2.3 billion in bets have been placed in Polymarket’s “Presidential Election Winner 2024” market, which currently favors Trump (63.7%) over Vice President Kamala Harris (36.2%). The whereabouts of Polymarket whale “Fredi9999” have attracted considerable attention, as more than $20 million has been placed on Republican outcomes so far. Trump also leads Harris on competitor prediction platform Kalshi at 60%. Still, Trump’s lead in the crypto prediction markets isn’t currently reflected in most voter polls, including a Reuters poll with Harris in front at 46% to 43%. In response to Polymarket media scrutiny, Kalshi founder Tarek Mansour said Polymarket’s results are accurate and not caused by inorganic manipulation. “The median bet size on Harris is larger than the median bet size on Donald Trump, with the median bet for Harris coming in at $85 compared with Trump’s $58.”

Billionaire and Polymarket investor Mark Cuban said most of the bets placed on Polymarket’s US election market are coming from overseas – and as a result, are not a true reflection of eligible voter sentiment. “From all indications, most of the money coming into Polymarket is foreign money, so I don’t think it’s an indication of anything,” Cuban said in an interview with CNBC Squawk Box on Oct. 21. Polymarket reached a $1.4 million settlement with the United States commodities regulator back in January 2022 for offering more than 900 event-based binary options event markets without obtaining registration. In a different case, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission partially lost a lawsuit it filed against Kalshi in September. The court ruled that the commodities regulator had “exceeded its statutory authority” by ordering the US-based entity to suspend its election markets.

Read more …

“Statewide, Republicans account for 52% of in-person early voting, Democrats are just 28%, and “other” is 20%.”

• GOP Early-Voting Turnout In Nevada Amazes Veteran Observer, Alarms Dems (ZH)

Warning lights have been flashing all over the Democrats’ 2024 dashboard, and now a new one is pointing to big trouble for Kamala Harris in the battleground state of Nevada, where early voting results show that GOP voters are actually outnumbering Democrats. Across the country, Democrats typically account for a majority of early votes, and Nevada has been no exception — until now. “The numbers look pretty GOP so far, and that never happens in a presidential year,” wrote veteran Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston in a Tuesday afternoon blog post at the Nevada Independent. Democrats lead statewide mail-in voting by 17,298, but Republicans lead in-person voting by a whopping 25,173 — even beating Dems in Clark County and Washoe County, homes of Las Vegas and Reno, respectively.

Statewide, Republicans account for 52% of in-person early voting, Democrats are just 28%, and “other” is 20%. “Those in-person numbers are startling,” wrote Ralston, who’s been covering Silver State politics for three decades. “A few more days like this…and the Democratic bedwetting will reach epic proportions.” Another dynamic of Americans politics is the big distinction between urban and rural voting patterns, with cities reliably delivering large volumes of Democratic votes. In Nevada, the dynamic is perhaps even more pronounced, with Democrats’ statewide fortunes largely tied to the so-called “Clark firewall.” However, so far in 2024, that barrier is looking mighty short. “The Clark firewall is only 6,500, about a seventh of what it was in 2020,” wrote Ralston.

The bigger picture is even worse for the Democrats: “The [Republican voter-turnout] lead in rural Nevada is more than double the [Democrat] lead in urban Nevada,” he wrote. The sea change prompted Ralston to declare that we’re witnessing a new dynamic in the 2024 cycle: “The [GOP] rural firewall. It’s a thing.” The departure from norms could also have implications for what we see on Election Day: “It’s clear there are more Republicans voting early and by mail, which raises the possibility that Election Day may not be as robust for the GOP.” Extrapolating the results, Ralston concludes that “it means Kamala Harris has to win indies by close to double digits if this turnout scenario holds.” He cautioned that we’ve only three days into 14 days of early voting, and that results could shift.

However, he continued, “If this becomes a trend and not an anomaly, it will be over.” There’s also a Senate race in Nevada this year, pitting Republican challenger Sam Brown against incumbent Democrat Jacky Rosen. The Cook Political Report rates the race as “Lean D,” while Polymarket bettors collectively have Democrat Rosen at an 80% chance of winning. That’s a big variance from the presidential race, where Polymarket gives Trump a 65% chance of taking the state’s six electoral votes. No Republican presidential candidate has won the state since George W. Bush beat John Kerry by a 50.5% to 47.9% margin in 2004… but it looks like the table is being set for an end to that decades-long losing streak.

