Ukraine Slide Accelerates: AG Office Seized, Criminal Files Being Set On Fire; US To Hold Government Responsible | Zero Hedge
It’s getting form bad to worse in the Ukraine: either martial law will be announced any time soon or the proxy civil war becomes a real one. On the bright side, there is something to be said about having a nation’s criminal cases all in paper format: once there is a revolution, everyone’s slate gets wiped clean…
Lviv Attorney General office is seized, ppl setting on fire files w/ criminal cases
— Maxim Eristavi (@MaximEristavi) February 18, 2014
BREAKING: Officials say 5 more people have died in Ukraine’s capital, raising death toll to 18: http://t.co/BBIAWIHxfc
— The Associated Press (@AP) February 18, 2014
whole house of trade unions, HQ of #euromaidan is on fire…
— Kateryna_Kruk (@Kateryna_Kruk) February 18, 2014
The US is, naturally, stoking the metaphorical, and literal, fire.
BREAKING: from this moment on, US holds Ukrainian government responsible for everything that happen – US Ambassador to RT
— Europarl2014 (@2014Europarl) February 18, 2014
Why? Becase as a reminder, in Victoria Nuland’s own words, the US is the grand puppetmaster behind everything.
Disturbing Trend: Average Foreign Purchases Of US Securities Take Out Lehman Bottom, Hit All Time Low | Zero Hedge
As we reported earlier today, for whatever reason China sold the second biggest amount of US Treasurys in December. However, that was only part of the story. In fact, as we also noted, while the two largest US foreign creditors were net sellers, total foreign bond holdings actually rose in the last month of 2013 and as the chart below confirms, when it comes to Long-Term Treasury paper, foreigners were actually buyers of some $18 billion in Treasurys. It is everything else that they sold in the month when the S&P hit its all time high: specifically, foreigners were net sellers of Agency securities ($15.4 billion), Corporate Bonds ($7.5 billion) and Corporate Equities ($13.7 billion) something which hardly fits with the narrative of the record stock market high generating confidence in even more buying down the line.
In the chart above it is the black line – gross purchases of US long-term securities – that is the most troubling, as its trend is hardly anyone’s friend.
So what happens when one smooths out the line to normalize for monthly fluctuations? This:
The chart is very disturbing: it shows that as the S&P rises higher and higher (on ever declining volumes), foreigners are buying fewer and fewer US securities. In fact, on a 12 Month Moving Average basis, foreigners bought less long-term US securities than they did when Lehman crashed!
Luckily we live in a New Normal when price is no longer determined by simple supply and demand (and certainly not from retail investors who have long since given up on the fraudulent, broken US capital “markets”) but Fed jawboning of a record $2.5 trillion in bank excess reserves, corporate buybacks and HFT algos spurring momentum ignition and buying because others are buying.
And so we have come full circle, because while, understandably, nobody had any appetite for US securities around the Lehman crash when until the Fed stepped in and singlehandedly took over the US capital markets it was unclear if there even would be a US capital markets, now that five years later the S&P has risen to a level nearly three times the March 2009 lows thanks entirely to the Fed’s $4.1 trillion balance sheet backstop, the interest in US securities is… lower than it was in the days just after Lehman!
Posted by Jeff Rubin on February 18th, 2014 under SmallerWorld
One of the largest accidental releases of oil in Alberta’s history isn’t a burst pipeline and it doesn’t involve a train of tanker cars derailing into a river. It’s also not a thing of the past. It’s been going on for about a year and it’s still happening. An estimated 12,000 barrels of bitumen and water has now risen from giant cracks in the forest floor at an underground oil sands project run by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
Oil leaks are a regrettable fact of life in the business, but this one might send shivers up the spine of even a veteran oilman. CNRL insists the seepage is due to the failure of four well bores that are supposed to draw oil from its Primrose project, near Cold Lake, to the processing facilities on the surface. Others, including even Alberta’s pro-industry energy regulator, aren’t so sure.
The well bores are separated by several kilometers, which calls into question why four would fail at the same time. A more frightening theory that’s gaining currency suggests CNRL may have overpressurized the underground formation causing the caprock closer to the surface to fracture, which is allowing the bitumen to seep upwards.
