Report on Russian hacking objects to RT criticisms of fracking

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has a substantial section in its report on 2016 U.S. election hacking by Russia that focuses upon the Russian govenrment-funded channel RT as overtly anti-American.

The full report can be accessed here. There is no doubt that a great deal of RT coverage is anti-American. The editor in chief of RT Margarita Simonyan admitted: "the word 'propaganda' has a very negative connotation, but indeed, there is not a single international foreign TV channel that is doing something other than promotion of the values of the country that it is broadcasting from." She added that "when Russia is at war, we are, of course, on Russia's side"'. This somehow is itself a sin and to be stopped as apparently international tv should promote a US point of view and not criticize the U.S.

Among the negative aspects of RT is that they have hosted debates that include third party candidates, unlike mainstream media debates in the U.S. which are only between the two major party candidates. In 2012 the RT hosted a TV debate including Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Green Party Candidate. In 2016 they had primary debates for the same two parties that focused on foreign policy as well as electoral reform. The report sees presenting a more inclusive debate as somehow anti-American! The anti-hacking document claims:In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of democracy" in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the U.S. two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a "sham."While one can disagree with what RT says, many Americans will be attracted by the fact that RT provides an alternative news source that allows them to learn the positions of those outside the two major parties. There is a market for such information and RT provides it. This bothers the intelligence community which would like to be able to better control the flow of information.

The report on hacking also notes that RT has produced a documentary against fracking. The documentary is appended. However, anti-fracking news is endemic in the west. Numerous documentaries and articles are published that are critical of the practice. Do the authors of the report think that these are useful idiots who unknowingly are pushing the agenda of the Russians? A recent article in the Washington Post suggests as much. The article was so misleading that it was itself criticized as fake news. However the Post was not satisfied and just recently carried a false news account of an alleged hack of a US utility by Russia. Of course mainstream award-winning media have carried stories of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The report suggests the reason behind the RT reports on fracking: RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and U.S. natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability.This could well be correct but many environmentalists are going to be attracted by this coverage whereas mainstream U.S. media may often avoid such coverage as it could hurt some of those they depend upon for advertising. The report also notes that RT covers such negative aspects of U.S. life as police brutality. Of course U.S. mainstream media often does the same with respect to the Russian system. Russian criticism of mass surveillance the report takes as a sign that the RT is trying to 'undermine viewers' trust in the U.S. democratic procedures. There is not the slightest hint that such coverage might justifiably cause viewers to have doubts about the system. Instead of suggesting that reform might be needed, the report suggests that the U.S. needs to spend more money countering coverage that actually contains a great deal of truth even while it is, as claimed, part of a propaganda strategy aimed at the United States.

January oil export from Texas first in 40 years from US as ban lifted

Enterprise Products Partners LP, a Texas energy company, plans to load 600,000 barrels of light sweet crude from South Texas into a tanker at its terminal in the Houston Ship Channel during the first week of January.

	1 of 2
Vitol Group, a Dutch firm, is buying the crude. The crude will be sent to a refinery in Switzerland where a subsidiary of the company owns a refinery according to a source familiar with the company. Jim Teague, chief operating officer, of Enterprise's general partner said:

“We are excited to announce our first contract to export U.S. crude oil, which to our knowledge may be the first export cargo of U.S. crude oil from the Gulf Coast in almost 40 years.”

Shell Oil also welcomed the lifting of the export ban and said it considered the move "beneficial to government, industry and consumers, alike." Republicans in Congress argued the ban was obsolete due to the huge increase in U.S. production, much of it due to fracking. The ban was imposed back in 1975 when there was an acute oil shortage in the U.S.

Some environmentalists claimed lifting the ban would be disastrous for the planet since it would increase production. Oil Change International's executive director, Stephen Kretzmann, said:Just days after we all were given new hope in Paris, the empire has struck back. Congress’s response to an historic climate deal? Incentivise further oil production. It’s hard to imagine a clearer example of how far politics still has to go on climate in order to catch up with the science.

This deal to lift the export ban is a disaster for the climate and for American communities that our children will view as a cynical indictment of a corrupt political system not yet willing to confront the powerful interests behind the climate crisis.

However, alternative energy proponents, did get some welcome news as well. Republicans in Congress agreed to extend subsidies for wind and solar energy projects for another five years. The 30 percent tax credit was due to expire next year. The tax credit for wind lapsed in 2014. This will mean $25 billion for the industries. The Republicans also will not block a $500 million payment to the UN Green Climate Fund.

The export ban removal was part of a $1.1 trillion spending measure that will avert a US government shutdown. The bill passed the House by a vote of 316 for versus 113 against. The Senate vote was 65 for to 33 against. The bill will ensure government financing until September of 2016. President Obama signed the bill.

