Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (“GPM”) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J” or the “Company”) (NYSE: JNJ) between February 22, 2013 and February 7, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”). JNJ investors have until April 9, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
To obtain information or actively participate in the class action, please visit the JNJ page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/johnson-johnson. Investors that suffered losses on their JNJ investments are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J&J has known for decades that its talc products include asbestos fibers and that the exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma; and (2) as a result, defendants’ statements about J&J’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On February 5, 2018, CNBC published an article stating that “court proceedings could expose potentially damaging documents” related to J&J’s talc products, such as Johnson’s Baby Powder. On this news, shares of J&J fell $7.29 per share or more than 5%, to close at $130.39 on February 5, 2018.
Then, on February 7, 2018, the Beasley Allen Law Firm issued a press release stating that “[l]awsuits filed by ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims are revealing never-before-seen documents from Johnson & Johnson and talc supplier, Imerys, that shed light on just how prevalent asbestos and heavy metals are in the talc used in Baby Powder.” The release stated that “[i]nternal Johnson & Johnson documents from 1972 note that asbestos was found in 100 percent of talc samples tested at the time, but this information was never released publicly.” It further stated that J&J stopped funding a project designed to test talc samples for asbestos contamination once a majority of the sample batches were found to be positive for asbestos. On this news, shares of J&J fell $5.06 per share, to close at $126.36 per share on February 8, 2018, thereby further injuring investors.
If you purchased shares of JNJ during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than April 9, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
View source version on businesswire.com: he complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J&J has known for decades that its talc products include asbestos fibers and that the exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma; and (2) as a result, defendants’ statements about J&J’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On February 5, 2018, CNBC published an article stating that “court proceedings could expose potentially damaging documents” related to J&J’s talc products, such as Johnson’s Baby Powder. On this news, shares of J&J fell $7.29 per share or more than 5%, to close at $130.39 on February 5, 2018.
Then, on February 7, 2018, the Beasley Allen Law Firm issued a press release stating that “[l]awsuits filed by ovarian cancer and mesothelioma victims are revealing never-before-seen documents from Johnson & Johnson and talc supplier, Imerys, that shed light on just how prevalent asbestos and heavy metals are in the talc used in Baby Powder.” The release stated that “[i]nternal Johnson & Johnson documents from 1972 note that asbestos was found in 100 percent of talc samples tested at the time, but this information was never released publicly.” It further stated that J&J stopped funding a project designed to test talc samples for asbestos contamination once a majority of the sample batches were found to be positive for asbestos. On this news, shares of J&J fell $5.06 per share, to close at $126.36 per share on February 8, 2018, thereby further injuring investors.
If you purchased shares of JNJ during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than April 9, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Macro Analysis
Commodities
Fixed Income
Global Equities
US Equities
Sector Analysis
Basic Materials
Consumer Discretionary
Consumer Staples
Energy & Power
Financials
Healthcare
Industrials
Real Estate
Tech & Telecom
Research Type
Earnings Reports
Industry and Company Overviews
Fund Analysis
Wall Street Ratings
All Research Types
Help
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Advertise
Careers
RSS Feed
Sitemap
Macroeconomic Analysis
Is a Perfect Storm Brewing for the Week Ahead?
White House Drama and FOMC Could Push Volatility Higher This Week
By Ricky Cove
Mar 19, 2018 | 8:08 AM
Stock markets brace for higher volatility
White House drama dominated US market movement last week. After Trump fired US secretary of state Rex Tillerson via Twitter, President Trump fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe days before his retirement to undercut Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia meddling in the US elections. If we put political risk aside, markets were still on the edge last week due to the possibility of a second round of tariffs. Economic data reported last week indicated slower growth in inflation, but higher industrial production and consumer confidence overshadowed the weak inflation report.
1
US market performance
Equity markets in the US remained under pressure amid increased political uncertainty and the possibility of another round of tariffs. Broad market ETFs like the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY), the Deutsche Bank’s Dogs of the Dow ETN (DOD), and the PowerShares QQQ Trust Series (QQQ) fell in the previous week. The US dollar rallied against major currencies after the industrial production and consumer confidence reports, while the US bond (BND) markets managed a minor recovery as lower-than-expected February inflation growth reduced fears about faster rate hikes.
VIX Index speculators continue to bet against volatility
The CBOE Volatility Index (or VIX), which is a measure of investor expectations for future volatility and tracked by ETFs such as the iPath S&P 500 VIX short-term futures (VXX), rebounded last week. The S&P VIX 500 closed at 15.8 as compared to the previous week’s close of 14.64. As per the latest Commitment of Trader’s (or COT) report released by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (or CFTC), large speculators have decreased their long volatility positions from 76,918 contracts to 53,612 contracts. With the FOMC March meeting in focus and the ongoing political drama in the White House, we can expect bouts of higher volatility this week.
In the rest of this series, we’ll analyze the performance of various asset classes and discuss their outlook for the week ahead.
