Ifo-Chef FuestKritik an Rekord-Steuerschulden der Griechen
Die Griechen zahlen nicht mal mehr die Hälfte ihrer fälligen Steuern. Ifo-Chef Clemens Fuest findet: Dann müssen die anderen Staaten nicht unbedingt Geld nachschießen.
Im Jahr 2015 haben die Griechen dem Bericht zufolge von 100 Euro fälligen Steuern nur noch 45 Euro bezahlt – obwohl in Griechenland so viele Menschen von der Steuerpflicht ausgenommen sind wie in keinem anderen Land der Eurozone. Der Steuer-Grundfreibetrag ist so hoch, dass ihn mehr als die Hälfte aller griechischen Haushalte nicht erreichen, im Durchschnitt der Eurozone sind es nur neun Prozent.
Fuest sagte der F.A.Z., es sei von außen kaum zu beurteilen, was die Gründe für diese Steuerrückstände seien: „Es ist aber fragwürdig, von den Steuerzahlern anderer Länder in Europa höhere Beiträge zur Sanierung Griechenlands zu verlangen, weil die griechischen Bürger die fälligen Steuern nicht zahlen, aus welchen Gründen auch immer.“
Der Ökonom führte weiter aus, seines Erachtens sollten die Gläubigerstaaten sich darauf konzentrieren, von Griechenland einen angemessenen Primärüberschuss zu verlangen, also einen Überschuss im Haushalt vor Zinsen. „Die vom IWF verlangten 1,5 Prozent sind im Vergleich zu Primärüberschüssen, die andere Länder in der Vergangenheit erzielt haben, sehr wenig“, sagte Fuest. Mittelfristig sollte man höhere Primärüberschüsse verlangen.
Entscheidend ist für Fuest allerdings eine andere Frage: „dass durch die Primärüberschüsse zumindest sichergestellt ist, dass die Gläubiger nicht immer zusätzliches Geld nachschießen müssen.“ Welche Schuldenbeträge außerdem auf dem Papier ständen, und ob die in 40 oder 60 Jahren zurückgezahlt werden sollten, sei im Vergleich dazu zweitrangig, weil darüber ohnehin dauernd neu verhandelt werde.
Ukraine's Defense: Russian Suit Part of a "Broader Strategy of Aggression"
posted by Mark Weidemaier
It has taken several months, but the Russian Particulars of Claim and Ukraine'sDefence (akin to complaint and answer in U.S. civil procedure) have now been filed. Distilled to its essence, Ukraine's response, as the Financial Times notes, is that "if you wanted your money back you should not have invaded our country." Or as Ukraine's lawyers put it in the Defence: "The [Russian] claim forms part of a broader strategy of unlawful and illegitimate economic, political and military aggression ... aimed at frustrating the will of the Ukrainian people to participate in the process of European integration."
Russia's version of events is straightforward and looks like any other debt case: Russia lent the money, Ukraine committed a breach of contract by not repaying. Ukraine, by contrast, will have a harder time translating its defenses into the dry language of legal doctrine. But it can be done. As I have written here at Credit Slips, and in more detailelsewhere, contract law provides Ukraine with a number of potentially viable arguments. Now that we know the arguments asserted by Ukraine, here are some preliminary thoughts.
Duress: Ukraine argues that it only borrowed the money because the Russian government, intent on preventing Ukraine from entering a new Association Agreement with the European Union, took a number of steps in the course of 2013 to politically destabilize Ukraine and disrupt its access to capital markets. These steps included imposing unlawful trade restrictions, threatening to cut off supplies of natural gas, and making unsubtle threats to annex territory and support internal insurrection if Ukraine deepened its ties with Europe. The effect, according to Ukraine, was to deny access to capital markets, effectively driving Ukraine into Russia's arms.