IMF loan to Ukraine chains it to the west

Back in April of this year after the February uprising against president Yanukovych in the Ukraine, the IMF approved a loan of $17 billion to the new Ukrainian government.

The $17 billion is eight times the normal quota. Usually a country will be able at most to borrow just twice its annual quota. However, the Ukraine loan is four times even that amount, indicating that the IMF was very anxious to grant the loan even though past loans have not worked out well, as when a loan was made previously in 2012: The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund has decided that Ukraine is expected to engage in post-program monitoring1 with the Fund, following the expiration on December 27, 2012 of the 29-month Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) with exceptional access (SDR 10 billion; US$ 15.2 billion; 729 percent of quota). The program went off-track with only two purchases made in the total amount of SDR 2.25 billion (about US$ 3.4 billion). As of June 30, 2013 Ukraine’s outstanding credit to the Fund was SDR 5.27 billion (about US$ 8 billion; 383.8 percent of quota). The Board's decision was adopted on a lapse-of-time basis2 on Friday, July 26.
 Given that the new loan is even larger and more out of line with normal practice, this indicates how anxious the IMF is to tie Ukraine into western international financial institutions. On August 29 the IMF signed off on the loan. The IMF signed off on the loan even though Ukraine was in effect fighting a civil war, was suffering from capital flights, and their balance of payments was in a state of collapse.
This article suggests the loan supported Ukrainian currency long enough for Ukrainian oligarchs to move their accounts to hard currency accounts in the west. The war in the east is further damaging an already faltering economy destroying basic infrastructure for power generation, water, and even hospitals. Many citizens are internally displaced or fled to Russia. Yet an IMF press release praised the Ukrainian government: “The IMF praised the government’s commitment to economic reforms despite the ongoing conflict.” John Helmer has calculated that of the $3.2 billion disbursed by the IMF at beginning of May this year, $3.1 billion had disappeared offshore by the middle of last month. It appears that the financial situation is worsening and that another $5 billion may be needed over above the IMF loan of $17 billion.
President Poroshenko one of the oligarchs may be threatened from the right by another oligarch, Igor Kolomysky, who has his own private militia. Given that Poroshenko has not yet been able to defeat the separatists and economic austerity measures demanded by the IMF will decrease his political popularity, it is possible that there could be another coup by forces even more to the right and nationalist. Ukraine's debt is not dominated in Ukrainian currency but dollars and euros. With Ukrainian currency falling in value the Ukraine needs to gain dollars and euros to finance its debt. To do this, Ukraine will need to sell off its resources to western interests, often at fire sale prices, and in return it will receive the dollars and euros it will need to finance its debt.
 There are clear links to the US at this stage. Senate Bill 2277 directs the US Agency for International Development(USAID) to guarantee loans for the development of oil and gas in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. There are links to the Obama administration as well in all of this. Vice-president Joe Biden's son recently was appointed to the board of Burisma a Ukrainian company although it is registered in Cyprus. The Ukrainian government has even helped using its military: “Ukrainian troopers help installing shale gas production equipment near the east Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which they bombed and shelled for the three preceding months, the Novorossiya news agency reports on its website citing local residents. Civilians protected by Ukrainian army are getting ready to install drilling rigs. More equipment is being brought in, they said, adding that the military are encircling the future extraction area.” Kolomoysky is reported to a major investor in Burisma. He was appointed by the Ukrainian government to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk a south-central province. In the Eastern Ukraine there had been opposition to fracking even before the Maidan demonstrations.
 There is pressure from the IMF and World Bank for Ukraine to deregulate its agriculture.The Investment Finance Corporation of the World Bank has advised Ukraine "to delete provisions regarding mandatory certification of food in the listed laws of Ukraine and Government Decree," and also "to avoid unnecessary costs for businesses" by regulations on pesticides and food additives.
As part of its efforts to punish Russia for thwarting plans to orient the Ukraine more towards the west and to reliance on western funding, there are various plans afoot to ensure that the IMF loans to do not for the most part go towards paying off the huge debt that the Ukraine owes Russia. Anna Gelpem. a former UK Treasury official wants a $3 billion bond negotiated by Russia's sovereign wealth fund to be declared by law foreign aid rather than a commercial loan. She said: “The United Kingdom can refuse to enforce English-law contracts for the money Russia lent,” thereby taking “away creditor remedies for default on this debt.” Gelpem suggests an even more extensive repudiation of debt: Ukraine may claim that its debt to Russia is “odious.” This applies to situations where “an evil ruler signs contracts that burden future generations long after the ruler is deposed.” She adds that “Repudiating all debts incurred under Yanukovich would discourage lending to corrupt leaders.” Gelpem suggests that it be a universal principle that contracts that are "used to advance military and political objectives..should lose their claim to court enforcement". This should mean then that the IMF loan to the Ukraine need not be paid off. That would help out the Ukraine most of all. As the appended video shows the IMF loan comes with many unpopular provisions.