How Large Speculator Positions in S&P 500 Index Trended Last Week
By Ricky Cove
Mar 19, 2018 | 8:08 AM
S&P 500 Index back in the red
For the week ending March 16, the S&P 500 Index closed at 2,752.01, a fall of 1.2%, as news about a possible second round of import tariffs could be announced soon and because of the increased political uncertainty at the White House. Global trade war concerns reemerged last week, dragging US and global equity into negative territory. The other concern for markets last week was the inflation report. Inflation in February was reported to have increased at a slower-than-expected pace, which allayed fears about rates rising too quickly, at least one positive outcome for the markets. Two of the major S&P 500 sectors, utilities (XLU) and the real estate (XHB), managed to record gains last week, while the financials (XLF) and the materials sectors were the worst-performing sectors last week.
2
Speculator positions on S&P 500 Index
Large speculators of the S&P 500 Index increased their net bullish positions last week. The net long contracts increased from 11,809 contracts to 13,917 contracts. This data was reported by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (or CFTC) through their weekly commitment of traders report. This data was only up to Tuesday, March 13, which was before the firing of the deputy director of the FBI and retail sales, consumer confidence, and industrial production releases. The SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) and the iShares S&P 500 (IVV), ETFs that track the S&P 500 Index, have witnessed higher inflows of $8.3 billion and $917 million, respectively.
The S&P 500 Index outlook
There are two major event risks for the US indexes this week. One major risk could be political as Robert Muller moves ahead with the special counsel investigation. President Trump could get even more aggressive, which could rattle investor sentiment. The other risk is the FOMC, which is scheduled to meet this week. A hawkish statement along with a higher dot plot and improved economic projections following an almost priced in 0.25% hike could signal a higher possibility of another three rate hikes this year. A faster rate or interest rate increase could have a negative impact on the indexes last week.
FOMC Could Decide the Fate of the US Dollar This Week
By Charles Graham aka Vanilla spilla
Mar 23
US dollar helped by softer tariffs
The US Dollar Index appreciated for a fourth consecutive week due in part to the impressive industrial production and consumer confidence numbers that were reported at the end of the previous week. Earlier in the previous week, lower-than-expected inflation growth and retail sales numbers had little impact on the US dollar as markets have already priced in a rate hike from the US Fed at its March meeting. The turmoil in the White House had a marginal negative impact on the US dollar as the pressure from the Mueller probe reached the Trump businesses last week. The US Dollar Index (UUP) closed for the week ending March 16 at 90.2, a weekly gain of 0.17%.
3
Speculator positions as of March 13
As per the latest commitment of traders report, released on March 16 by the Chicago Futures Trading Commission (or CFTC), large speculators and traders have increased short positions in the US dollar for a third consecutive week.
As per Reuters calculations, the net US dollar (USDU) net short positions increased to -$14.6 billion as compared to -$11.5 billion in the previous week. This amount is a combination of the US dollar’s contracts against the combined contracts of the euro (FXE), British pound (FXB), Japanese yen (FXY), Australian dollar (FXA), Canadian dollar (FXC), and the Swiss franc.
Key events for the US dollar this week
The major event for the US dollar this week is the FOMC meeting that will begin on Tuesday. The statement will be released on Wednesday. The FOMC meeting will be followed by a press conference and an update to economic projections. Markets may be looking for hints about the FOMC’s future plans. An unambiguously hawkish FOMC could trigger a US dollar rally, but any hint of dovishness could unwind the recent gains in the US dollar.
Why Bond Markets Returned to Worrying about Flattening Yield Curve
By Ricky Cove
Mar 19, 2018 | 8:08 AM
Inflation miss triggers yield curve flattening worries
The US bond markets moved marginally higher in the previous week as investors’ worry about rising bond yields fell after the February inflation print showed stable growth. The Consumer Price Index (or CPI) grew by 0.2% in February, taking the annual growth in core inflation to 1.8%. The bond market responded to the inflation report with a fall in bond yields after the inflation report. Weaker-than-expected housing starts and building permits have also added to the downward pressure on the bond yields last week. The Vanguard Total Bond Market (BND) ETF, which tracks the performance of the bond markets, ended the previous week at 79.5, appreciating by 0.26% for the week ending March 16.
4
Bond market performance and speculator positions
For the week ending March 16, the ten-year (IEF) yield closed at 2.8%, depreciating by five basis points. The two-year yield (SHY) closed at 2.3% (up by three basis points), and the longer-term 30-year yield (TLT) closed at 3.1% (down by nine basis points). The decline in long-term yields reignited the fears of yield curve flattening, which is a negative signal for the economy.
As per the latest commitment of traders (or COT) report, released on March 16 by the Chicago Futures Trading Commission (or CFTC), speculator short positions decreased for the first time in four weeks. The total net bearish positions as of Tuesday, March 13, fell by 90,781 contracts from 362,150 contracts to 271,369 contracts. Stable inflation growth in February allayed bond market investors’ fears about interest rates increasing too quickly, resulting in a decrease in short positions in the US bond (BSV) markets.
