DEATH STALKS US SAILORS JUST BENEATH THEIR UNWARY CREWS

By Christopher P. Cavas 4:25 p.m. EST January 24, 2015

Despite Numbers, Experts Question Combat Effectiveness

(Photo: Larionov Vladimir Yefimovich, ITAR-TASS/Newscom)

WASHINGTON — The Russian Navy's submarine force is on a roll.
Four different kinds of submarines are under construction and more are coming. The country expects to lay down five new nuclear submarines in 2015.

The Navy is accepting Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, Yasen-class nuclear attack submarines, and Kilo- and Lada-class diesel electric attack submarines. Six Kilos are being built for Vietnam and more are offered for export.
This rate of construction is beginning to look more like Cold War days rather than the lethargic shipbuilding rates prevalent since the 1990s.

By comparison, the US only recently returned to building two nuclear attack submarines per year, and industry is gearing up to begin construction of a new class of ballistic submarines in 2021 — a three-subs-per-year construction rate not seen since the Reagan era.

Combine the revived Russian submarine construction rate with President Vladimir Putin's aggressive stances of the past year, along with the steady drumbeat of Chinese naval expansion, and the question might be asked — is a submarine race going on?

"I know a lot of folks like the term arms race, but I think it's more complicated than that," said Thomas Mahnken, a former US defense official and now a professor at the Naval War College. "There's definitely competition going on — with the US, other NATO navies, China — but there's also modernization going on. An increasing portion of what Russia is doing is replacing aging systems or systems that already have been retired."

"I would be skeptical," cautioned Norman Friedman, a longtime naval analyst and author. "There's a history in that country of laying down things that don't get finished for a long time. No question they'll lay down the subs, but actually building them after that is a more interesting question."

The Russians frequently issue proclamations that they intend to increase naval construction, including statements about building a fleet of aircraft carriers. But ship construction remains modest, and the Navy remains largely a collection of Cold War relics. Yet Russia has a long tradition of building tough and innovative submarines.

"The Russians have put their money where their mouth is with regard to submarine construction and development," said Bryan Clark, a former US Navy submariner and strategist, now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "They see that as a way to generate an asymmetric advantage over US forces. If they can develop a really high-end submarine force like they did in the Cold War, it would create a problem for US naval planners and strategists thinking through how to deal with a potential Russian threat — one that could emerge without a lot of warning."

Construction Delays

The most lethal new subs are those of the Yuri Dolgoruky class, also known as the Project 955 Borey class. Construction of the Dolgoruky has been a protracted affair — the ship was laid down at the Sevmash military shipyard in Severodvinsk in 1996 but not launched until 2007. Sea trials began in 2009, but development of the ship's primary weapon, the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), itself has been fraught with problems. It was only in 2014 that the submarine submerged with a full load of 16 ICBMs, according to Russian media.

A second Borey, the Alexander Nevsky, was laid down in March 2004 and began sea trials in 2011. Like the Dolgoruky, the ship and its missiles have experienced numerous problems, and trials continued at least through 2013. Vladimir Monomakh, the third Borey, was commissioned last December after eight years of construction and trials.

Three more Boreys are under construction, and Russian Navy chief Adm. Viktor Chirkov said in December two more would be laid down in 2015, for a total of eight, all expected to be in service by 2020.

The design of the Dolgorukys uses many features of earlier submarines. In fact, the first units used pieces and components built for earlier submarines that were either scrapped or never finished. Russian media reports indicate the Vladimir Monomakh used significant hull components of the decommissioned Akula-class attack submarine Ak Bars.

"I get the feeling for all the big talk from the Russians about building a new fleet, they're probably having trouble getting stuff," Friedman said. "For the first subs, they used pieces from earlier subs."

The Dolgoruky carried out an operational test firing of a Bulava in October, the Itar-Tass news agency reported — the third successful test launch since a September 2013 failure — and two more will take place in 2015.

Meanwhile, construction of Yasen-class Project 885M nuclear attack submarines is picking up. The first unit, Severodvinsk, was commissioned at the end of 2013 after a 20-year construction period, during which the submarine underwent significant re-design. A second unit, laid down in 2009 at Sevmash, could be delivered this year.

Two more Yasens were laid down in 2014. Itar-Tass reported on Dec. 26 that Mikhail Budnichenko, head of Sevmash, said three Project 885 Yasen-class subs would be laid down this year along with two Boreys.

Non-nuclear submarine construction also continues. Along with several Kilo-class subs being built for the Russian Navy and export, at least one more Lada-class diesel-electric submarine is to begin construction this year.

Numbers vs. Effectiveness

But can Russia sustain this prodigious submarine construction effort?

"The naval production we're likely to see this year is an artifact of decisions made some time ago when oil prices were fairly high and before a number of Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia," Mahnken said. "Whatever the Russians do this year, I think it'll be very hard for them to sustain naval production going forward."

Added Friedman: "Putin doesn't have that much money. And with the drop in oil prices, they have very bad problems."

With the post-1990 decline in shipbuilding, Friedman said, the shipyards have lost much of their submarine-building expertise.
"A lot of people quit the yards" when construction all but ended, he said. "If they lost a lot of their smarter people, there's a difficulty in recreating what they had. Coming back 15 years later and trying to recreate it is kind of dubious."

Clark agreed.

"Their industrial base is weakened from two decades of not being used," he said. "You've got a significant reduction in the number of skilled engineers, the aging out of people who otherwise would be part of the Russian design base.