Primrose is a so-called in situ oil sands play, which means it uses a process that involves heating bitumen in the ground to a point where its viscosity allows it to be pumped to the surface. It doesn’t create the moonscapes and toxic tailings ponds that have become the signature features of oil sands mining projects, but it’s also not without its environmental footmarks. At Primrose, CNRL, for instance, has been ordered to pump more than 400,000 cubic meters of contaminated water from a small lake contaminated by the bitumen seepage. On a broader scale, the enormous amount of steam needed to extract bitumen from in situ plays, makes the undertaking more carbon intensive than even the mining projects that begin by stripping all traces of the original boreal forest from the landscape.
The carbon trail from in situ projects isn’t the only worry. The extraction method may also be having more of an impact on the earth itself than was previously thought. Geologists have found that injecting massive amounts of steam into bitumen deposits can actually lift the ground cover by more than a foot a month. If this upheaval fractures the caprock then that’s one less barrier left to stop the uncontrolled flow of bitumen to the surface.
The proliferation of such unconventional extraction methods, as the US experience with fracturing shale rock shows, can also have unintended seismic effects. In Oklahoma and other places, for instance, fracking has been linked to earthquake activity.
So far, the Alberta Energy Regulator has yet to deliver a final verdict on the Primrose leak, although it did recently move to limit the amount of steam that CNRL can inject into its wells. While the provincial energy regulator — led by a former EnCana executive and president of the oil industry’s lobby group — does seem to be suspicious of CNRL’s proffered explanation for the seepage, it has yet to order the company to stop injecting steam at its Primrose operations. The longer bitumen keeps seeping to the surface, though, the more pressure the regulator will face to do so.
Whether CNRL’s problems at Primrose are specific to that site or will become a more generic issue for the industry remains to be seen. But with 80 percent of the massive expansion planned for the oil sands coming from in situ production, it’s a question that investors in oil sands stocks will soon want answered.
Watch as sparks fly between a Ukrainian military APC, possibly the same one we revealed earlier, as it gets into some blazingly close encounters with the Kiev protesters. It is unclear who won however it is quite clear that at this point the proxy war in Ukraine between
Russia/Gazprom and the European Union/US State Dept/Saudi/Qatar can be upgraded to “hot.”
And the death and injury toll, which is rising by the hour:
- 6 policemen dead
- 6 protestors dead
- Police HQ in Ternopli on fire
- Police HQ in Lviv occupied
- More than 150 injuries
- KLITSCHKO ARRIVES AT YANUKOVYCH’S OFFICE FOR TALKS: REUTERS
In short: things have spiraled out of control, and the only possible outcome is another new all time high in the Spoos overnight.
February 18, 2014
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile
Probably every kid in the world has at some point dreamed of having a time machine and being able to travel back to the past… usually to see dinosaurs or something like that.
Time travel is an almost universal fantasy. And if I could snap my fingers and turn the pages of time, I’d be seriously curious to check out the thousand-year period between the decline of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the Renaissance.
They used to refer to this period as ‘the Dark Ages’ (though historians have since given up that moniker), a time when the entire European continent was practically at an intellectual standstill.
The Church became THE authority on everything– Science. Technology. Medicine. Education. And they kept the most vital information out of the hands of the people… instead simply telling everyone what to believe.
People living in that time had to trust that the high priests were smart guys and knew what they were talking about.
Interpreting facts and observations for yourself was heresy, and anyone who formed original thought and challenged the authority of church and state was burned at the stake.
Granted, human civilization has come a long way since then. But the basic building blocks are not terribly different than before.
Anyone who challenges the state is still burned at the stake. And our entire monetary system requires that we all trust the high priests of central banking and economics. Those that stray from the state’s message and spread economic heresy are cast down and vilified.
You may recall the case of Harvard professors Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart who wrote the seminal work: “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly”.
The book highlighted dozens of shocking historical patterns where once powerful nations accumulated too much debt and entered into terminal decline.
Spain, for example, defaulted on its debt six times between 1500 and 1800, then another seven times in the 19th century alone.
France defaulted on its debt EIGHT times between 1500 and 1800, including on the eve of the French Revolution in 1788. And Greece has defaulted five times since 1800.