The week ahead for the bond markets
This week, the focus of bond market investors will likely be on the FOMC meeting. It is highly expected the Fed will increase rates by 0.25% at this meeting, but the focus will be on the language of the statement, which could push bond yields either way. Bond market bulls might be hoping for a dovish Fed, which could lead to lower yields and higher bond prices, while bond bears might be hoping for an unambiguously hawkish Fed, which could increase the odds for a fourth rate hike in 2018 and thereby push bond yields higher and bond prices lower.
Why the Euro Was under Pressure Last Week
By Ricky Cove
Mar 19, 2018 | 8:08 AM
Euro hit by dovish comments
The euro-dollar (FXE) exchange rate closed the week ending March 16 at 1.22, a fall of 0.15% against the US dollar (UUP). The decline in the European currency was fueled by the dovish European Central Bank (or ECB) statement, which was echoed by ECB members in their speeches in the last week. ECB members were clear about their intention to keep the policy guidance unchanged as the European inflation growth remains subdued. A strong euro could further depress import costs, resulting in lower inflation.
European equity markets, which are tracked by the Vanguard FTSE Europe ETF (VGK), had a mixed performance last week. The German DAX (DAX) ended the week lower by 0.23%, the Euro Stoxx (FEZ) was up 0.27%, and France’s CAC gained 0.11% for the week ending March 16.
5
Euro speculative bets increased last week
As per the latest commitment of traders report, released on Friday, March 16, by the Chicago Futures Trading Commission (or CFTC), speculator positions on the euro increased by 13,408 contracts last week. The total net speculative bullish positions on the euro (EUFX) increased from 132,972 contracts to 146,380 contracts as of March 13.
Outlook for euro
This week, the European currency price action is likely to be impacted by the US dollar demand and the FOMC statement. A hawkish FOMC statement could lead to the appreciation of the US dollar against the euro. Several economic data releases from the euro area are expected this week, but they are unlikely to have a major impact on the European currency’s performance this week. In the next part of this series, we’ll analyze why this week is important for the British pound.
Why the British Pound Could Turn Volatile This Week
By Ricky Cove
Mar 19, 2018 | 8:08 AM
British pound posts minor losses last week
The British pound (FXB) appreciated 0.66% against the US dollar (UUP) for the week ending March 16. The pound (GBB) closed for the week at 1.394 as compared to a close of 1.385 in the previous week. There weren’t any major economic data reports from the UK last week, but a weaker euro led to increased demand for the British currency.
British equity markets (BWX) were impacted by increased concerns about global trade wars and closed lower last week. The FTSE 100 Index (EWU) was down 0.84% for the week ending March 16 and closed at 7,164.14.
6
Speculators decrease bullish positions
As per the latest commitment of traders report, released on March 16 by the Chicago Futures Trading Commission (or CFTC), speculators have increased their overall bullish positions by 2,763 contracts in the previous week. The total outstanding net long contracts increased from 5,264 contracts to 8,027 contracts as of March 13.
The week ahead for the British pound
This week is filled with events and economic data releases that could drive the British pound’s volatility higher. The most important event is the EU summit on Thursday and Friday, where they could look at cementing a Brexit transition deal with the EU. As per recent news reports, there could be a deal at this meeting, which could have a positive impact on the British pound. The Bank of England is also scheduled to meet this week, but no major changes are expected after a surprisingly hawkish statement at the last meeting. Overall, a transition deal, if accepted by both sides, could lead to the appreciation of the British pound this week. In the next part of this series, we’ll analyze the price action of the Japanese yen in an uncertain political and economic environment.
What’s in Store for the Japanese Yen This Week?
By Ricky Cove
Mar 19, 2018 | 8:08 AM
Japanese yen appreciated 0.73% last week
The Japanese yen (JYN) managed to claw back its losses after the scare about a second round of tariffs hit the global financial markets last week. The possibility of the second round of tariffs from the Trump administration, especially to target Chinese imports, ignited fears of a trade war. There weren’t many economic data releases from Japan, but the minutes from the Bank of Japan’s meeting last week indicated that the central bank was in no hurry to tighten policy. In the week ending March 16, the Japanese yen (FXY) closed at 106.0 against the US dollar (UUP), appreciating by 0.73%. Japanese equity markets (EWJ), on the other hand, continued to appreciate despite a global decline in risk appetite with the Nikkei 225 (JPXN) posting a weekly gain of 0.97% in the previous week.
7
Speculators decreased bearish bets on the yen
The Japanese yen (YCL) speculators decreased their net short positions on the yen for a fifth consecutive week, as per the latest commitment of traders report, released on March 16 by the Chicago Futures Trading Commission. As of Tuesday, March 13, Japanese yen speculators had a net short position of 79,539 contracts as compared to 86,845 short contracts in the previous week.
The week ahead for the Japanese yen
This week’s price action of the Japanese yen could be driven by demand for the US dollar, especially depending on the outcome of the FOMC meeting. A hawkish FOMC could lead to further depreciation of the Japanese yen against the US dollar, while the opposite could lead the yen to appreciate. Japan’s February exports, March manufacturing, and inflation reports are expected this week.
favorite this postPresident Barak Hussein Obama -- closet Black Muslim?hide this posting
image 1 of 2
"If I had known that the president had posed smiling with [Louis Farrakhan] when he was a Senator, I would not have campaigned for Barack Obama. He has called Judaism a gutter religion. He is a horrible, horrible human being," he continued, "We should have nobody in public office associating with a bigot like Farrakhan." said Harvard Law Professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz.