"While Russian engineering and technology development is top-notch, they don't necessarily have the people to be able to do all the legwork necessary to take an idea into a reality. That's why you see things like submarines taking 10 or more years to construct, because they just don't have the design and construction base to support high-rate production."

But are the new submarines cause for worry?

The Yasen attack subs "are probably what you could get in 1989, plus improved combat systems," Friedman said. "They got access to microprocessors and things like that. But they're not going to the insertion of new technology, because they're not that flexible. But I would guess the combat systems have improved substantially."

Clark sees no cause for alarm in the pace of Russian submarine construction.

"They don't have very many submarines today, and they certainly don't have very many frontline submarines that would be anywhere close to US submarines," he said. "The best submarines the Russians are producing are perhaps equivalent to some of the older US submarines currently in use. It would take a while for the Russians to build up enough of those to where they create a potential problem for the US.

"The main concern," Clark added, "is that even a small number of very good submarines can be problematic from an intelligence-gathering and surprise strike kind of perspective. But they're not able to cause a debilitating effect to a fleet."
E-mail ccavas@defensenews.com

Chinese Warships Enter the Black Sea = backing the Deadly Russian Subs!

“The geopolitical significance of China exercising alongside Russia will not be lost on the U.S. and NATO”

(Zero Hedge)

12 hours ago | 1,280 16

June 15, 2010. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (center) at the Sevmash shipyard, before the ceremonial launching of the Severodvinsk multi-purpose submarine. Source: Vladimir Rodionov / RIA Novosti
- http://rbth.com/defence/2014/06/17/russias_top-secret_nuclear_submarine_comes_into_service_37483.html)

 

This article originally appeared at Zero Hedge

---

On Friday we reported that for the first time in history, Chinese and Russian navies will begin a significant joint naval exercise in The Mediterranean Sea in mid-May.

Citied by RT, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said that “The aim is to deepen both countries’ friendly and practical cooperation, and increase our navies’ ability to jointly deal with maritime security threats,” but diplomatically added “these exercises are not aimed at any third party and have nothing to do with the regional situation.”

Against a background of this week’s “upgraded Japan-American military relationship” following Abe’s visit to Obama, as one analyst notes, “the geopolitical significance of its exercising alongside Russia will not be lost on the U.S. and NATO.”

While it was unclear if directly related to the upcoming “historic” drill, the Bosphorus Navy Blog reports that in what is a comparable “first” yesterday two warships from Peoples Republic of China were seen passing through the Bosphorus, and entering the Black Sea.

More:

Two Jiangkai II (type 054A) class frigates 550 Weifang and 547 Linyi from PLAN North Sea Fleet made a northbound passage through the Turkish Straits. The destination of these Chinese ships were not disclosed.

The frigates shown below, as they were seen crossing the naval barrier between Europe and Asia:

Chinese frigate 547 Linyi passing through Bosphorus | Photo: Nurderen Özbek

Chinese frigate 550 Weifang passing through Bosphorus | Photo: Yörük Işık

 

NATO promptly responded and hours ago AP reported that a top NATO commander said the alliance will briefly move its allied joint force command from Italy to Romania - which has a historic Black Sea port in the town of Constanta - as NATO continues to react to Russia’s moves in Ukraine.

Admiral Mark Ferguson, Commander of Allied Joint Force Command based in Naples, Italy, said the command will be based in Cincu, central Romania, for 12 days in June, to support a NATO exercise involving 1,000 troops from 21 NATO states.

Cincu is Romania’s largest military shooting range, some 180 kilometers (112 miles) northwest of Bucharest.

“This deployment will be the first time a NATO Joint Force Command Headquarters has deployed to Romania,” Ferguson said Tuesday.

At the same time, NATO will conduct exercises in Poland, the Baltics and the Baltic Sea.

As a reminder, in the summer of 2013 when the Syria war tensions saw a build of US, Russian and even Chinese ships in the Mediterranean ahead of what could be the first global Middle East war. The war was avoided in the last minute. This time the naval build up is taking place even closer to both Europe and Russia, and now even China is present.

CFR Says China Must Be Defeated, & TPP Is Essential to That!

With the Rothschilds now with beacheads on every shore, there's nary a safe climate for individual liberty.
Rothschild Link Source Library (multi-lingual)
Wikipedia is consistently cleansed of Rothschild Zionist links to modern companies, people, events and concepts. NFU

Eric Zuesse
 

Wall Street’s Council on Foreign Relations has issued a major report, alleging that China must be defeated because it threatens to become a bigger power in the world than the U.S.

This report, which is titled “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is introduced by Richard Haass, the CFR’s President, who affirms the report’s view that, “no relationship will matter more when it comes to defining the twenty-first century than the one between the United States and China.” He says that the report he is publishing argues that “strategic rivalry is highly likely if not inevitable between the existing major power of the day and the principal rising power.” Haass says that the authors “also argue that China has not evolved into the ‘responsible stakeholder’ that many in the United States hoped it would.” In other words: “cooperation” with China will probably need to become replaced by, as the report’s authors put it, “intense U.S.-China strategic competition.” 

Haass gives this report his personal imprimatur by saying that it “deserves to become an important part of the debate about U.S. foreign policy and the pivotal U.S.-China relationship.” He acknowledges that some people won’t agree with the views it expresses.