It's... plausible? It seems to me that each of Ukraine's arguments faces two fundamental problems. First, a judge might hesitate to take sides in a dispute over whether Russia has acted wrongfully, say by breaching international law. This isn't an insurmountable barrier; judges do make such rulings. But my intuition is that Ukraine has the greatest chance of success on arguments that can be framed in terms that are (reasonably) neutral on the underlying politics. Second, a judge might want some assurance that a ruling in Ukraine's favor will not have broader, destabilizing implications for other agreements between governments. It isn't yet clear whether this is true of Ukraine's duress argument. Agreements between governments (or the entities they control) are not arms-length, commercial transactions. Russia's conduct was hardly admirable, but was it really so unique?
Lack of capacity: Ukraine argues that the loan is void because the process by which it was contracted violated Ukrainian law. As an example, the Cabinet Ministers of Ukraine allegedly approved legislation authorizing the loan without following procedural requirements imposed by Ukrainian law. I can't speak to the underlying merits of this argument, but it has the advantage of being purely technical. The court can resolve it without judging Russia's motivations in making the loan or assigning blame for the annexation of Crimea, the conflict in Ukraine's east, etc. On the other hand, even if the defense succeeds, wouldn't there be a presumption that Ukraine must make restitution? Resolving that question might require the court to engage with some of the politically-sensitive question skirted by the lack of capacity defense itself.
Prevention and Impracticability: For some time, I have been suggesting that Ukraine might prevail on these arguments. This article provides the most detail. The argument under prevention doctrine is straightforward: If one party to a contract makes it difficult or impossible for the other to perform its duties, the latter's failure to perform is excused. Russia's annexation of Crimea, support for armed rebels in the east, and general policy of destabilizing Ukraine's economy has made it impossible for Ukraine to repay, at least while complying with its IMF support program. If one accepts that version of events, the argument is a slam dunk. The problem is that the court will have to weigh in on precisely the kinds of politically-charged questions that (in my view) judges would prefer to avoid.
The doctrine of impracticability excuses non-performance in certain cases when a post-contract event contradicts a fundamental assumption of the contract and makes it difficult or impossible for one party to perform. Ukraine argues that Russia has damaged its economy, deprived it of access to capital markets, required it to turn to the IMF for support, and in other respects made it difficult or impossible to repay. Again, I have written about these arguments extensively elsewhere. (As an aside, Ukraine frames these arguments as "implied" terms of the contract, in the sense that Russia made "implied" promises--i.e., the contract doesn't actually say this, but we will pretend otherwise--not to deliberately interfere with Ukraine's ability to repay or to demand repayment when impracticable. This is simply a different way of expressing the concepts underlying the doctrines of prevention and impracticability.)
Breach of obligations under international law: Ukraine makes several arguments based on the claim that Russia's conduct (annexation of Crimea, etc.) violates international law. One is that the contract contains an "implied" promise not to enforce the loan in such cases. A second, related argument is that Russia's violations are such that Ukraine should be able to withhold payment as an appropriate countermeasure (i.e., a sanction, authorized by international law, imposed until Russia starts to comply with international law).
Summary: It should be clear that none of these arguments are slam dunks; far from it. But some are plausible, or even clearly meritorious if--and it's a big if--the court makes the appropriate findings of fact. It's also worth noting that arguments founded on international law might provide a basis for delaying Russia's efforts to enforce the loan. The countermeasures argument is an obvious example. If Ukraine succeeds on this argument, it will be entitled to withhold payment until Russia conforms its conduct to international law. Ukraine doesn't specify all the steps Russia would have to take, but presumably it envisions the cessation of support for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine's east, the return of Crimea, and other steps that are not likely to happen any time soon. Thus, the countermeasures argument is essentially an argument for permanent non-payment. More subtly, by making arguments founded in international law, Ukraine may create reasonable grounds for delaying this litigation until the outcome of proceedings before other tribunals. As an example, Ukraine has elsewhere asserted that Russia's conduct with regard to Crimea constitutes a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It isn't hard to imagine an English court, reluctant to rule on whether Russia has violated international law, delaying proceedings until another tribunal decides such questions. Delays of that sort work in Ukraine's favor.