Farrakhan is a leader of the Nation of Islam, which Dershowitz described as "virulent anti-Semite and anti-American.
A photographer, Askia Muhammad, showed a 2005 picture of Obama and Farrakhan smiling together. He said that afterward, the Congressional Black Caucus contacted him and demanded to have the photo back. "I gave the original disk to him and in a sense swore myself to secrecy because I had quietly made a copy for myself," Muhammad said. Muhammad said he thought the CBC was concerned a photo with Farrakhan could hurt the young senator's future presidential aspirations.
Muhammad added that Obama had Nation of Islam followers working in his Chicago senate office.
do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers
WALL STREET SAYS, Maybe George Soros YOU can perhaps MERGE CANADA/BRAZIL/MEXICO, get rid of the peso, the Canadian currency , and shitty Brazilian currency, those 3 counter is an idea Soros can possibly filter since they are bankrupt… THE USA IS NOT BANKRUPT , WE have more gold bullion in one FAULT ,FORT KNOXX HAS MORE GOLD IN THAT ONE Fault asshole, more gold than all of CHINA, RUSSIA, SAUDIA ARABIA, SWEEDEN, & JAPAN..it’s a beautiful city , that is where, a DONALD TRUMP ,new Royal Castle HOTEL , made of cement bigger than anything England has ever seen, we will use the overinflux of undocumented mexican shit heads to be cement layer masons .
WE ARE NEED A BIGGER WALL THAN THE GREAT WALL of CHINA TO KEEP ALL THESE UGLY SMELLY MEXICAN SHIT HEADS FROM CLIMBING OVER. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA is being heisted by George Soros, this Son of Bitch ,Soros, is a masochist. Soros is in denial , the un-quantifiable merge of the north American Union is an ageNda that is Soros personal independent gigsaw puzzle .. WALL STREET SAYS YOU can maybe MERGE CANADA/BRAZIL/MEXICO, get rid of the peso, the Canadian currency , and shitty Brazilian currency, those 3 counter is an idea Soros can possibly filter since they are bankrupt… THE USA IS NOT BANKRUPT , WE have more gold bullion in one FAULT ,FORT KNOXX HAS MORE GOLD IN THAT ONE Fault asshole, more gold than all of CHINA, RUSSIA,l SAUDIA, SWEEDEN, & JAPAN , COM.. let every NEO-CON GERMAN-Exposing Barack Obama HE is A Russian CLONE Synthetic HUMAN — and this is great news Donald J. Trump you will love this, since this mortified cut throat Barack Obama HEALTH CARE DICK BILL-covers full sex change when your turn 62, this is great idea for the next election Hillary might win as DEMO if she has that maN TO FEMALE TRANSGENDER SEX CHANGE, DEMOCRAT MANDSTILLASRY FIRST TRANSGENDER , FORMER NAME HILLARY FEMALE NOW MALE, MIGHTCAUSE A RALLY TO GET YOU NERVOUS, BUT CONSIDERING THAT ALL DAKA JUICE Chuckie SSCHUMER HAS BEEN DRINKING IT SEEMS aS THOUGH DEMOCRAT CUMMINGS OF CALIFORNIA BETTER FIGURE OUT HOW TO A KNOT OUT OF THIS ONE .. Donald J. Trump2060 The Wall Street Journal Reuters
my document: US strategy to ‘dethrone’ Putin for oil pipelines might provoke WW3
Senior DIA, Air Force and Army officials admit that NATO expansionism and US covert interference in Russian internal politics may trigger “next global conflict”
By Nafeez Ahmed
French soldiers unload tanks from a train in northern Poland for a NATO military exercise (Source: LA Times)
A US Army document concedes the real interests driving US military strategy toward Russia: dominating oil pipeline routes, accessing the vast natural resources of Central Asia, and enforcing the expansion of American capitalism worldwide.
The Russians are coming. They hacked our elections. They are lurking behind numerous alternative political movements and news outlets. Such is the overwhelming chorus from traditional reporting on Russia, which sees the United States as being under threat from fanatical Russian expansionism — expansionism which has gone so far as to interfere dramatically in the 2016 Presidential elections.
Russia is certainly an authoritarian regime with its own regional imperial ambitions. President Vladimir Putin and his cronies are responsible for massive deaths and human rights violations against populations at home and abroad (the latter in war theaters like Syria and elsewhere). Putin has strengthened a system of oligarchical state-dominated predatory capitalism which has widened extreme inequality and concentrated elite wealth. And we will no doubt learn more about what shenanigans Russia did, or did not, get up to in relation to US elections.
For the most part, these are not especially dangerous things to report on from the comfort of the West. Somewhat lacking from conventional reporting, on the other hand, is serious reflection on whether US policies toward Russia have contributed directly to the deterioration of US-Russia relations.
While the bulk of the Western pundit class are busy bravely obsessing over the innumerable evils of Putin, it turns out that the upper echelons of the US military are asking some uncomfortable questions about how we got to where we are.