The report itself then opens by saying: “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.” It praises “the American victory in the Cold War.” It then lavishes praise on America’s imperialistic dominance: “The Department of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration presciently contended that its ‘strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor’—thereby consciously pursuing the strategy of primacy that the United States successfully employed to outlast the Soviet Union.”

The rest of the report is likewise concerned with the international dominance of America’s aristocracy or the people who control this country’s international corporations, rather than with the welfare of the public or as the U.S. Constitution described the objective of the American Government: “the general welfare.” 

The Preamble, or sovereignty clause, in the Constitution, presented that goal in this broader context: “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” 

The Council on Foreign Relations, as a representative of Wall Street, is concerned only with the dominance of America’s aristocracy. Their new report, about “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is like a declaration of war by America’s aristocracy, against China’s aristocracy. This report has no relationship to the U.S. Constitution, though it advises that the U.S. Government pursue this “Grand Strategy Toward China” irrespective of whether doing that would even be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble.

The report repeats in many different contexts the basic theme, that China threatens “hegemonic” dominance in Asia. For example:

“China’s sustained economic success over the past thirty-odd years has enabled it to aggregate formidable power, making it the nation most capable of dominating the Asian continent and thus undermining the traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.”

The report never allows the matter of America’s “hegemonic control” to be even raised. Thus, “hegemony” is presumed to be evil and to be something that the U.S. must block other nations from having, because there is a “traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.” In other words: the U.S. isn’t being “hegemonic” by defeating aspiring hegemons. The report offers no term to refer to “hegemony” that’s being practiced by the U.S.

The report presents China as being supremacist, such as what (to quote again from the report) “historian Wang Gungwu has described as a ‘principle of superiority’ underwriting Beijing’s ‘long-hallowed tradition of treating foreign countries as all alike but unequal and inferior to China.’ Consistent with this principle, Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” America’s own ‘Manifest Destiny’ or right to regional (if not global) supremacy is not discussed, because supremacism is attributed only to the aristocracies in other countries, not to the aristocracy in this country.

Rather than the “general welfare,” this document emphasizes “U.S. Vital National Interests,” which are the interests of America’s aristocrats, the owners of America’s large international corporations.

This report urges:

“The United States should invest in defense capabilities and capacity specifically to defeat China’s emerging anti-access capabilities and permit successful U.S. power projection even against concerted opposition from Beijing. … Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.”

In other words: the Government should spiral upward the U.S. debt even more vertically (which is good for Wall Street), and, in order to enable the increased ‘defense’ expenditures, only ‘defense’ expenditures should be freed from spending-caps. Forget the public, serve the owners of ‘defense’ firms and of the large international corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect their property abroad.

The report says that China would have no reason to object to such policies: “There is no reason why a China that did not seek to overturn the balance of power in Asia should object to the policy prescriptions contained in this report.” Only a “hegemonic” China (such as the report incessantly alleges to exist, while the U.S. itself is not ‘hegemonic’) would object; and, therefore, the U.S. should ignore China’s objections, because they would be, by definition ‘hegemonic.’ Or, in other words: God is on our side, not on theirs.

“Washington simply cannot have it both ways—to accommodate Chinese concerns regarding U.S. power projection into Asia through ‘strategic reassurance’ and at the same time to promote and defend U.S. vital national interests in this vast region.”

The authors make clear that U.S. President Obama is not sufficiently hostile toward China: “All signs suggest that President Obama and his senior colleagues have a profoundly different and much more benign diagnosis of China’s strategic objectives in Asia than do we.”

Furthermore, the report ends by portraying Obama as weak on the anti-China front: “Many of these omissions in U.S. policy would seem to stem from an administration worried that such actions would offend Beijing and therefore damage the possibility of enduring strategic cooperation between the two nations, thus the dominating emphasis on cooperation. That self-defeating preoccupation by the United States based on a long-term goal of U.S.-China strategic partnership that cannot be accomplished in the foreseeable future should end.”

The report’s “Recommendations for U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China” urges Congress to “Deliver on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, … as a geoeconomic answer to growing Chinese economic power and geopolitical coercion in Asia,” but it fails to mention that the Obama Administration has already embodied the authors’ viewpoint and objectives in the TPP, which Obama created, and which cuts China out; it could hardly be a better exemplar of their agenda. The authors, in fact, state the exact opposite: that Obama’s objective in his TPP has instead been merely “as a shot in the arm of a dying Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO).” They even ignore that Obama had cut China out of his proposed TPP.

Furthermore, here is what President Obama himself told graduating West Point cadets on 28 May 2014:

“Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.” He was saying that these future military leaders will be using guns and bombs to enforce America’s economic dominance. This is the same thing that the CFR report is saying.

His speech also asserted: “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. … The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.” (That even resembles: “Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” Obama is, in a sense, saying that America is the “sole sovereign government in the world.”)

He made clear that China is “dispensable,” and that the U.S. must stay on top.

However, there is a difference between Obama and the CFR on one important thing: Obama sees Russia as the chief country over which the U.S. must dominate militarily, and China as the chief country to dominate economically. But in that regard, he is actually old-line Republican, just like his 2012 opponent Mitt Romney is. 

The only difference from Romney on that is: Obama wasn’t so foolish as to acknowledge publicly a belief that he shared with Romney but already knew was an unpopular position to take in the general election.