The premise of their book was very simple: debt is bad. And when nations rack up too much of it, they get into serious trouble.
This message was not terribly convenient for governments that have racked up unprecedented levels of debt. So critics found some calculation errors in their Excel formulas, and the two professors were very publicly discredited.
Afterwards, it was as if the entire idea of debt being bad simply vanished.
Not to worry, though, the IMF has now stepped up with a work of its own to fill the void.
And surprise, surprise, their new paper “[does] not identify any clear debt threshold above which medium-term growth prospects are dramatically compromised.”
Translation: Keep racking up that debt, boys and girls, it’s nothing but smooth sailing ahead.
But that’s not all. They go much further, suggesting that once a nation reaches VERY HIGH levels of debt, there is even LESS of a correlation between debt and growth.
Clearly this is the problem for Europe and the US: $17 trillion? Pish posh. The economy will really be on fire once the debt hits $20 trillion.
There’s just one minor caveat. The IMF admits that they had to invent a completely different method to arrive to their conclusions, and that “caution should be used in the interpretation of our empirical results.”
But such details are not important.
What is important is that the economic high priests have proven once and for all that there are absolutely no consequences for countries who are deeply in debt.
And rather than pontificate what these people are smoking, we should all fall in line with unquestionable belief and devotion to their supreme wisdom.
February 18th, 2014
Recent statements attributed to Secretary of State John Kerry show him again positioning the US to attack Syria. In a leaked report to the Washington Post, Kerry was quoted as saying that Obama’s Syria policy is failing and that it is time to change the strategy.
These are remarks that deserve further scrutiny. As it turns out, Kerry is dismayed that Syria has not destroyed its estimated 1300 tons of chemical weapons in a scant six months.
Syria has responded by stating that the actions of the rebels in that war torn country have disrupted the conveyance of the weapons to the appointed place.
It should be noted that when the United States joined the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, it pledged to destroy all its chemical weapons within ten years.
The deadline came and went and the US did not comply. The US received another deadline, for 2012. And once again, failed to achieve this deadline.
And now, the US, which reportedly still has about 3000 tons of chemical weapons in its stockpiles, has stated it will not be able to comply with the treaty mandate until 2023.
What’s wrong with this picture? The US can’t but Syria must?
Obama initially responded dramatically to the report of the alleged gas attack near Damascus, an attack which was said to have taken place on August 21, 2013. He announced that he would make a targeted military strike on Syria, a decision which was subsequently derailed by Russian President Putin, who suggested that Syria join the CWC and move to destroy its chemical weapons cache.
Questions arose immediately as to the veracity of the report of the alleged gas attack.Hacked emails surfaced which incurred grave questions as to whether or not the alleged gas attack even took place. These emails showed one Army Colonel Anthony J. MacDonald chatting with a DoD employee, Eugene Furst, and others in a manner which raised some questions as to possible military or defense contractor involvement in the alleged gas attack.
Here is a partial thread between MacDonald and Furst. In the MacDonald/Furst exchange, we see Furst congratulating MacDonald on August 22, 2013, referencing the gas attack:
“By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.”
On the same date, MacDonald replied:
“As you see I’m far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.”
Further hacked emails between MacDonald’s wife and a friend raise questions as to whether or not the alleged attack was staged, “for the cameras,” as Jennifer MacDonald wrote to her friend, Mary Shapiro.
When the Army was contacted about its response to these hacked emails, the reply was firm but somewhat evasive. Press Officer Lt Col Donald Peters told this reporter that the matter was under investigation and therefore no further comment could be tendered at that time.
As it turned out, the issues surrounding the hacked emails were not investigated. Peters attempted to persuade this reporter that as MacDonald allegedly retired from the military on August 15, right before the incident, that the Army had no cause to investigate.
However, according to his Linked in page, MacDonald is still with the Army and is now serving as a Supervisory Intelligence Specialist.
When confronted with this, Army Press Officer Peters issued a No Comment.
Various sources, including the Sunshine Project, have stated that the US repeatedly violated the CWC and used these illegal weapons in its war against Iraq.
The Iraqi war was also found to have been launched on bogus intelligence. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. They were, however, used against the Iraqis by the US government.