A study by the US Army’s Command and General Staff College Press of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth reveals that US strategy toward Russia has been heavily motivated by the goal of dominating Central Asian oil and gas resources, and associated pipeline routes.
The remarkable document, prepared by the US Army’s Culture, Regional Expertise and Language Management Office (CRELMO), concedes that expansionist NATO policies played a key role in provoking Russian militarism. It also contemplates how current US and Russian antagonisms could spark a global nuclear conflict between the two superpowers.
The document remains staunchly critical of Russia and Putin, but finds that Russian belligerence cannot be understood without accounting for the context of ongoing US interference in what Russia perceives to be its legitimate ‘sphere of influence.’
Simultaneously, the document admits that far from the US being some innocently hapless victim of Russian interference, the US has at various times run covert “information, economic and diplomatic” campaigns to either “dethrone Putin”, or at least undermine his rule.
An irony of the document is that despite repeatedly recognizing NATO’s own role in provoking Russian militarism, the US Army study refuses to contemplate a fundamental change of course with respect to NATO policies and interests.
The document contains the usual caveat included with these sorts of internal US military studies, noting that its findings represent the views “of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.” Yet in its foreword, Major General John S. Kem, Commandant of the US Army War College in Carlisle, notes that the volume’s insights “are important for Army professionals who lead Soldiers in a variety of missions across the globe”, and should be considered “by planners and policymakers alike.”
“Russia’s strategic change is driven mostly by its concern over the NATO’s expansion at the expense of former Warsaw Pact countries (Eastern Europe) and former Soviet republics (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania),” writes the study’s lead editor and key contributor, Dr. Mahir J. Ibrahimov, Program Manager at the US Army’s CREMLO.
Dr. Mahir J. Ibrahimova, Program Manager at the US Army Combined Arms Center’s Culture, Regional Expertise and Language Management Office (CRELMO), leads a session on how to be a culturally aware leader at the 2015 US Army Leadership and Professional Development Symposium
Ibrahimov was previously the Army’s Senior Culture and Foreign Language Advisor, and instructed US diplomats in language and cultures at the State Department. He had many years prior served in the Soviet Army, witnessing the break-up of the USSR.
In the US Army study, he notes that “relations between the West and Russia have deteriorated to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, eroding global geopolitical stability and damaging trade and economic relations between major global and regional powers.”
But, he writes, official Russian documents including its National Security Strategy and military doctrines show that the driving force behind Russian militarism “is responsiveness to NATO expansion. This is the core principle which is driving Russia’s strategic efforts in the region and beyond.”
Protecting pipelinistan
And what is driving NATO expansionism? While the US Army study highlights concerns about Russian authoritarianism, it remains surprisingly candid in flagging up US energy interests as the primary issue:
“Perhaps the most important reality and rationale for US/Eurasia policy at the time [1990s], however, was the increasing global interdependence in energy and trade,” writes Ibrahimov.
“Vast reserves of oil and natural gas in and around the Caspian Sea were the primary source of the US’s initial interest in the region. That interest could provide the foundation for stronger ties between the US and regional states, with the US providing protection to ensure regional stability and the political independence of the littoral countries.” (p. 8)
Humanitarian intervention and military peacekeeping operations in the region, then, have always had a broader geostrategic agenda related to the “protection” of US access to Caspian oil and gas.
The study points out that US efforts to resolve the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict, for instance, were less about concerns for peace and human rights than “US and Western countries’ economic and strategic interests in Azerbaijan.”
Ibrahimov notes that “a consortium of Western oil companies, five of which were American, signed a $7.5 billion oil contract with Azerbaijan”, proving the latter’s welcome “commitment to a market-oriented economy, and its firm intention to join the international economic system.”
Equally, Azerbaijani oil was a key motivating factor behind Russia’s invasion of Chechnya. While US and Western companies, the study reports, “had been considering several possible routes for the future pipeline,” Russia wanted the pipeline to run though its own and Chechen territory, undermining “American and Western commercial interests in this region… Russia already had such a policy in the case of Kazakhstan, where American oil companies were also involved (i.e., Chevron),” adds Ibrahimov. (p. 10)
The geopolitical pipeline competition was ultimately won by the United States.
In a section titled, ‘Pipeline Politics and its Regional and Global Implications’, the US Army study notes that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline — running from the Azerbaijani capital of Baku through Georgia toward the Turkish port of Ceyhan — “was the first major pipeline to bypass Russian territory.”
Map of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline
Transporting up to one million barrels a day to world markets, the pipeline’s core strategic implication is to:
“… strengthen the political and economic independence of the countries of the region from possible resurgent Russian ambitions. But even before its completion, it had also marked the beginning of the new ‘Great Game’ with global and regional powers such as the US, China, and Russia vying for influence in the area. Once again the region became very attractive for global geopolitics, enhanced by the discoveries of natural resources in Afghanistan such as natural gas, oil, marble, gold, copper, chromite, etc.”