Furthermore, whereas the CFR report ignores the public’s welfare, Obama does give lip-service to that as being a matter of concern (just as he gave lip-service to opposing Romney’s assertion that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”). After all, he is a ‘Democrat,’ and the authors of the CFR report write instead as if they were presenting a Republican Party campaign document. No ‘Democrat’ can be far-enough to the political right to satisfy Republican operatives. The pretense that they care about the public is therefore far less, because the Republican Party is far more open about its support of, by, and for, the super-rich. Mitt Romney wasn’t the only Republican who had contempt for the lower 47%. But even he tried to deny that he had meant it. In that sense, the CFR’s report is a Republican document, one which, quite simply, doesn’t offer the public the lip-service that Obama does (and which he politically must, in order to retain support even within his own party).

Perhaps on account of the CFR report’s condemning Obama for not being sufficiently right-wing — even though he is actually a conservative Republican on all but social issues (where China policy isn’t particularly relevant) — the report has received no mention in the mainstream press, ever since it was originally issued, back in March of this year. For whatever reason, America’s ‘news’ media ignored the report, notwithstanding its importance as an expression of old-style imperialistic thinking that comes from what many consider to be the prime foreign-affairs mouthpiece of America’s aristocracy — the CFR. The report’s first coverage was on 2 May 2015 at the World Socialist Web Site, which briefly paraphrased it but didn’t even link to it. Then, Stephen Lendman wrote about the CFR report. He briefly paraphrased it and passionately condemned it. He did link to the report. But he didn’t note the WSWS article, which had first informed the public of the CFR report’s existence — an existence which, until the WSWS article, all of America’s ‘press’ had simply ignored.

The present article is the first one to quote the CFR report, instead of merely to paraphrase and attack it. The quotations that were selected are ones presenting the report’s main points, so that readers here can see these points stated as they were written, rather than merely as I have interpreted them. My interpretation is in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what the report itself says.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

source

Goldman Sachs Exits China's Largest Bank: Crisis Escalates: Some Banks Suspend Lending Activity

You don't suppose GS had inside information do you? Course not. Rothschild had a stake in ICBC as well. Did the banksters skedaddle with another booty load? What were those 70+ trips to Red China taken by Hank Paulson while with GS all about anyway (before becoming our Treasury Secretary)?

Daily Dispatches – Goldman Sachs exits ICBC investment

by eFinancialCareers 21 May 2013

Goldman Sachs has sold its remaining shareholding in Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) in a $1.1 billion block trade. This is the last of six sell-downs over the past seven years... READ BELOW

ICBC: A New Global Currency & Gold Setup Is Being Conceived

A good lead-in for Rothschild's swelling Chinese domain is this one from us posted first on March 5th: Rothschild may have already become the Custodian for China's Gold

Friends, deep down in your heart you know those ankle shackles you're wearing are not going to fall off on their own.

---

The Chinese Perspective On The International Gold Market

Published: 15-07-2014 17:00

At the LBMA Bullion Market Forum in Singapore on June 25, 2014, two very important speakers attended; Xu Luode, chairman of the Shanghai Gold Exchange, and Zhou Ming, General Manager of the Precious Metals Department at ICBC. Me and Torgny Persson have written about the speeches from Xu and Zhou in previous posts, in this post we will take a closer look at what Zhou said, based on what Chinese media have written about it (whereas Western media are reluctant to cover this). His statements are not entirely new as he already had revealed some objectives of ICBC's precious metals department in an interview conducted on January 7, 2014; ICBC's main goal is to become a significant player in the international gold market. Yet, he made a few remarkable statements in Singapore. First, a few segments from the article/interview published in January:  

In 2013, ICBC physical gold sales increased by more than 80% YoY, the growth rate of the entire line of business also grew more than 30% over the previous year.

For Zhou, the growth of the precious metals business is not accidental. Aside from ICBC's management in forward-thinking and advantages from being a bank, it's also because in China's internationalization process banking institutions are required to play this role.

When the precious metals department was established, ICBC chairman Jiang Jianqing said: "We have the ambition that ICBC becomes a world-class commercial bank in precious metals investment management."

Zhou: "...one day China enters the international stage, we will need more people to participate in understanding the characteristics of capital flows, so we don't have to be so passive. I drive our traders to work on scale and quantitative problems of our platform for the possibility of taking part in international transactions." 

For the future, Zhou Ming's goals are clear and simple: to continue to build the precious metals battleship, heading towards international markets. "In 2013 China became the world 's largest gold producer and consumer, there is no reason for it not to have any voice in international price fluctuations."

The following is a translation of an article in Chinese media about Zhou's speech at the LBMA Forum in Singapore June 25, 2014. Translated by Soh Tiong Hum from Terraseeds.com. 

The Chinese Perspective On The International Gold Market

2014/7/4 Source: Money Weekly

Invited by London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), Zhou Ming, General Manager of Precious Metals Department at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), represented the bank at the LBMA Bullion Market Forum 2014 held in Singapore. Zhou made a keynote speech where he:

1. Expanded on China's perspective of the international gold market.
2. Explained the structure of China's gold market to forum participants.
3. Introduced ICBC Precious Metals Department's development and
4. Described ICBC's status and function in the development of the Chinese gold market.
5. Elaborated on the future direction.

Also invited to the LBMA forum were heads of Chicago Mercantile Exchange, World Gold Council, JP Morgan, HSBC, Barclays, Deutsche Bank and many other institutions.