I have recently posted a piece in which I tried to debunk a few popular myths about modern warfare. Judging by many comments which I received in response to this post, I have to say that the myths in question are still alive and well and that I clearly failed to convince many readers. What I propose to do today, is to look at what Russia is really doing in response to the growing threat from the West. But first, I have to set the context or, more accurately, re-set the context in which Russia is operating. Let’s begin by looking at the AngloZionist policies towards Russia.
The West’s actions:
First on this list is, obviously, the conquest by NATO of all of Eastern Europe. I speak of conquest because that is exactly what it is, but a conquest achieved according to the rules of 21stcentury warfare which I define as “80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military”. Yes, I know, the good folks of Eastern Europe were just dreaming of being subjugated by the US/NATO/EU/etc – but so what? Anyone who has read Sun Tzu will immediately recognize that this deep desire to be ‘incorporated’ into the AngloZionist “Borg” is nothing else but the result of a crushed self-identity, a deep-seated inferiority complex and, thus, a surrender which did not even have to be induced by military means. At the end of the day, it makes no difference what the locals thought they were achieving – they are now subjects of the Empire and their countries more or less irrelevant colonies in the fringe of the AngloZionist Empire. As always, the local comprador elite is now bubbling with pride at being, or so they think, accepted as equals by their new masters (think Poroshenko, Tusk or Grybauskaite) which gives them the courage to bark at Moscow from behind the NATO fence. Good for them.
Second is the now total colonization of Western Europe into the Empire. While NATO moved to the East, the US also took much deeper control of Western Europe which is now administered for the Empire by what the former Mayor of London once called the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” – faceless bureaucrats à la François Hollande or Angela Merkel.
Third, the Empire has given its total support to semi-demonic creatures ranging from al-Khattab to Nadezhda Savchenko. The West’s policy is crystal clear and simple to the extreme: if it is anti-Russian we back it. This policy is best exemplified with a Putin and Russia demonization campaign which is, in my opinion, far worse and much more hysterical than anything during the Cold War.
Fourth, the West has made a number of highly disturbing military moves including the deployment of the first elements of an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, the dispatching of various forms of rapid reaction forces, the deployment of a few armored units, etc. NATO now has forward deployed command posts which can be used to support the engagement of a rapid reaction force.
What does all this add up to?
Right now, nothing much, really. Yes, the NATO move right up to the Russian borders is highly provocative, but primarily in political terms. In purely military terms, not only is this a very bad idea (see cliché #6 here), but the size of the actual forces deployed is, in reality, tiny: the ABM system currently deployed can, at best, hope to intercept a few missiles (10-20 depending on your assumptions) as for the conventional forces they are of the battalion size (more or less 600 soldiers plus support). So right now there is categorically no real military threat to Russia.
So why are the Russians so clearly upset?
Because the current US/NATO moves might well be just the first steps of a much larger effort which, given enough time, might begin presenting a very real danger for Russia.
Furthermore, the kind of rhetoric coming out of the West now is not only militaristic and russophobic, it is often outright messianic. The last time around the West had a flare up of its 1000 year old chronic “messianic syndrome” condition Russia lost 20 (to 30) million people. So the Russians can be forgiven if they are paying a great deal of attention to what the AngloZionist propaganda actually says about them.
The Russians are most dismayed at the re-colonization of western Europe. Long gone are the days when people like Charles de Gaulle, Helmut Schmidt or François Mitterrand, were in charge of Europe’s future. For all their very real faults, these men were at least real patriots and not just US colonial administrators. The ‘loss’ of Western Europe is far more concerning for the Russians than the fact that ex-Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe are now under US colonial administration. Why?
Look at this from the Russian point of view.
The Russians all see that the US power is on the decline and that the dollar will, sooner or later, gradually or suddenly, lose its role as the main reserve and exchange currency on the planet (this process has already begun). Simply put – unless the US finds a way to dramatically change the current international dynamic the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. The Russians believe that what the Americans are doing is, at best, to use tensions with Russia to revive a dormant Cold War v2 and, at worst, to actually start a real shooting war in Europe.