The study also admits that US interests in Afghanistan were preoccupied with the country functioning as a gateway to Central Asian oil and gas reserves:
“At the same time, Afghanistan’s significance stems from its geopolitical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration in the mid-1990s. The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan’s instability.”
Nevertheless, the Trans-Afghan oil pipeline project, known as TAPI for its route through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, has been negotiated and pursued by every single US administration since Clinton.
It finally began construction last month under Donald Trump’s presidency.
The Trans-Afghan pipeline (otherwise known as the TAPI pipeline for connecting Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India)
The document quotes testimony from former US Ambassador James Maresca, who also served as Vice President of International Relations at oil company UNOCAL, then the principal corporate backer of the TAPI pipeline. Ibrahimov recalls that he was privy to high-level State Department discussions on the policy at the time:
“During my diplomatic service in Washington DC and Ambassador Maresca’s tenure at the Department of State, we had numerous discussions on the issues of pipeline politics and US policy in the region.”
What the document does not acknowledge is that the US government’s commitment to the TAPI pipeline was, at that time, premised on a Taliban victory – a policy that backfired rather catastrophically – as I had documentedhalf a year before 9/11.
‘Awash’ in natural resources
A particularly extraordinary contribution to the US Army study is a section authored by Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland, who retired last August from the post of US Co-Chair of the Organization for Security and Cooperation’s Minsk Group. Previously, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, having served in various diplomatic capacities in the region since the early 1990s.
Ambassador (retired) Richard E. Hoagland
Among US strategic objectives in Central Asia, Hoagland lists preventing terrorism, stabilizing Afghanistan, preserving the “independence” of the Central Asian republics, promoting good governance, and the following:
“… safeguard US economic interests and continue to promote economic reform so that the five nations can be better embedded in the global economy.”
Underscoring the centrality of US economic interests, Hoagland extolls a wealth of detail on the region’s abundant energy, mineral and raw material reserves:
“But also, the region is awash in natural resources. Turkmenistan has the fourth-largest natural-gas reserves in the world. Kazakhstan has the second-largest oil reserves of the former Soviet Union, second only to Russia, and US and European international oil companies early on made major investments there that continue to this day. Uzbekistan is a major producer of uranium, as is Kazakhstan, and has large natural-gas reserves, as does, quite likely, Tajikistan. Both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan hold significant gold deposits. In addition, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have world-class hydropower potential, as demonstrated by the current casa-1000 project to deliver their summer-excess hydroelectricity across Afghanistan to electricity-starved Pakistan.”
These countries, then, are ripe for political integration into the US-dominated market economy:
“To add a bit more nuance, the economies of Central Asia are more than the sum of their natural resources and energy-generating potential. Kazakhstan’s early commitment to macro-economic reform has, 20 years later, created a financial-services hub for the region. Uzbekistan’s educated population of about 30 million has a real potential to provide entrepreneurial and innovative economic growth.” (pp. 28–29)
Despite Hoagland’s obligatory lipservice to ‘good governance’ and ‘civil liberties’, neither feature in any meaningful sense in NATO’s priorities. The Central Asian republics are among the most repressive, anti-democratic regimes in the world, consistently lambasted by human rights organizations for their horrific torture and persecution of any political dissent. ‘Democracy’ promotion clearly does not mean actual ‘democracy’ — it simply means a geopolitical alignment with NATO, hostility toward Russia, and an opening up of the economy to US and Western foreign investors, human rights be damned.
The intransigence of independence
Against this backdrop, a principal motivator for US hostility toward Russia is the latter’s consistent effort to integrate interested countries into alternative regional political and economic structures.
“Estranged from the West over NATO Expansion, and especially because of the situation in Ukraine, which led to the Western sanctions, Russia seeks closer economic and political rapprochement with China,” observes lead editor Ibrahimov:
“Russia is currently seeking to create security and economic organizations that could be used to rival the existing structures such as NATO and the World Bank. Russia, China, Iran, and other countries have undertaken these and other steps which are not in the national security interests of the United States.”
The core challenge from Russia, the US Army study implies, is its leadership role in building alternative coalitions to US-dominated political and economic systems. The coalition of new alliances that have emerged as a result — the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS), the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) — “are mostly aimed at opposing US economic and strategic dominance”, the document remarks.
Opposing US dominance appears to be a cardinal sin for US military strategists:
“It is obvious that Russia-China rapprochement presents a profound challenge to the United States. The realpolitik question for US policy makers would be how to prevent this historically unlikely alliance between the two major global and regional players.”
A major priority, then, for US geopolitical strategy is how to break apart these alliances and coalitions between US rivals, which challenge “US economic and strategic dominance”.
One useful mechanism is the nuclear card, which contrary to conventional opinion, has been played far more recklessly by the West than Russia.
NATO provocation heightening threat of global nuclear war
There has been much coverage recently of how Putin poses a grave nuclear threat to the US and the world.
Yet this has ignored the context of Russia nuclear saber-rattling in persistent NATO provocations, as highlighted in a separate chapter in the US Army study exploring how Russian militarism is consistently a response to NATO nuclear expansion.