Global precious metals market has experienced centuries of evolution and development. After World War II, the world economy was re-arranged to form a dollar-dominated international monetary system of credit. The international status of gold was replaced by the dollar and the international price of gold was pegged to the dollar. This phenomenon was referred to as 'dollar-pricing'.

Following several economic crises, US dollar's influence on the international monetary system is now on the wane. The 2007 subprime crisis in the US delivered an unprecedented blow to US Dollar hegemony. Gold, which has the best properties of money of all precious metals, in contrast became a banner of resistance to the economic crisis. Its price of $ 290 per ounce in the beginning of 2000, shot above $ 1900 per ounce in 2011.

Six years after the global financial crisis, despite a series of financial stimulus - quantitative easing that increased the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet to $ 4 trillion in a few years, both the current and previous head of the Federal Reserve remain defensive of QE policy. Although the Fed announced that it will start reducing the scale of QE on December 19, 2013, after which the international gold price fell below $ 1200 per ounce at one point, international analysts see China's demand and huge import as a decisive element for the reversal in the gold price. 

In 2013 a Bloomberg report said that 26 million ounces (800 metric tonnes) of gold was moved from London to Swiss refiners and then to China via Hong Kong.

When Jeremy East, Managing Director at Standard Chartered Bank, asked at the LBMA Forum In Singapore if the statement "Western gold moves East" was true, Zhou made the following statements:

1. The world price of gold in recent decades was dollar-priced and fluctuated with the US dollar.
2. Fed implemented QE caused the issuance of dollars that exceeds demand.
3. International gold prices will return to rational levels after shooting high.
4. With the status of the US dollar as the international reserve currency is shaky, a new global currency setup is being conceived.
5. Uncertain changes will happen to gold's traditional dollar-pricing so the US dollar's influence on gold pricing needs to be re-evaluated.
6. With the rise of Asian economies, China and India will continue to be the world's pillars of physical gold demand.
7. Gold has not only moved from West to East but will continue to move to the East.

The factors supporting the gold price are not limited to these. Stephen Roach, senior lecturer at Yale University, formerly chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia and chief economist at Morgan Stanley agreed with Zhou in a conversation last year: "Although the US stock market continues to boom in hand with falling bond yields, US economic recovery remains fragile with a lack of recovery in US companies which causes labor unemployment levels to remain high, GDP growth to slow down and inflation to remain lower than pre-crisis levels. The international gold price is not in an environment that sustains falling prices.

Now in the second half of 2014, the gold market is an important part of the world's modern financial system and that means for China to internationalize its financial markets. When the development of China's gold market supervision and regulation policies are complete, China's commercial banks' overseas businesses will flourish and opportunities from the Shanghai FTZ can be used; the Shanghai Gold Exchange will officially launch an international board within 2014.

The international board will initially look at foreign institutional investors in the region to establish a free trade yuan-denominated spot gold trading platform and a corresponding settlement system so as to provide offshore RMB investment and circulation in a new channel. RMB cross-border trading accounts will also have a payment service.

Breakthroughs in many national policies and system developments will play an important part in the internationalization of China's financial market and its place in international gold-pricing.

End of article

Oddly enough there hasn't been any mainstream news outlet that has published anything about the speeches from Xu and Zhou, while these are very important for the international gold market. Additionally the LBMA just published the slides from the speakers at the forum in Singapore, except the ones from Xu and Zhou! Torgny Persson, who visited the forum, assured me both did use slides in their presentations. I find it strange these slides are not published. The LBMA notes on its website that in a couple of weeks it will publish the transcripts of the speeches from the Singapore forum. I'm very curious if the transcripts of Xu and Zhou will be appended.     

Koos Jansen

​via ​

​bullionstar​

Is a China/India Conflict Looming? India Boring Border Tunnels to take on China, Pakistan

We initially posted this in July of 2012, but got little notice. 

Now, however, we think there's a greater possibility for the instigation of war between India/China by the Conspirators, not only for bankers to amass greater loan debts, but to occupy the two from interfering with the US rape of the Middle East. Rothschild group would be an occurrence we postulated months ago. The larger the war the more debt owed to bankers.

Rajat Pandit, TNN | Aug 16, 2012, 03.49AM IST

NEW DELHI: India is finally kick-starting the plan to build as many as 18 tunnels along the borders with Pakistan and China for faster troop mobility as well as storage of critical war-fighting assets like missiles, without the threat of detection by enemy satellites and spy drones.

While preliminary work on seven tunnels is underway after requisite approvals, the construction of 11 more tunnels in Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh is now on the drawing board after "a strong endorsement'' by the Army.

With China resorting to "tunnelling in a big way'' to store important military equipment, the Army wants the tunnel construction plans in the mountains in J&K and north-east to be fast-tracked. "The tunnels will provide shelter to troops and ammunition from both enemy shelling and extreme weather. They can also be used for NBC (nuclear, chemical, biological) protection and establishing command and control centres,'' said a top official.

Actual construction work is underway only in one of the 18 proposed tunnels. But, this long-delayed 8.82-km long horse-shoe shaped tunnel under the 13,400-feet Rohtang Pass, on the Manali-Sarchu-Leh axis, is unlikely to meet its completion deadline of February, 2015. Feasibility studies and preparation of detailed project reports (DPRs) for three more tunnels at Zozila, Z-Morh and Razdhan Pass in J&K are in progress, while similar work is planned for Khardungla and Sadhana Pass in J&K and Theng in Sikkim. The other proposed tunnels include Rangpo in Sikkim and on the Balipara-Charduar-Tawang axis in Arunachal Pradesh.