So a declining Empire with a vital need for a major crisis, a spineless Western Europe unable to stand up for its own interest, a subservient Eastern Europe just begging to turn into a massive battlefield between East and West, and a messianic, rabidly russophobic rhetoric as the background for an increase in military deployments on the Russian border. Is anybody really surprised that the Russians are taking all this very, very serious even if right now the military threat is basically non-existent?
The Russian reaction
So let us now examine the Russian reaction to Empire’s stance.
First, the Russians want to make darn sure that the Americans do not give in to the illusion that a full-scale war in Europe would be like WWII which saw the US homeland only suffer a few, tiny, almost symbolic, attacks by the enemy. Since a full scale war in Europe would threaten the very existence of the Russian state and nation, the Russians are now taking measures to make darn sure that, should that happen, the US would pay an immense price for such an attack.
Second, the Russians are now evidently assuming that a conventional threat from the West might materialize in the foreseeable future. They are therefore taking the measures needed to counter that conventional threat.
Third, since the USA appears to be dead set into deploying an anti-ballistic missile system not only in Europe, but also in the Far East, the Russians are taking the measures to both defeat and bypass this system.
The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planing, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:
The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army (in progress)
The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (done)
The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM (in progress)
The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo (in progress)
The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army
It is hard to believe, but the fact is that between 1991 and 2016 Russia did not have a single large formation (division size and bigger) in its Western Military District. A few brigades, regiments and battalions which nominally were called an “Army”. To put it simply – Russia clearly did not believe that there was a conventional military threat from the West and therefore she did not even bother deploying any kind of meaningful military force to defend from such a non-existing threat. By the way, that fact should also tell you everything you need to know about Russian plans to invade the Ukraine, Poland or the Baltics: this is utter nonsense. This has now dramatically changed.
Russia has officially announced that the First Guards Tank Army (a formation with a prestigious and very symbolic history). This Guards Tank Army will now include the 4th “Kantemirov” Guards Tank Division, the 2nd “Taman” Guards Motorized Rifle Division, the 6th Tank Brigade, the 27th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade Sevastopol and many support units. This Army’s HQ will be located in the Odinstovo suburb of Moscow. Currently the Army is equipped with T-72B3 and T-80 main battle tanks, but they will be replaced by the brand new and revolutionary T-14 Armata tank while the current infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers will be replaced by the new APC and IFV. In the air, these armored units will be protected and supported by Mi-28 and Ka-52 attack helicopters. Make no mistake, this will be a very large force, exactly the kind of force needed so smash through an attacking enemy forces (by the way, the 1TGA was present at the Kursk battle). I am pretty sure that by the time the 1TGA is fully organized it will become the most powerful armored formation anywhere between the Atlantic and the Urals (especially in qualitative terms). If the current tensions continue or even worsen, the Russians could even augment the 1TGA to a type of 21st century “Shock Army” with increased mobility and specializing in breaking deep into the enemy’s defenses.
The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system
The new Iskander-M operational tactical missile system is a formidable weapon by any standard. While technically it is a short-range tactical missile (under 1000km range, the Iskander-M has an official range of 500km), it can also fire the R-500 missile has the capability of striking at an intermediate/operational range (over 1000km, the R-500 has a range of 2000km). It is extremely accurate, it has advanced anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically undetectable on the ground (see here for more details). This will be the missile tasked with destroying all the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe and, if needed, clear the way for the 1TGA.
The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM
Neither the 1TGA nor the Iskander-M missile will threaten the US homeland in any way. Russia thus needed some kind of weapon which would truly strike fear into the Pentagon and White House in the way the famous RS-36 Voevoda (aka SS-18 “Satan” in US classification) did during the Cold War. The SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. The RS-28 “Sarmat” (SS-X-30 by NATO classification) brings the terror to a totally new level.