Read more …

“..anti-freedom, pro-censorship, pro-open borders, and pro-war..”

• Tulsi Gabbard Joins Republican Party (RT)

Former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has endorsed Donald Trump in the race for the White House, announcing that she has joined the Republican Party. Gabbard, 43, served as a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and ran for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020. Previously deployed to Iraq and Kuwait, she became a fierce critic of US military interventions abroad. Gabbard left the Democrats in 2022, accusing the party of being “under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness.” The firebrand made a surprise appearance at Trump’s rally in the battleground state of North Carolina on Tuesday, where the Republican candidate introduced her as someone with “so much common sense.”

After taking the floor and embracing Trump, Gabbard lashed out at the Democratic Party, which she said has become “unrecognizable” in recent years.The Democrats, whose election candidate is Vice President Kamala Harris, are now “anti-freedom, pro-censorship, pro-open borders, and pro-war,” Gabbard claimed, adding that Trump “pledged to end wars, not start them.” Gabbard argued that Trump’s leadership has helped “transform the Republican Party and bring it back to the party of the people and the party of peace.” “I’m proud to stand here with you today, President Trump, and announce that I’m joining the Republican Party. I am joining the party of the people… It is the party of common sense and the party that is led by a president who has the courage and strength to fight for peace.”

The former Democrat has been a vocal critic of Harris’ career as a prosecutor and her foreign policy, particularly on the Ukraine conflict. Gabbard blasted the Democratic nominee as the “main instigator” of hostilities, suggesting that she crossed Russia’s red line by advocating for Kiev’s eventual accession to NATO. “For any objective-minded person, you can see why they wouldn’t want NATO missiles sitting in Ukraine… Kamala Harris has put us, the American people, in this position, where we are closer to the brink of World War III and nuclear war than we ever have been before,” she said. Gabbard’s position is in line with that of Trump, who has repeatedly called for a ceasefire while pledging to end hostilities between Moscow and Kiev within 24 hours if elected.

Read more …

“Gates has expressed concerns about the potential impact of a second Donald Trump presidency on global health and family planning programs..”

• Bill Gates Funds Harris With $50 Million Donation (Sp.)

US billionaire Bill Gates has quietly donated $50 million to a nonprofit supporting Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential run, The New York Times reported, citing three sources. While Gates hasn’t publicly endorsed Harris, his sizable donation was made to Future Forward, a “dark money” group backing her campaign. The funds were intended to remain anonymous, the report said. “Mr. Gates’s donation went specifically to Future Forward’s nonprofit arm, Future Forward USA Action, which as a 501(c)(4) ‘dark money’ organization does not disclose its donors, according to the people briefed. So any contribution by Mr. Gates will never appear on any public filing,” the media clarified. According to The New York Times, in private conversations this year with friends and others, Gates has expressed concerns about the potential impact of a second Donald Trump presidency on global health and family planning programs, The New York Times cited sources familiar with Gates’s thinking as saying.

Read more …

Where she will scream and screech that Trump is Hitler.

• Harris To Deliver ‘Closing Argument Speech’ On The Ellipse Next Week (JTN)

Vice President Kamala Harris will deliver a “closing argument” speech on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., next week, exactly one week before the presidential election, senior campaign officials said. The location is the same place former President Donald Trump gave his infamous speech on January 6, 2021, before a crowd of his supporters descended on the Capitol. The Ellipse is a 52-acre park outside the South Lawn of the White House. The vice president’s advisors said the speech will contrast Trump’s January 6 speech, which a campaign official described as Trump’s worst moment in office, with Harris’s “optimistic vision” for the future, the campaign officials told NBC News. She will also encourage the nation to “turn the page on Trump.” The speech is expected to draw a crowd of approximately 7,750 people, according to a permit application that was filed with the National Park Service. The program will also include four to five speakers, and elected officials, according to CNN.

Harris’s advisers said the vice president will approach the address as a prosecutor, who is giving her closing statement to a jury of voters. The announcement comes after Harris delivered remarks at the Naval Observatory, the vice president’s home, in Washington on Wednesday, where she said Trump would “invoke” Adolf Hitler if elected back to the White House. Her remarks at that location have triggered debate over whether the vice president has violated the Hatch Act, which forbids federal government employees from engaging in political activity while on duty or in their official capacity as a federal employee, or try to sway an election. But vice presidents and presidents are usually exempt from the federal act to a degree, because of the dual nature of their roles as leaders and political figures.