The Army is anxious the existing large gaps in border infrastructure — in terms of all-weather roads, tunnels, strategic railway lines, "permanent defences'' and the like — are plugged as fast as possible. China, for instance, can move around 30 divisions (each with over 15,000 soldiers) to the borders within 30 days to outnumber Indian forces by at least 3:1 after undertaking massive infrastructure development all along the 4,057-km Line of Actual Control, as earlier reported by TOI. An empowered committee under defence secretary Shashikant Sharma is scrutinizing DPRs for the proposed overall "capability development plan on the northern borders'' worth Rs 26,155 crore. While this is slated is slated for completion by 2020-2021, there is an ongoing Rs 9,243 crore project for "infrastructure development in the eastern theatre'' by 2016-2017.

The Army hopes the projects are not hit by huge time overruns like the 73 all-weather roads earmarked for construction along the three sectors of LAC close to a decade ago. Defence minister A K Antony admitted in LS this week that just 16 of those roads have been finished till now, with another 26 slated for completion by 2013, and 19 more by 2016.

Source:  India boring border tunnels to take on China, Pakistan

Rothschild ICBC Bank Now Controls Asian Gold Exchanges

For more on the Rothschild ICBC see links below interviews.

---

Interview with BullionStar's CEO on the development of the Asian gold market

Mr. Persson touches specifically on the development of the Chinese and Singaporean gold markets

Published: 30-07-2014 02:25

BullionStar's CEO, Mr. Torgny Persson, was recently interviewed by Mr. Sunny Pannu of Minaurum.com on his views of the Asian gold market.

In the interview, Mr. Persson talks about the Chinese and Singaporean gold markets and how the respective Chinese and Singaporean governments are worldwide unique in facilitating for flourishing gold markets.

How come the Asians understand the concept of gold whereas the Westerners are struggling under an ever increasing mountain of debt?  

There's two parts of the interview.

Part 1 of the interview:

 
Part 2 of the interview:

1. ICBC: A New Global Currency & Gold ... Jul 16, 2014 
2. Rothschild may have already become the ... May 11, 2014
3. Renewed Estimates of Chinese Gold ... Apr 05, 2014
4. The Gold Rush Spreads From China And ... Dec 24, 2013

source bullionstar

March Indian Gold Import Highest In 10 Months

Fascinating video interview at conclusion with Jayant Bhandari, "The Asian Gold Myth"
 

A remarkable increase in official gold import in March, according to numbers published by India’s customs department DGCIS this week. In March official gross gold import accounted for 60 metric tonnes, up 88 % from 32 tonnes in February. The DGCIS does not disclose export figures of gold and silver, though (in March 2014) Indian law dictated 20 % of all gross gold import was required to be re-exported. That makes official net gold impor 48 tonnes in March – calculated by the 80/20 rule.

The jump in official gross import is significant because the Indian government tries to hold down gold import since it sky rocketed in April and May 2013, after the price of gold had crashed. The import duty on the yellow metal was raised from 6 % to 8 % in June 2013 and to 10 % August, when the 80/20 rule (20 % of all import needs to be re-exported) was also implemented. As a result of these measures gross import fell 73 % to 44 tonnes in June, from 165 in May 2013.

Demand for gold in India has little impact from the government measures, according to institutional consultant Jayant Bhandari. 

Supply simply circumvents the official channels and is smuggled into the country. How much is exactly smuggled in is very hard to tell. However, official import can be an indicator for total import. Jayant wrote me it’s likely that at this moment Indians are pending their gold purchases as India choose a new government in May, which is expected to lower the import duty this year. If the import duty is lowered demand is expected to increase.

The premium on gold in India over the international price hovered around 15 % in March, that’s including the 10 % import duty. The next chart is complied by Nick Laird from sharelynx.com.

Demand for silver in India has risen since the import restrictions on gold were introduced. In 2013 gross import was a staggering 6125 tonnes, up 190 % from 2115 tonnes in 2012. Year to date gross import is 1208 tonnes, up 59 % from 760 tonnes in the same period in 2013. March 2014 gross import was 287 tonnes, down 37 % from February. I do not yet have any export numbers on silver in March.

In Gold We Trust

This blog is primarily funded by donations. If this post contained valuable information for you, please consider to donate fiat or Bitcoin. 

Written by Koos Jansen on June 12, 2014 at 6:18 pm

source ingoldwetrust

Russia-China Deals: Another Nail in the Coffin for U.S. Dollar

Written by  Alex Newman

Thursday, 12 June 2014

 

The Kremlin and the Communist Chinese regime, through their state-controlled “companies,” have been signing major deals with each other that analysts say will contribute to the acceleration of the U.S. dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Two agreements in recent weeks deserve special attention: a $400-billion Sino-Russo energy contract, and a separate deal between two of Russia and China’s largest financial institutions to bypass the dollar in favor of domestic currencies. The geopolitical implications of the quickly-moving trends are monumental — especially for the United States, where the end of dollar hegemony will lead to potentially unprecedented economic upheaval.