The section is authored by Colonel Lee G. Gentile, Jr., Vice Commander of the 71st Flying Training Wing at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. He was previously lead operational planner at the Air Forces Central Command Combined Air Operations Center, and went on to serve in Iraq.
Colonel Lee Gentile Jr.
According to Col. Gentile, a co-editor of the US Army study, the origin of Russian paranoia about Western intentions goes back to the early 1950s, when the US adopted the ‘First Offset’ strategy by which it “threatened a nuclear strike in order to ‘convince’ the Kremlin that fighting another world war was not beneficial to the Soviet Union.”
In other words, it was the US that initially threatened the Kremlin with a nuclear first strike policy.
The US Army study acknowledges, however, that:
“Recently declassified Soviet papers, articles, and meeting minutes indicate that the Soviet leadership had no intention of invading Europe.”
That is contrary, it should be remembered, to the official state propaganda at the time, parrotted dutifully by the Western press.
After the experience of the world wars, Russia feared that the West would invade if the USSR was too militarily weak, fears compounded by Western advancements in nuclear weapons technology:
“Therefore, the Soviets developed and tested a nuclear device in 1949 in order to counter the West’s advantage.”
The West then upgraded its nuclear weapons policy. In 1954, the Eisenhower Administration adopted the ‘New Look Policy’ to maintain “a smaller, more-capable, forward-deployed, conventional force that was reinforced by the massive retaliatory power of nuclear weapons.”
Unsurprisingly, this in turn “furthered Soviet fears of Western aggression… Soviet leaders believed that Western deterrent actions were offensive not defensive, and were designed to ‘compel’ Soviet leaders to accept Western political demands.”
In more recent times, US and NATO military expansion was similarly a principal factor in Russian nuclear saber rattling, according to the document.
The US now possesses “global precision-strike capability”. Faced further with “a combined 1.4 million-man NATO military force to the west and a 2.3 million-man Chinese army to the south,” if the Kremlin was to try to “counter the threat conventionally”, its defense spending would reach “unsustainable levels.”
This “helps to explain why the Kremlin is using its nuclear arsenal as a strategic reserve to protect its smaller conventional force while relying on unconventional and asymmetric methods to secure national interests.”
To that extent, Russian belligerence is in some ways a rational strategic response to the perception of NATO imperialism:
“Simply put, Russian leaders want to limit the expansion and influence of NATO, create a buffer between Russia and NATO, re-establish its influence in former Soviet states, and return to being a regional and global power.”
Russia is also “paranoid about a surprise attack from NATO or the US”, a fear which stems from “the German invasion of western Russia during Operation Barbarossa” as well as “US and NATO operations in the Caucuses and the Middle East.”
“When viewed from the Russian standpoint, these fears are understandable,” observes the US Army study, noting that relentless NATO encroachment along Russia’s borders has pushed Russia into a corner in which playing the nuclear card to attempt to deter NATO is its only option:
“Considering that NATO was created to counter the expansion of the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that the Kremlin views expansion as a threat. Every time a former Soviet state is incorporated into NATO, the buffer shrinks. Without that physical buffer, Western military forces move closer to Moscow, eliminating the Kremlin’s ability to trade space for time. Similarly, missile defense erodes the Kremlin’s most powerful strategic and political weapons, its nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. From the Kremlin’s perspective, the West is willing to attack any ‘disruptive’ country that lacks nuclear capability in order to ‘force its political will’ on international and regional affairs. Therefore, the Russian leadership views its nuclear weapons as its most important political tool because they would have limited to no ability to affect regional and international affairs without them.”
The document goes on to compare NATO policy to co-opt former Soviet states to an imagined Russian effort to incorporate Mexico or Canada into the Warsaw Pact, or deploy ballistic missile defences to the Americas — such actions have never been contemplated by Russia, and would of course never be acceptable to the United States. But, the document says, their equivalence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is already being carried out by NATO to weaken Russia. This is why the incorporation of Georgia into NATO “triggered the 2008 Russian invasion of South Ossetia and the Kremlin’s first use of nuclear coercion.” (p. 87)
Based on this analysis, the study advocates more concerted efforts by the West to engage Russia constructively, with a view “to develop a shared understanding of the situation before it leads to a stalemate.” This might “reduce tensions without pursuing actions that the Kremlin will view as threatening.” This recommendation, though, comes with the following stark warning:
“Without dialogue, the risk of another Cold War and possible nuclear confrontation is high.”
Russian regime change?
There is another context to Putin’s paranoid nuclear pronouncements — the justified fear of Western efforts to shape Russian politics.
Unfortunately, the sober and self-reflective analysis contained in some parts of the US Army study is accompanied by aggressive posturing attempting to justify an active policy of US interference in Russian economic and political affairs.
Yet this material is significant precisely for confirming the extent to which the US is willing to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs.
The US Army’s lead culture analyst Dr. Ibrahimov points out that after the Soviet Union’s collapse, the US government “developed a program with the purpose to enhance democracy and free markets in the republics of the former USSR.” The program was inaugurated through the Freedom Support Act of 1992, committing $12 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to facilitate the former Soviet states and Russia moving to “the path of democratic and free market reform.”