The Sarmat is nothing short of amazing. It will be capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.
The Sarmat will also be capable of delivering conventional Iu-71 hypersonic warheads capable of a “kinetic strike” which could be used to strike a fortified enemy target in a non-nuclear conflict. This will be made possible by the amazing accuracy of the Sarmat’s warheads which, courtesy of a recent Russian leak, we now know have a CEP of 10 meters (see screen capture)
The Sarmat’s silos will be protected by a unique “active protection measures” which will include 100 guns capable of firing a “metallic cloud” of forty thousand 30mm “bullets” to an altitude of up to 6km. The Russians are also planning to protect the Sarmat with their new S-500 air defense systems. Finally, the Sarmat’s preparation to start time will be under 60 seconds thanks a a highly automated launch system. What this all means is that the Sarmat missile will be invulnerable in its silo, during it’s flight and on re-entry in the lower parts of the atmosphere.
It is interesting to note that while the USA has made a great deal of noise around its planned Prompt Global Strike system, the Russians have already begun deploying their own version of this concept.
What is shown here is an “autonomous underwater vehicle” which has advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. This vehicle can dive as deep as 1000m, at a speed up to 185km/h and it has a range of up to 10’000km. It is delivered by specially configured submarines.
The Status-6 system can be used to target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frighting configuration, it can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system would be a new version of the T-15 torpedo which would be 24m long, 1,5m wide weigh 40 tons and capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57 megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.
Keep in mind that most of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks (be it Sakharov’s proposed “Tsunami bomb” or the Status-6 system). And, just as in the case of the Iskander-M or the Sarmat ICBM, the depth and speed of the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to incerception.
* * *
Evaluation:
There is really nothing new in all of the above, and US military commanders have always known that.All the US anti-ballistic missile systems have always been primarily a financial scam, from Reagan’s “Star Wars” to Obama’s “anti-Iranian ABM”. For one thing, any ABM system is susceptible to ‘local saturation': if you have X number ABM missile protecting a Y long space against an X number of missiles, all that you need to do is to saturate only one sector of the Y space with *a lot* of real and fake missiles by firing them all together through one small sector of the Y space the ABM missile system is protecting. And there are plenty of other measures the Russians could take. They could put just one single SLBM capable submarine in Lake Baikal making it basically invulnerable. There is already some discussion of that idea in Russia. Another very good option would be to re-activate the Soviet BzhRK rail-mobile ICBM. Good luck finding them in the immense Russian train network. In fact, the Russians have plenty of cheap and effective measure. Want me to list one more?
Sure!
Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commerical container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships?Check out this excellent video which explains this:
Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50km to 4000km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, an nobody would even see it coming.
The reality is that the notion that the US could trigger a war against Russia (or China for that matter) and not suffer the consequences on the US mainland is absolutely ridiculous. And yet, when I hear all the crazy talk by western politicians and generals I get the impression that they are forgetting about this undeniable fact. Frankly, even the current threats against Russia have a ‘half-backed’ feel to them: a battalion here, another one there, a few missiles here, a few more there. It is like the rulers of the Empire don’t realize that it is a very, very bad idea to constantly poke a bear when all you are carrying with you is a pocket-knife. Sometimes the reaction of western politicians remind me of the thugs who try to rob a gas station with a plastic or empty gun and who are absolutely stunned with they get gunned down by the owner or the cops. This kind of thuggery is nothing more than a form of “suicide by cop” which never ends well for the one trying to get away with it.
So sometimes things have to be said directly and unambiguously: western politicians better not believe in their own imperial hubris. So far, all their threats have achieved is that the Russians have responded with a many but futile verbal protests and a full-scale program to prepare Russia for WWIII.
As I have written many times, Russians are very afraid of war and they will go out of their way to avoid it. But they are also ready for war. This is a uniquely Russian cultural feature which the West has misread an innumerable number of time over the past 1000 years or so. Over and over again have the Europeans attacked Russia only to find themselves into a fight they would never have imagined, even in their worst nightmares. This is why the Russians like to say that “Russia never starts wars, she only ends them”.