Read more …

“..the LA Times is the most prominent newspaper in her home state of California..”

• LA Times Owner Blocks Harris Endorsement (RT)

The owner of the Los Angeles Times has forbidden the paper’s editorial board from backing Kamala Harris in this year’s US presidential election, bucking two decades of Democratic endorsements, Semafor has reported. The editorial board was preparing to endorse Harris for the presidency, until Executive Editor Terry Tang intervened earlier this month and ordered them not to endorse anyone, Semafor reported on Tuesday, citing two anonymous sources. According to these sources, the order came directly from the paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong. A South African-born medical doctor and billionaire entrepreneur, Soon-Shiong bought the ailing LA Times in 2018. While he managed to reverse decades of losses and headcount reductions, the newspaper’s advertising revenue plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic, and more than 100 employees were sacked earlier this year.

Soon-Shiong’s decision to block the endorsement of Harris will be seen as a major blow to the vice president, as the LA Times is the most prominent newspaper in her home state of California. The LA Times endorsed Republican candidates in every election from the 1880s until 1972, when it backed Richard Nixon against South Dakota Senator George McGovern. This decision, which came months after the Watergate scandal emerged, angered some of the newspaper’s reporters, and the LA Times did not endorse a presidential candidate again until it sided with Barack Obama in 2008. The LA Times has endorsed Democrats in every subsequent election. In a list of endorsements published last week, the editorial board noted that “this may be the most consequential election in a generation.” However, it made no further mention of the presidential race, instead endorsing more than two dozen mostly Democratic candidates for positions ranging from school boards to the US Senate.

Read more …

“It shows our fatigue – with them, with their hypocrisy, with their dictates. With their attempts to turn us into something different, with their attempts to chop off pieces from us..”

• World ‘Tired’ of US-led West – RT Editor-in-Chief (RT)

The BRICS Summit in the Russian city of Kazan signals that the world is “tired” of the dictates of the US-led collective West, RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan has said. The gathering also exposes the West’s failed attempts to isolate Russia, she added. Speaking on Tuesday at an event marking the anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and China, the RT editor-in-chief recalled the words of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who once said that his country does not need foreign “masters” who attempt to interfere in internal affairs on the pretense of human rights concerns. The same can be heard in Russia from President Vladimir Putin, Simonyan stated. “We know the price of their [the West’s] hypocrisy when they talk about human rights, and this is being said by the same people who used drug trafficking and the most brutal, most disgusting ways to enslave a nation in an effort to force China not to be China – which they did during the Opium Wars,” Simonyan said.

She emphasized that the ongoing BRICS Summit in Kazan demonstrates the clear friendship between the countries attending the event, but also provides evidence of the West’s failed attempts to isolate Russia from the rest of the world. “It shows our fatigue – with them, with their hypocrisy, with their dictates. With their attempts to turn us into something different, with their attempts to chop off pieces from us,” Simonyan said. “We are all tired. Thank you for the fact that we are tired together and will eventually rest together when the truth prevails and this unipolar world, which is already in tatters, ceases to exist.” Leaders from around the world have gathered in Kazan for the 16th BRICS Summit on October 22-24.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who is also attending, noted the significance of the summit for his organization, as the economic grouping represents nearly half of the global population. Guterres’ presence at the BRICS Summit has sparked criticism from Kiev, especially after he skipped this year’s Swiss-Ukraine ‘peace conference’. The BRICS Summit is set to host high-level bilateral talks and diplomatic discussions focused on multilateralism, with dozens of nations expressing interest in joining or working with the group. BRICS currently comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. The group represents approximately 46% of the world’s population and over 36% of global GDP, according to estimates from leading financial institutions.

Read more …

“In the case of BRICS, for the first time, Western countries did not initiate or lead the process.”