The massive destabilization of the region through the US’s repeated and spurious declarations of threat will have a blow back that few can predict. Syria has promised to attack Israel should Obama launch a military action against that country. Is Obama so foolish as to put his purported ally, Israel, at this elevated a risk?
Or was this the plan, all along? In the shadowy world of intelligence and propaganda, little is what it appears to be. The US government and corporate accommodation of the Nazi extermination programs is a matter of historical record. The only question left is whether or not the US’s “special interest” in eugenics is still ongoing.
This scenario is not what we have been led to believe would occur. But history supports this perception. And history, as we know, also has a nasty way of repeating itself.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
With Spanish sovereign bond yields hitting record lows – marginally above those of the US – one might be surprised to learn that unemployment is at record highs, suicide rates are at record highs, youth joblessness is at record highs, and now, to top it all off, Spanish bad loans are at record highs once again (at 13.6% of all loans). Of course, not deterred by the uncomfortable reality, Economy Minister Guindos is out in full propaganda mode:
- *GUINDOS SAYS BAD LOANS RATIO SEEN MODERATING IN NEXT QTRS
However, given the 17.7% rise in the last 12 months – the most in a year – we are struggling to see signs of the turning point he is so confident of.
The data – Guidos argues – reflects “recognition of reality” in what seems like an admission that all the spin and hoopla about marginal improvements til now have been based on entirely unreal data…
Did Spanish banks kitchen sink it? We highly doubt it as unemployment levels strongly suggest the worst is yet to come.
This is the trillion-dollar question. From a common sense perspective, the simple answer is “absolutely!”
Since 1998, the markets have been in serial bubbles and busts, each one bigger than the last. A long-term chart of the S&P 500 shows us just how obvious this is (and yet the Fed argues it cannot see bubbles in advance?).
Moreover, we’ve been moving up the food chain in terms of the assets involved in each respective bubble and bust.
The Tech bubble was a stock bubble.
The 2007 bust was a housing bubble.
This next bust will be the sovereign bond bubble.
Why does this matter?
Because of the dreaded “C word” COLLATERAL.
In 2008, the world got a taste of what happens when a major collateral shortage hits the derivatives market. In very simple terms, the mispricing of several trillion (if not more) dollars’ worth of illiquid securities suddenly became obvious to the financial system.
This induced a collateral shortfall in the Credit Default Swap market ($50-$60 trillion) as everyone went scrambling to raise capital or demanded new, higher quality collateral on trillions of trades that turned out to be garbage.
This is why US Treasuries posted such an enormous rally in the 2008 bust (US Treasuries are the highest grade collateral out there).
Please note that Treasuries actually spiked in OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2008… well before stocks bottomed in March 2009.
The scrambling for collateral, NOT the alleged “flight to safety trade” that CNBC proclaims.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TODAY?
The senior most assets backstopping the $600 trillion derivatives market are SOVEREIGN BONDS: US Treasuries, Japanese Government Bonds, German Bunds.
By keeping interest rates near zero, and pumping over $10 trillion into the financial system since 2007, the world’s Central Banks have forced investors to misprice the most prized collateral backstopping the entire derivatives system: SOVEREIGN BONDS.
SO what happens when the current bond bubble bursts and we begin to see bonds falling and yields rising?
Another collateral scramble begins… this time with a significant portion of the interest rate derivative market (over 80% of the $600 TRILLION derivative market) blowing up.
At that point, rising yields is the last thing we need to worry about. The assets backstopping a $600 trillion market themselves will be falling in value… which means that the real crisis… the crisis to which 2008 was the warm up, will be upon us.
This is why Central Banks are so committed to keeping rates low. This is also why all Central Bank policy has largely benefitted the large financial institutions (the Too Big To Fails) at the expense of Main Street…
THE CENTRAL BANKS AREN’T TRYING TO GROW THE ECONOMY, THEY’RE TRYING TO PROP UP THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS’ DERIVATIVE TRADES.
They will fail eventually. When they do, the markets will experience yet another terrible collapse even worse than that of 2008.