There is a profound cultural chasm between how the West views warfare and how the Russians do. In the West, warfare is, really, “the continuation of politics by other means”. For Russians, it is a ruthless struggle for survival. Just look at generals in the West: they are polished and well mannered managers much more similar to corporate executives than with, say, Mafia bosses. Take a look at Russian generals (for example, watch the Victory Day parade in Moscow). In comparison to their western colleagues they look almost brutish, because first and foremost they are ruthless and calculating killers. I don’t mean that in a negative way – they often are individually very honorable and even kind men, and like every good commander, they care for their men and love their country. But the business they are in in not the continuation of politics by other means, the business they are in is survival. At all cost.
You cannot judge a military or, for that matter, a nation, by how it behaves when it triumphs, when it is on the offensive pursing a defeated enemy. All armies look good when they are winning. You can really judge of the nature of a military, or a nation, at its darkest hour, when things are horrible and the situation worse than catastrophic. That was the case in 1995 when the Eltsin regime ordered a totally unprepared, demoralized, poorly trained, poorly fed, poorly equipped and completely disorganized Russian military (well, a few hastily assembled units) to take Grozny from the Chechens. It was hell on earth. Here is some footage of General Lev Rokhlin in a hastily organized command post in a basement inside Grozy. He is as exhausted, dirty and exposed as any of his soldiers. Just look at his face and look at the faces of the men around him. This is what the Russian army looks like when it is in the depth of hell, betrayed by the traitors sitting in the Kremlin and abandoned by most if the Russian people (who, I am sorry to remind here, mostly were only were dreaming of McDonalds and Michael Jackson in 1995).
Can you imagine, say, General Wesley Clark or David Petraeus fighting like these men did?
Check out this video of General Shamanov reading the riot act to a local Chechen politician (no translation need):
Shamanov nowadays is the Commander in Chief of the Airborne Forces (see photo) whose size Putin quietly doubledto 72’000, something I mentioned in the past as highly relevant, especially in comparison with the rather tepid force level increases announced by NATO (see “EU suidice by reality denial”). To get a feel for what modern Russian airborne forces are like, check out this article.
It is not my intention here to glorify nuclear war or the Russian Armed Forces. The reason for this, and many other, articles is to try to raise the alarm about what I see is happening nowadays. Western leaders are drunk on their own imperial hubris, nations which in the past were considered as minor stains on a map now feel emboldened to constantly provoke a nuclear superpower, Americans are being lied to and promised that some magical high tech will protect them from war while the Russians are seriously gearing up for WWIII because they have come to the conclusion that the only way to prevent that war is to make absolutely and unequivocally clear to the AngloZionists that they will never survive a war with Russia, even if every single Russian is killed.
I remember the Cold War well. I was part of it. And I remember that the vast majority of us, on both sides, realized that a war between Russia and the West must be avoided at all costs. Now I am horrified when I read articles by senior officials seriously discussing such a possibility.
To the poetically inclined, the Russian military looks more like a gigantic pirate crew, than a regular army. The ones who rule are the ones with the sharpest cutlass and biggest mouth, typically some scurvy infested mateis who rely on the support of their mates to make any unpopular “officer” walk the plank… Or, more apt, they resemble the members of the cossack horde, run by the brashier warriors… While these troops can be very brave, at times, they are not effective in the field against a well regulated and trained modern military machine. Given this, it is improbably, ney, impossible for ordinary Russian troops to conduct operations of major consequence at more than platoon level against any disciplined armies, especially the US, British, German, or French.