• BRICS Summit: Marching Towards A New World Order (Bordachev)

International politics seems to be losing its ability to develop in a linear fashion. From a layman’s point of view, this is of course extremely sad. But if we look at what’s happening in the broader context, it can even inspire a certain optimism. This is mainly because, given the current balance of power, any unswerving development is guaranteed to lead us to a much greater, possibly global, tragedy. In other words, the extraordinarily tragic events that fill today’s news agenda are likely to conceal a gradual movement towards a more stable world, for which the constant revision of what we call the international order will be a matter of routine. But at the same time, the likelihood of a revolutionary scenario, to which the near monopoly of a small group of states would inevitably lead us, will be minimized.

In this context, the international community, and in particular its leading states, is constantly faced with the challenge of choosing between two forms of engagement with the outgoing world order: destruction and creation. Both are in dialectical interaction, and it would be strange to think that there is a clear and simple path to a new, more just world order. All the more so because the opponents of the international community, represented by a small group of countries led by the United States, are not only conducting vigorous defensive operations, but are themselves trying to create the conditions for preserving their current privileges in the future. And they have very solid resources and influence to mobilize – which are not limited to punitive instruments against dissidents.

Therefore, the path of revision of the international order that most of the world’s countries are now embarking on is certainly much more difficult than any attempt at revolutionary revision. Although – and this is encouraging – it leaves more opportunities for what is happening now to be studied in the future. Of all the efforts and initiatives that are rightly seen as driving the new world order, BRICS, the now nine-nation bloc – originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China – is arguably the most important. From the outset, it included states that had the potential to embody, in theory and in practice, fundamental changes in the balance of power. Therefore, the BRICS were not inherently inapplicable to the criteria of effectiveness developed by Western political science to assess the success of international organizations.

The creation of such an association was in itself a major achievement. Firstly, because it included countries with very different foreign policy interests. That is, their desire to act together was underpinned by sufficiently reliable objective circumstances to make cooperation between such different powers meaningful. Secondly, because the emergence of BRICS signaled from the outset the West’s inability to control the evolution of international governance. The last major achievement of the US and Europe in this area was the creation of the G20 in 2009, a group of countries chosen by the West to share responsibility with Washington for the damage caused to the global economy by the US financial crisis of 2008. But as none of the other G20 countries wanted to do so, the impact of the group’s activities was rather insignificant. At the same time, even though the G20 has almost completely lost its relevance, it is still used by large developing countries as a way to increase their international presence. In the case of BRICS, for the first time, Western countries did not initiate or lead the process.

Read more …

“Zelensky’s word isn’t worth the gas it takes to utter it.”

• Kremlin Orders Delay In New Electric War Attacks (Helmer)

A two-month delay in Russian missile strikes against Ukrainian electricity infrastructure west of the Dnieper River and secret talks on end-of-war terms by the Kremlin go-between Vladimir Medinsky produced two signals from Kiev on Monday – one an offer by Vladimir Zelensky to reciprocate with a limit on Ukrainian missile and drone attacks on Russian territory. The second signal was a “consolation prize” from US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin who was in Kiev to meet Zelensky, his defence minister Rustem Umerov, and Ukrainian Armed Forces commander Alexander Syrsky. From Zelensky’s press conference in Kiev, a Financial Times reporter wrote: “Russia putting an end to aerial attacks on Ukrainian energy targets and cargo ships could pave the way for negotiations to end the war, the Ukrainian president has said.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy told journalists in Kyiv on Monday that ‘when it comes to energy and freedom of navigation, getting a result on these points would be a signal that Russia may be ready to end the war’…If Moscow and Kyiv agreed to end strikes on their respective energy infrastructures, it would be a significant step towards de-escalating the conflict, Zelenskyy said in reference to Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries. ‘We saw during the first [peace] summit that there could be a decision on energy security. In other words: we do not attack their energy infrastructures, they don’t attack ours. Could this lead to the end of the war’s hot phase? I think so,’ he said.” Unusually, there has been no Pentagon readout after Austin’s meetings in Kiev.