Of course, it is hardly a secret that the upper echelons of the globalist establishment are plotting to end the decades-old reign of the U.S. dollar. As top insiders have openly admitted, the end goal is to replace it with a planetary monetary regime and global currency operated by the International Monetary Fund, which would act as a sort of world central bank. All of it has been happening with the deliberate connivance of Western globalists, including the banking cartel that owns and controls the Federal Reserve. The IMF is already talking openly about moving its headquarters to Beijing and turning its Special Drawing Rights (SDR) into a true global currency.

Now, the trends appear to be picking up speed. The U.S. central bank, for example, continues conjuring outlandish amounts of currency into existence under the guise of keeping interest rates low and stimulating an “economic recovery.” Around the world, foreign governments and central banks — particularly the regimes ruling the so-called “BRICS”: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — are reacting by quietly moving away from the U.S. dollar. Authorities in those nations have also been purchasing massive amounts of gold, which countless experts say is having its price suppressed by Western central banks. 

The latest Sino-Russo agreements, though, mark an important milestone in the ongoing flight from the dollar. The first deal on May 20, dubbed the “Agreement on Cooperation,” was inked in Shanghai between two state-owned banking leviathans as Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping and Russian strongman Vladimir Putin looked on approvingly. As part of the deal, the Communist Chinese regime-owned Bank of China and the Kremlin-owned VTB agreed to settle transactions in yuan and rubles.  “Under the agreement, the banks plan to develop their partnership in a number of areas, including cooperation on ruble and [Chinese] renminbi settlements, investment banking, inter-bank lending, trade finance and capital-markets transactions,” VTB said in a statement.

Putin was glowing, too. “Our countries have done a huge job to reach a new historic landmark,” he was quoted as saying in news reports, adding that bilateral trade was growing quickly and set to expand further in the coming years. “China has firmly settled in a position of our key trade partner.… If we sustain this pace the level of bilateral trade of $100 billion will be reached by 2015 and we’ll confidently move on.” Other Russian and Chinese officials also expressed delight with the developments as the Obama administration blabbers about “climate change,” red lines, and gun control. Obama has also invited Communist Chinese and Russian troops to train on U.S. soil. 

Most importantly, perhaps, the agreement sidelines the U.S. dollar, which has served as the global reserve since the end of World War II. 

At first, America’s currency obtained the role by default, maintained largely because it was backed by gold as much of the world lay in ruins. Following then-President Nixon’s final severing of the remaining tenuous link to precious metals, the dollar remained on top because energy supplies around the world were priced in dollars — the so-called “petrodollar.” While the status quo has offered some temporary “benefits” to the United States, allowing it to export fiat currency in exchange for goods and services, for example, the biggest downsides of the system appear to be approaching quickly.      

After the banking deal, Putin and Xi also oversaw the signing of a gargantuan natural-gas contract between state-controlled energy giants owned by their regimes. Under the $400-billion agreement, apparently years in the making, the Kremlin’s Gazprom will deliver some 40 billion cubic meters of natural gas to the state-controlled China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) each year. While most of Gazprom’s foreign contracts for energy are still priced in dollars, analysts said the Sino-Russo deal was a significant move in terms of undermining the U.S. currency in international trade.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Gazprom bosses are also threatening to start seeking payment in euros. “This shows that in principle there is nothing impossible — you can switch from dollar to euro and from euro, in principle, to rubles,” Alexander Dyukov, CEO of the massive state-owned energy giant’s oil division, was quoted as saying in Russian news reports while touting the ditching of the U.S. dollar in international trade. The dictatorship in Belarus has already announced its support for the move. Read the rest…

Shanghai Gold Exchange International Board Another Blow To US Dollar

We are still in the wilderness as to the involvement of the Rothschild banking syndicate. We suspect ICBC, but await a whistleblower still with morality that trumps greed to step forward...

---

Shanghai Gold Exchange International Board Another Blow To US Dollar

As we can see power shifting from West to East on a daily basis at the current time of writing, in the fourth quarter of this year the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) will launch an international board in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone (FTZ) for investors worldwide to trade gold spot contracts denominated in renminbi. The purpose being is becoming not only the world’s primary physical gold market but also increase pricing power and internationalize the renminbi.

Shortlist of recent developments regarding the rising powers in the East:

Russia’s central bank bought 28 metric tonnes of gold in April

Russia dumps record amounts of US treasuries

Russia closes an energy deal with China worth $400 billion (amongst 40 other business contracts)

Putin says Russia and China need to secure their gold and currency reserves

China openly calls for de-Americanization of the world

China, Russia, Iran and 21 other countries bolster cooperation to promote peace, security and stability in Asia

China is buying assets all over the globe and investing in infrastructure in Africa and West Asia

China is importing unprecedented amounts of physical gold

The SGE international board will be another blow to the US dollar hegemony, as more people around the world will hold renminbi, use the renminbi for trading gold and China wil have more power in pricing gold, though the international board’s pricing power can only be wholly exploited when the renminbi is fully convertible.

A Provisional Introduction To The Shanghai Gold Exchange International Board

Currently I don’t have any official documentation on the launch of the SGE international board, but by reading media (one, two, three, four) and from a source in the mainland, this is what I understand of it at this point: China’s central bank, the Peoples Bank Of China, has given approval to the SGE to set up a subsidiary company called the Shanghai International Gold Trading Center to operate the international board. 

The SGE is currently working on member recruiting, including commercial banks, gold producing companies and investment funds. Allegedly HSBC, ANZ, Standard Bank, Standard Chartered and Bank of Nova Scotia are to take part in the global trading platform.