For a FREE Special Report on how to prepare your portfolio for this, visit us at:
Phoenix Capital Research
CHARLOTTETOWN, Prince Edward Island — Canada’s National Research Council is the country’s premier scientific institution, helping to produce such inventions as the pacemaker and the robotic arm used on the American space shuttle. But last year, its mission changed.
The Canadian government announced a transformation of the 98-year-old agency, formerly focused largely on basic research, into a one-stop “concierge service” to bolster technological innovation by industry — historically weak — and generate high-quality jobs.
This has set off a dispute over the future of Canada’s capacity to carry out fundamental research, with university scientists and academic organizations uncharacteristically vocal about the government’s blunt preference for commercially applicable science.
“We are not sure the government appreciates the role that basic research plays,” said Kenneth Ragan, a McGill University physicist and president of the Canadian Association of Physicists: “The real question is, How does it view not-directed, nonindustrial, curiosity-driven blue-sky research? I worry the view is that it is irrelevant at best and that in many cases they actually dislike it.”
The remodeling of the research council is one in a series of policy changes that have generated fierce pushback by Canadian academics in recent years. The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is also under fire for closing research libraries, shutting down research facilities and restricting when government scientists can speak publicly about their work. Last year the Canadian Association of University Teachers began a national campaign, “Get Science Right,” with town-hall meetings across the country to mobilize public opposition to the policies. Scientists have even taken to the streets of several Canadian cities in protest.
While the transformation of the National Research Council has been criticized, the government as well as some science-policy analysts say that better connecting businesses with research is an important step for Canada.
Having examined models in other countries, the National Research Council chose to streamline its operations to act as “the pivot between the two worlds” of industry and academics, with an eye toward new products and innovations, said Charles Drouin, a spokesman for the council. He said the agency had not moved away from support for fundamental research but wanted to focus such efforts better. “There is basic research, but it is directed, as opposed to undirected as you would find it in universities.”
Another battleground for the future of basic research has been the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, a federal granting agency that serves as the first stop for financing fundamental research by Canadian scientists.
In 2011-12, the latest year for which data are available, the council’s “discovery” grants for fundamental research accounted for 38.4 percent of its budget, down from 50.1 percent in 2001-2. Its “innovation” grants, which encourage the transfer of university-developed technology to industry, rose to 31.4 percent in 2011-12, up from 25.3 percent a decade earlier. (The council also directs part of its roughly $1-billion budget to postdoctoral fellowships and other awards for young researchers.)
“The government has invested proportionately more on the innovation side, where it was seen that we had more challenges,” said Pierre J. Charest, vice president of research grants and scholarships at the government agency. He noted that the council was “on track” to double the number of scientists forming partnerships with industry.
Mr. Charest said criticism about a smaller percentage of funds for discovery grants missed a larger point — that the budget had grown over the past decade to almost $325 million in 2012-13. However, much of that increase comes from a special supplement for a select group of researchers to explore potentially transformative concepts.
One who has felt the pinch is Norman Hüner, an internationally recognized plant biochemist and physiologist at the University of Western Ontario, who holds a prestigious Canada Research Chair in environmental-stress biology. A longtime recipient of discovery grants, he and his research collaborators are exploring a potential breakthrough in the use of photosynthesis to trick plants to grow in suboptimal conditions — relevant research in Mr. Hüner’s view, given concerns about climate change.
But in 2012, after applying for a new grant to continue his research, the professor received $50,000 a year for five years — a sharp drop from the previous award of $132,000 a year over five years. “I was shocked, absolutely,” he recalled. “I am disillusioned beyond words.”
The cut has led to the departures of some senior scientists from his lab. And save for one new postdoctoral student with her own funds, Mr. Hüner is not replenishing his stable of young researchers. At 67, Mr. Hüner now plans to retire several years ahead of schedule.
Even those involved in commercialization efforts question the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council’s new approach.
“If you have ideas that are going to lead to commercialization opportunities, you should absolutely get seed-stage funding,” said James E. Colliander, a mathematician at the University of Toronto. He acknowledged that funding for applied research was “crucially important” but said he was “not sure that the principal vehicle for funding basic research should be the path to get those dollars.” Mr. Colliander has received several major discovery grants and is also involved in an effort to bring to market a web application for large-scale academic exam assessment.