While one motivation was to avoid threats from “possible future totalitarian regimes”, the other was blatantly self-interested:
“… an economically open and growing FSU would likely have significant trade and investment benefits for the United States.”
Ibrahimov further observes that through these policies, the US actively attempted to nurture specific Russian political leaders considered amenable to US interests:
“… reliance on personalities, rather than basic principles, in US dealings with Russia tied the future of American interests to the political viability of certain Russian politicians.” (13–14)
A section by study co-editor Gustav A. Otto, Distinguished Chair for Defense Intelligence at the US Army Combined Arms Center and Chief of Training at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), elaborates on how this US strategy of political interference plays out today, with several references to an active covert regime change strategy against Putin.
Gustav A. Otto at the Arthur D. Simons Center
Otto wavers between dismissing the viability of such a strategy, and recognizing its necessity in some form, eventually settling on the notion that while a direct military effort to oust Putin is out of the question, covert mechanisms may be more acceptable.
“Trying to get rid of Putin probably isn’t the answer,” the US Army study observes. “We need look no further than the lineage of his predecessors, or we can look at the case studies of Iraq or Libya. Knocking the king off his throne is nice in fairy tales, but doesn’t seem to work in the real world.”
And yet, the document observes that Russia:
“… may soon feel the pressure of the domestic downturn. They will become increasingly vulnerable as the ruble weakens and the purchasing power at home erodes. Are the West and the US poised to take advantage of this, or will we miss another opportunity?” (p. 103)
What does “taking advantage” actually mean? The document appears to suggest interference in Russia’s forthcoming elections:
“With the 2018 Russian presidential elections, watch for a fourth-term bid by Putin, then look for possible changes to allow more. How to start thinking about it — be deviant and do not forget the old ways. The key is creating a strategy of one’s own, not an ‘anything but’ strategy as Russia appears to have. It will be reactive to a degree, but should focus on putting Putin off balance, without becoming too defensive… The US and the West need to determine what they want Russia to look like, how they want it to behave and if they care if Vladimir Putin is president.” (p. 106)
At no point does Otto recognize the imperial irony in Western leaders believing they have any right whatsoever in determining what Russia should look like. Instead he says:
“As the US and the West wrestle with what they want Russia to look like, they would be well served to pursue a tiered strategy of appeasement, persuasion, and deterrence without seeking to escalate already bloody friction points.”
He doesn’t quite seem to understand that the assumption that the US should be able to shape Russian politics and economics through a “tiered” carrot and stick “strategy” might be a principal cause of escalating those “friction points.”
Along these lines, the document openly acknowledges that US policy is already actively intervening in Russian politics.
Noting that one potential strategy is to “dethrone Putin” through a covert political campaign, rather than any overt intervention, the US Army study remarks that this strategy has already been executed in “fits” and “starts” by the US and, intriguingly, other Western countries:
“Another possible strategy option for the US would be to seek to dethrone Putin, in hopes of a more cooperative successor. Rather than Iraq-like military ousting, the US and the West could drive a cohesive information, economic and diplomatic campaign helping Putin’s supporters choose a new leader… This strategy seems to have fits of starts and stops by the US and several others in the West. Putin is a master at navigating these kinds of threats, and almost seems to invite them, knowing this is a game he excels at. An anti-Putin campaign probably isn’t what the US and the West really want. Rather, it is to minimize new aggression and mitigate behaviors to date.”
With that in mind, the document also sets out more conciliatory gestures to appease Russia, for instance, in “negotiations on any of the frozen conflicts the US, the West and Russia are involved in… One notion might be a bigger role with Iran, Syria or even Turkey.”
This does, indeed, now appear to be the self-serving policy adopted in Syria, where the US is actively planning for an accommodation with Bashir al-Assad. In the words of the DIA’s Otto, “there must be an understanding that some countries may suffer as a result of our actions. A strategy of partial withdrawal from Syria or the Ukraine may actually allow for better future negotiations. The springtime drawdown of Russia from Syria allowed negotiation space for Putin, and even Assad.”
Despite this, the document adds a barely veiled threat amidst this more diplomatic language:
“Putin is rational and he isn’t weak… yet. However, the recent economic turmoil, the frailty of the petrol industry, and a struggling domestic agriculture may eventually force him to address some of these issues. Bread lines in Russia are growing and shelves are becoming barer. We should be ready to strike when that time comes, and it is coming.” (p. 107)
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is the founding editor of INSURGE intelligence. Nafeez is a 16-year investigative journalist, formerly of The Guardian where he reported on the geopolitics of social, economic and environmental crises. Nafeez reports on ‘global system change’ for VICE’s Motherboard, and on regional geopolitics for Middle East Eye. He has bylines in The Independent on Sunday, The Independent, The Scotsman, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, New York Observer, The New Statesman, Prospect, Le Monde diplomatique, among other places. He has twice won the Project Censored Award for his investigative reporting; twice been featured in the Evening Standard’s top 1,000 list of most influential Londoners; and won the Naples Prize, Italy’s most prestigious literary award created by the President of the Republic. Nafeez is also a widely-published and cited interdisciplinary academic applying complex systems analysis to ecological and political violence.