Instead, there was a “statement” in advance that “during his engagements, the Secretary will meet with Ukrainian leadership and underscore the U.S. commitment to providing Ukraine with the security assistance it needs to defend itself from Russian aggression on the battlefield.” The geographic phrase, “on the battlefield”, is interpreted in Moscow to be the key. The Pentagon followed with a list of new military supplies tagged for “Ukraine’s urgently needed battlefield requirements.” CNN was briefed by Austin’s staff to emphasize the limited geography of the current US commitment. “A US defense official said that during their meeting, Austin emphasized to Zelensky the importance of Ukraine defending the territory it has taken inside Russia’s Kursk region and capitalizing on those gains, as well as fending off the Russians in the eastern Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk…

Much of Austin’s later meeting with Umerov and Ukrainian Armed Forces commander Oleksandr Syrskyi was also focused on Kursk, the defense official said, and the officials drilled down on military planning there for the next several months.” The New York Times was told to report: “The United States has agreed to give Ukraine $800 million in military aid that will go toward manufacturing long-range drones to use against Russian troops, Ukraine’s leader said on Monday…A Pentagon official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed the move, which comes as the United States shifts its policy and moves toward shoring up Ukraine’s ability to fight the war with its own weapons and on its own terms…The decision to support long-range drone production in Ukraine may be a kind of consolation prize for Mr. Zelensky, who — despite repeated pleas — has so far failed to persuade Western partners to lift restrictions on using their long-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia.”

The US newspaper also quoted Umerov, standing beside Austin, as saying Ukraine would decide on its own what deep Russian territory targets to strike with the new drones the US is paying for it to produce on Ukrainian territory. “Ukraine’s defense minister, Rustem Umerov, said on Monday that Ukraine had invested more than $4 billion in its defence industry. Appearing alongside the U.S. defense secretary, Lloyd J. Austin III, in Kyiv, he said that long-range drones could hit targets more than 1,000 miles away and that they had already destroyed more than 200 military facilities in Russia…The decision also shows a change in tactics for the West.” Sources in Moscow acknowledge the sequence of statements in time; they are uncertain of their meaning for the Russian General Staff and its chief, Valery Gerasimov. “It appears that they are husbanding the missiles”, said one. “I wonder if there is going to be a November surprise.” “It’s a fool’s bargain,” said another. “Noone except the Russian military can guarantee the Nazis won’t continue to attack. Zelensky’s word isn’t worth the gas it takes to utter it.”

Read more …

“Russia has its updated military doctrine to fall back on. The question of losing the war is completely discounted, as winning is considered a matter of “life and death.”

• Ukraine War Ending Scenarios (Barton)

Scenario 1. Russia defeats Ukraine.
The unquestionable facts are that Russian troops keep steadily moving westward along the whole frontline in Ukraine. Just most recently, on 3 October 2024 they after heavy fighting, captured strategic town Vuhledar. Within the past two months the Russian army captured over 800 square km in Ukraine. Even the newly appointed, pushy NATO secretary general Mark Rutte has no doubts that it is so. The way he briefly described the military situation in Ukraine in his first press conference was as follows: Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces are making advances in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine’s army has a shaky hold on part of the Kursk region in Russia, which has provided a temporary morale boost, but as casualties mount it remains outmanned and outgunned.

Should such a relentless military push continue, and one can hardly see how it could be stopped or reversed, it is moving toward victory. Even according to the least optimistic forecast, Russia is slowly but firmly moving to take over Ukrainian territory. Slowly, but surely. Will the use of long-range missiles deep inside Russian territory significantly alter the military situation? On September 6 this year, at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was clear in stating that “The use of donated U.S. weapons for long-range strikes on Russia would not turn the tide of the war for Ukraine.” In the unlikely event of a slowdown in Russian military advance in Ukraine, Russia has its updated military doctrine to fall back on. The question of losing the war is completely discounted, as winning is considered a matter of “life and death.”

Scenario 2. Facing nuclear Armageddon
It is essential to recall that, back in June 2024, the future Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, advocated for all NATO member states to commit to participating in military operations outside of the alliance’s territory. This commitment went against the Hungarian president’s perception of his national interests, and he sought assurances from Mr. Rutte that Hungarian troops would not be sent to Ukraine. As we know, Hungary is normally obliged to defend each of the remaining 32 members if any of them is attacked by a non-member state, in line with Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, which forms the foundation of the alliance. Hungary also has obligations under the European Union’s (TEU) mutual defense clause. Interestingly, as requested by the U.S., NATO’s Article 5 formulation does not imply automatic U.S. involvement in any armed conflict. Secretary Rutte gave written assurances to Mr. Orban as he requested. However, this does not imply that NATO troops will not be sent to Ukraine.