Beyond the changes in the two councils, some wonder if Canadian industry is prepared to step up its role in research innovation. In Canada’s largely foreign-owned industrial sector, research is often carried out at corporate headquarters abroad, while home-grown businesses lack the appetite or budget.
Some liken the federal strategy to pushing on a string.
The current policy appears to be trying to “push” technology from universities to industry, but what is needed to increase the level of innovation is for industry to get better at investing in new ideas and well-qualified researchers, said Arthur Carty, a former science adviser to the prime minister and a former head of the National Research Council. “Companies have to have innovation in their philosophical strategies, and they don’t have it,” said Mr. Carty, now executive director of the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Nanotechnology.
Uncertainty over the response of industry is a common refrain even among those who see merit in the federal strategy.
“Canada has had most of its eggs in the basic-research basket for quite a long time,” said Richard W. Hawkins, Canada research chair in science, technology and innovation policy at the University of Calgary. He has also spent years outside Canada as an adviser to governments and international agencies on innovation policy. “Governments want to invest in science and technology because they think it will lead to growth and innovation,” he said. “Governments all over the world have the same rationale.”
What’s missing in Canada, he said, is a deep understanding about how sectors of the economy could exploit knowledge to diversify and create new industries. “In Canada we know relatively less about our situation than most of our competitor countries,” he said.
But some senior scientists warn of risks to Canada’s higher-education system if pure, scholarly research is perceived as unimportant.
“One of the major contradictions of the Conservative government at the moment is that no one in Canada will question the need to have the best universities in the world,” said Daniel E. Guitton, a professor of neuroscience at McGill University. “Now how do you get them? You’re not going to get them by having people focus on an industry-related problem.”
Science policy analysts say it is too early to judge the impact of the government’s current strategy. But on one point, there is little debate. “To be honest, I’ve not seen this level of advocacy from the scientific community before,” said Paul Dufour, a fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Science, Society, and Policy. “That’s new in this country, and I think that’s a healthy thing.”
» Report: Japan Secretly Developing Nuclear Weapons Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!
Tokyo begins arms build-up in response to East China Sea tension
Paul Joseph Watson
February 18, 2014
Asia Weekly, a Hong Kong-based news outlet, is reporting that Japan is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program in response to increasing hostilities with China over the East China Sea dispute.
According to the report, paraphrased by the Want China Times, “With the capability to build at least 2,000 nuclear warheads, Japan has recently demanded the United States return 300 kilograms of plutonium. A Japanese military analyst told Yazhou Zhoukan that Washington has paid close attention to the potential development of nuclear weapons in Japan.”
Asia Weekly, known as Yazhou Zhoukan, is a popular Chinese-language platform with a 20 year publishing history.
The article notes that Mitsubishi, Hitachi and Toshiba all possess expertise in the area of nuclear energy and along with 200 other small companies could all be called upon to kickstart a nuclear weapons program. Japan already has over 40 tonnes of plutonium in its possession.
Influential voices like Major General Yoshiaki Yano of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force are also calling on Tokyo to adjust its nuclear policy.
The story arrives hot on the heels of reports that China is extremely concerned about Japan’s initial resistance at handing back weapons-grade plutonium to the United States which was bought back in the 1960′s for research purposes but has the potential to be turned into 50 nuclear bombs.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that within the next six years Japan would revise its pacifist constitution, which limits its military activities to self-defense.
Tensions over China’s declaration of an air defense zone over the disputed Senkaku Islands have continued to simmer, with three Chinese ships sailing through the region on Monday in another show of aggression.
A deluge of aggressive rhetoric has emerged out of official Communist Party organs in recent months directed against the United States, including discussion about China’s ability to attack U.S. military bases in the Western Pacific, as well as a lengthy editorial which appeared in Chinese state media explaining how the Chinese military’s current reformation process was part of a move by President Xi Jinping to prepare the People’s Liberation Army for war.
Last month, Chinese state media reported that Beijing’s new hypersonic missile vehicle is primarily designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers. Last year, China reportedly sunk a mock U.S. aircraft carrier utilizing the DF-21D anti-ship missile, dubbed the “carrier killer,” during a wargame which took place in the Gobi Desert.
This article was posted: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 9:59 am