“For our zoo” (old Western dream)
This kind of writing really scares me. Not because of the imbecilic and racist stupidity of it, but because it largely goes unchallenged in the mainstream media. Not only that, there are plenty such articles written elsewhere (see here, here or here). Of course, the authors of that kind of “analyses” make their money precisely the kind of manic cheer-leading for the western forces, but that is exactly the mindset which got Napoleon and Hitler in trouble and which ended with Russian forces stationed in Paris and Berlin. Compare that kind of jingoistic and, frankly, irresponsible nonsense with what a real military commander, Montgomery, had to say on this topic:
The next war on land will be very different from the last one, in that we shall have to fight it in a different way. In reaching a decision on that matter, we must first be clear about certain rules of war. Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule.
So who do you trust? Professional cheerleaders or professional soldiers? Do you really believe that Obama (or Hillary), Merkel and Hollande will do better than Napoleon or Hitler?
If the AngloZionist ‘deep state’ is really delusional enough to trigger a war with Russia, in Europe or elsewhere, the narcissistic and hedonistic West, drunk on its own propaganda and hubris, will discover a level of violence and warfare it cannot even imagine and if that only affected those responsible for these reckless and suicidal policies it would be great. But the problem is, of course, that many millions of us, simple, regular people, will suffer and die as a consequence of our collective failure to prevent that outcome. I hope and pray that my repeated warnings will at least contribute to what I hope is a growing realization that this folly has to be immediately stopped and that sanity must return to politics.
SPD-PlanDeutsche sollen Herkunft ihres Vermögens nachweisen
Wo kommt dein Vermögen her? Wenn die Deutschen das nicht beweisen können, könnten sie künftig Probleme mit dem Finanzamt bekommen – zumindest wenn es nach dem Willen ranghoher SPD-Politiker geht.
Die SPD will schärfer gegen Steuerbetrug vorgehen. Zur Abschöpfung etwa von Gewinnen aus Straftaten soll es reichen, dass der Ursprung des Vermögens ungeklärt ist. Das geht aus einem Zehn-Punkte-Katalog hervor, der am Montag vom Parteivorstand beschlossen werden soll. „Auch Vermögen unklarer Herkunft sollen künftig eingezogen werden können“, heißt es in dem Entwurf. „Wir drehen die Beweislast um.“ Steuerbetrug und Geldwäsche würden damit für die Straftäter unattraktiv.
Die Deutschen sollen künftig nachweisen, wo ihr Vermögen herkommt – so will es zumindest die SPD
Etwa 1000 Milliarden Euro gingen Europa jedes Jahr durch Steuervermeidung und Steuerhinterziehung verloren, heißt es in der Vorlage, die nach Angaben aus Parteikreisen von SPD-Vizechef Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, dem nordrhein-westfälischen Finanzminister Norbert Walter-Borjans und dem Vizefraktionschef im Bundestag, Carsten Schneider, ausgearbeitet wurde.
Mit den Forderungen zur Bekämpfung der Steuerkriminalität solle sich auch der SPD-Parteikonvent befassen, der am 5. Juni in Berlin tagt. Der Kleine Parteitag mit 200 Delegierten ist das höchste Beschlussgremium zwischen den Bundesparteitagen.
„Anonymität darf nicht zur Verjährung führen“
Bei Geschäften mit Staaten, die nicht am automatischen Informationsaustausch über Steuerpflichtige teilnehmen, soll zudem die Pflicht zur Steuererklärung nicht mehr nach zehn Jahren auslaufen. „Anonymität darf nicht zur Verjährung führen“, heißt es. Die Festsetzungsfrist für Steuern solle in diesen Fällen über zehn Jahre hinaus ausgeweitet werden. International sei ein gemeinsames Vorgehen der 20 wichtigsten Industrie- und Schwellenländer gegen Steuerbetrug und Geldwäsche notwendig.
Die SPD reagiert damit auch auf die Veröffentlichung der „Panama Papers“ über Hunderttausende Briefkastenfirmen in der Karibik. Sie fordern unter anderem ein „öffentliches Reporting von großen, international agierenden Unternehmen“. Es gebe ein legitimes Interesse der Öffentlichkeit zu erfahren, in welchen Staaten diese Firmen Steuern zahlten.
© DPA
Ifo-Präsident Clemens Fuest