If that were the case, Mr. Rutte would have dismissed Orban’s fears by saying that no NATO troops would be sent to Ukraine. But he didn’t say that. Instead, he simply stated that Hungarian troops would not be sent there. Puzzlingly, after taking over from Stoltenberg, he spoke about strengthening partnerships that NATO has established with other countries around the world, notably in Asia and the Middle East, and insisted on Ukraine’s place in the ranks of NATO. Is he then already planning to send NATO troops to Ukraine and other countries? He portrayed the authorization of the use of long-range missiles by Ukraine as legitimate and proposed to leave it to individual countries. Are there any other indications of future NATO intervention in Ukraine? Perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence comes from a Polish judge, Tomasz Schmidt, who defected to Belarus on 31 May 2024. During a press conference, he revealed that the Polish government had promised Biden to send Polish troops to fight against Russia in Ukraine if the U.S. wished so.

Read more …

“The truth is though that Iran does not want a war with Israel..”

• THAAD Idea Is Like All Of Biden’s So Far With Israel. A Miscalculation (Jay)

The decision of Joe Biden to send THAAD missile system to Israel seemed like a tactical move, a strategic ace, some might argue. Biden has made it clear that Israel must not strike Iran’s military or its nuclear power infrastructure and that any such retaliation won’t be supported by the U.S. And so, in many ways, Israel is restricted now to reach out for low hanging fruit by bombing weapon sites in Syria and hitting Beirut. Netanyahu is like a shark at the bottom of the ocean. He has to keep a momentum going with war as the moment he stops, he sinks to the bottom and perishes. Hitting Iran is not as easy as it sounds. Israel cannot send fighter jets as the U.S. would have to offer refuelling facilities; and it can’t even fly over most countries surrounding Iran as they have all discounted this possibility.

There is only the option of long-range missiles but no one knows for sure if Israel’s missiles would get past Iran’s own missile defence systems which analysts assume are probably very good. And imagine the humiliation and loss of political capital if Netanyahu sent missiles there and discovered that Iran intercepted all of them. He would be finished. Yet the same can be said about the THAAD batteries. Many experts argue they probably won’t be effective against hypersonic missiles. They’ve never been tested so we don’t know. In reality the basis of Netanyahu’s political longevity is keeping such things a mystery. The more we don’t know about Iran’s military capabilities, the more that can be exploited. Same goes for the THAADs. Clarity really is the enemy here.

Israel has already had one moment of lucidity which has shocked both its elite and its people. The so-called impenetrable ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system which intercepted most of Hezbollah’s medium-range ballistic missiles is pretty useless for hypersonic, high-altitude missiles which both Iran and Hezbollah have in their arsenal. Israel is now more vulnerable than ever against a massive attack of such missiles and the recent strike on a military base south of Haifa has shown both sides the extent of this susceptibility. Iran’s hypersonic missiles could wipe out all of Israel’s infrastructure if Tehran wishes. The truth is though that Iran does not want a war with Israel and is hoping that once the Israeli public notice just how many IDF soldiers are being killed in the south of Lebanon along its border, the exit of Netanyahu will be swift. His days are numbered.

And yet, despite all of the rhetoric we hear from the Biden camp, it would seem America does want a war. Or at least it’s happy to take Israel to the brink with the same foolhardy, delusional mentality that we see in Ukraine. Even today the U.S. mindset still believes it can threaten and other countries will back down, simply due to the size of America’s military capability. The escalate to de-escalate game. It might just work with the THAAD initiative. But for all the wrong reasons. The problem with the THAAD move by Biden is that the installation of such a system is too little, too late and may well blow up in the faces of the next U.S. administration creating a war with Iran when even Washington has been avoiding one all along. It all comes down to personalities. How will the next U.S. president react when the U.S. soldiers operating it are killed? Does he throw the lever, or stay cool? And doesn’t the mere presence of one of these vehicles present Iran with a sitting duck target?

Read more …

“..what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.’”