Imported gold into the FTZ can be deposited in a brand new 1000 tonnes vault, after contracts are settled the gold can be delivered in this vault and withdrawn to be re-exported. Shanghai to become an international warehouse center. At first only spot contracts will be traded on the SGE international board, down the line derivatives will be launched. From Chinese state TV network CCTV:

The Shanghai FTZ can be considered as a Customs Specially Supervised Area, which I have written about extensively on these pages. Gold imported into the FTZ is not allowed to enter the Chinese marketplace without a PBOC permit. A Chinese trader in the mainland can not sell its physical gold to an international trader, for which it would be exported out of the mainland. To export gold out of the mainland there is a PBOC permit required. From what I’ve read, The structure of the Chinese domestic physical gold market will remain in tact after the launch of the SGE international board. Source: 

A free trade zone (FTZ), also called foreign-trade zone, formerly free port is an area within which goods may be landed, handled, manufactured or reconfigured, and re-exported without the intervention of the customs authorities. Only when the goods are moved to consumers within the country in which the zone is located do they become subject to the prevailing customs duties.

SGE Chairman to Lead The Way

The chairman of the SGE is Xu Luode, who is former President of China Unionpay, a bankcard association established under the approval of the State Council and the People’s Bank of China. Xu already gained experience at Unionpay to lead a financial institution overseas. In 2010 Xu delivered a speech on how Chinese financial institutions can go global at the Lujiazui Forum, an important Chinese forum for policy makers on the rapid expansion of China’s financial market and China’s growing influence on the global economy. Now Xu will use his experience to open up the SGE to the world. From China Unionpay in 2010:

On June 26, Xu Luode, President of China Unionpay, was invited to attend the “Lujiazui Forum 2010,” …President Xu Luode delivered a speech on How Chinese Financial Institutions Can Go Global during the Post-crisis Era. New changes in the international economic pattern, especially the financial pattern, provided significant opportunities for Chinese financial institutions to go global, while the challenges were also formidable. Chinese institutions need strategy and holistic knowledge to promote globalization strategy prudently and steadily and successfully grow to be international corporations, expressed President Xu Luode in his speech.

President Xu Luode emphasized in his speech that the internationalization of an enterprise was not only the business behaviour of the enterprise itself, but should be also closely linked with national strategy and strategies of relevant enterprises. Since 2004, CUP’s internationalization has closely coordinated with the “reaching out” strategy of the country, and at the same time cooperates and interacts with the expanding of Chinese financial institutions and the internationalization of the Chinese Renminbi, thus achieving relatively rapid development.

Was Xu appointed as SGE chairman in October 2013 to launch the SGE international board? Who knows…

One of the largest gold refineries Heraeus 
Precious Metals’ sales director Kevin Crisp 
visits SGE Chairman Xu Luode, February 18, 2014

On may 15, 2014, Xu attended the fourth Commercial Bank Gold Investment Forum in Hangzhou. Based on three sources mentioned above (translated by Soh Tiong Hum) he made the following statements:

The Chinese gold market is an important force, a positive energy in the international gold market but its influence does not correspond to its mass and scale. Last year China’s domestic gold mines produced 428 tonnes; at the same time China imported 1540 tonnes of gold, adding up to nearly 2000 tonnes. China’s import volume is significant but China’s influence on the price of gold is very small. Real influence still lies in the West. Data such as Non-farm payroll, or even a speech could impact the gold market in a big way. In this sense, the mass and scale of China’s gold market and its influence in the international gold market does not match. Through the SGE international board Chinese pricing power will increase.

Foreign investors can directly use offshore yuan to trade gold on the SGE international board, which is promoting the internationalization of the renminbi. The international board will form a yuan-denominated gold price index system named “Shanghai Gold”. Shanghai Gold will change the current gold market “consumption in the East priced in the West” situation. When China will have a right to speak in the international gold market, pricing will get revealed. New York prices gold through bidding whereas the gold price is fixed by five banks in London. However the London gold fixing price is now being questioned since these five banks are price-fixers while at the same time they are also the market’s most important participants.

The development of China’s gold market is not limited to an increase in scale but a series of moves including market development, product improvement, system development and risk prevention. Marketing, pricing mechanisms and international standards are all very important building blocks so every aspect of China’s gold market should join forces to speed up development.

The Shanghai Gold Exchange has nearly 8,000 institutional investors and nearly 5 million individual investors.

The International board will be a platform with global investors. This will raise the standard of product assortment, ability to prevent risk, information technology and support, market promotion and regulation. China is fully qualified and may become the world gold market’s very important first class player.

Regional commercial banks should seize the trends and opportunities in the development of China’s gold market, and become actively involved in the market.

As you may remember Malca-Amit opened a 2000 tonnes gold vault, their biggest vault on the planet, in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone in November 2013. Of course they knew Shanghai was to become to center of the global gold market (why else build such a big vault?). I think Malca-Amit has a lot of market intelligence as many bullion banks and other market participants are their clients. If a part of the Malca-Amit vault in Shanghai is designated to the SGE I don’t know at this moment. The following video is from November 2013:

Though we’ll have to wait for the details on how the SGE international board will exactly operate in a few months, it’s influence on the global gold market will be significant and this will further deteriorate the status of the US dollar hegemony.

In Gold we Trust