• Musk Mania (Jonathan Turley)

I have previously written about the European Union’s (EU) effort to use its infamous Digital Services Act (DSA) to force companies like X to censor Americans, including on postings related to our presidential election. This is a direct assault on our free speech values, and yet the Biden-Harris Administration has not raised a peep of objection. Now, the EU is threatening to set these confiscatory fines with reference to revenue from companies other than X, including Space X. The EU has warned Musk that it is allowed to hit online platforms with fines of as much as 6% of their yearly global revenue for refusing to censor content, including “disinformation.” The inclusion of companies like Space X is ridiculous but perfectly consistent with the effort of the EU to use the DSA to regulate speech in the United States and around the world. The EU is arguing that as a “provider” Musk’s entire business portfolio can be included in the fine calculation. It is ridiculous and chilling.

Musk’s other companies have nothing to do with the platform policies of X. It is simply an unhinged coercive measure designed to break Musk. X has objected: “X Holdings Corp. submits that the combined market value of the Musk Group does not accurately reflect X’s monetization potential in the Union or its financial capacity, In particular, it argues that X and SpaceX provide entirely different services to entirely different users, so that there is no gateway effect, and that the undertakings controlled by Mr. Elon Musk ‘do not form one financial front, as the DMA presumes.’” However, the abusive calculation is precisely the point. The EU censors are making an example of Musk. If they break us, no company or executive could hope to defy them. They are being cheered on in this effort by an anti-free speech movement that includes America politicians and pundits.

One of the lowest moments came after Elon Musk bought Twitter on a pledge to restore free speech protections, Clinton called upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the DSA. This is a former democratic presidential nominee calling upon Europeans to force the censorship of Americans. She was joined recently by another former democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, who called for government crackdowns on free speech. In my new book on free speech and various columns, I write about the DSA as one of the greatest assaults on free speech in history. As I wrote in the book: “Under the DSA, users are ’empowered to report illegal content online and online platforms will have to act quickly.’ This includes speech that is viewed not only as ‘disinformation’ but also ‘incitement.’ European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager has been one of the most prominent voices seeking international censorship. At the passage of the DSA, Vestager was ecstatic in declaring that it is ‘not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.’”

The pressure on Musk’s other companies has also been ramping up in the United States. Recently, the California Coastal Commission rejected a request from the Air Force for additional launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It is not because the military agency did not need the launches. It was not because the nation and the community would not benefit from them. Rather, it was reportedly because, according to one commissioner, Musk has “aggressively injected himself into the presidential race.” It is all part of Musk mania and the need for the anti-free speech movement to break the only executive who has defied the pressure from this alliance of media, academic, corporate, and government officials. As I have discussed previously, there is a crushing irony in all of this. The left has made “foreign interference” with elections a mantra of claiming to be defending democracy. Yet, it applauds EU censors threatening companies that carry an interview with a targeted American politician. It also supports importing such censorship and blacklisting systems to the United States. When you agree with the censorship, it is not viewed as interference, but an intervention.

Read more …

The power of life.

• Meteorite That Caused Earth’s Oceans to Boil Helped Early Life Thrive (Sp.)

A meteorite that pummeled Earth about 3.26 billion years ago has shed light on fascinating secrets about our planet’s distant past. Heat from the impact of the S2 meteorite that struck Earth billions of years ago caused the topmost layer of the ocean to boil off, a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has discovered. S2 also triggered a tsunami bigger than any in known human history, revealed the team of scientists led by Nadja Drabon, Assistant Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. They studied rock samples retrieved from the impact site in the Barberton Greenstone belt of South Africa to better understand the consequences of that massive asteroid strike for our planet. S2, first discovered in 2014, is estimated to have been 40-60km wide, with a mass much greater than the space rock linked with the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

It is believed that this space rock gouged out a 500km-wide crater. Analysis of the sedimentology, geochemistry, and carbon isotope compositions left behind by the meteorite revealed that the impact 3.26 billion years ago also heated up the atmosphere by up to 100C, while the cloud of dust shut down all photosynthetic activity. However, besides the destruction, the impact also helped early microbes thrive. Nutrients like phosphorus and iron that fed simple organisms were churned up by the tsunami from the depths to the surface. “We know that after Earth first formed there was still a lot of debris flying around space that would be smashing into Earth… But now we have found that life was really resilient in the wake of some of these giant impacts, and that it actually bloomed and thrived,” Drabon said in a media statement.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Life is short

 

 

Dowd/Bret

 

 

Repair

 

 

Oranges

 

 

Guard dogs
https://twitter.com/i/status/1848982236235809076

 

 

Order in chaos

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.