Russian Nuclear Power Industry and export – NO NUCLEAR WASTE


Mainstream media, or any other media, to the best of my knowledge, has not published any articles relating to the high-tech development that Russia is going to build in many countries around the world.

This technology will not be using newly-mined uranium, but nuclear waste, which is recycled and made harmless. Enough nuclear waste has already been accumulated to enable these power stations to run for the next 300 years.

At the moment nuclear waste cannot be safely disposed of and has a life expectancy of some 1,000 years or more creating extremely dangerous areas where it has been buried or of more concern, thrown out to sea in full fathom five, disintegrating concrete blocks.

Due to the patent that Rosatom has on no nuclear waste and the fuel of the future, they have and are becoming world leaders and providers on a global scale. This technology can also be extended to include upgrading current and outdated nuclear plants and bring them in line with making hazardous waste harmless rather than a liability.


The Russian nuclear industry

The Russian nuclear industry is an undisputed leader in advanced nuclear technologies, providing innovative engineering and construction solutions for nuclear reactors and production of nuclear fuel. Since 1954, when the world’s first nuclear power plant was launched in Obninsk, ROSATOM has amassed a wealth of experience and acquired extensive competencies in large-scale nuclear projects. Russia possesses the most sophisticated nuclear enrichment and reactor engineering technologies – pressurized water reactors designed by Russian engineers have proved their reliability through thousands of reactor years of accident-free operation.

Today the Russian nuclear industry comprises over 400 companies with over 250,000 employees operating in the nuclear fuel cycle, power generation, and R&D sectors. With its 10 nuclear power plants (34 operating power units with 25.2 GW of installed capacity), which generate about 18% of total power output, and the world’s only nuclear icebreaker fleet, Russia is focused on development of the Northern Sea Route and further expansion of nuclear power generation. Recent achievements in these areas include construction of 9 new nuclear reactors (Novovoronezh NPP-2, Leningrad NPP-2, the world’s first floating NPP and others), an additional fourth power unit at Beloyarsk NPP, and a new nuclear icebreaker flagship laid down in 2013 at the Baltic shipyard in Saint Petersburg. Its launch will mark a new stage in exploration of the Arctic region.

International nuclear projects are another focus area of ROSATOM, which is now engaged in the construction of 29 new nuclear reactors in Kudankulam (India), Akkuyu (Turkey), Belarus, Vietnam, Bangladesh and China.

Development of the nuclear industry is seen as a top national priority. It is perceived to be a key sector of the Russian economy, essential for national energy security. The nuclear industry drives demand for other products and services and therefore stimulates engineering, steel making, geology, construction and other sectors of the national economy.

Russian expertise

State-owned Rosatom says that Russia’s nuclear industry amounts to over 400 companies and more than 255,000 employees working across the fuel cycle, power generation and R&D sectors, 34 operating power facilities with an installed capacity of 25.2GW, and the only nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet in the world.

“Rosatom has one highly significant advantage – its the only company in the world which can provide the industry’s complete range of products.”

A succession of initiatives from Vladimir Putin has helped establish the continued development of this industry as a top national priority, both as a means to ensure future domestic energy security and as a key economic sector in its own right, with international projects forming a big focus area for growth. All of the thousands of reactor-years of experience gained since Obninsk – including the safety lessons learnt in the wake of the disaster at Chernobyl – have been effectively packaged to create a unique selling point for Russian expertise on foreign markets. While many critics felt that Fukushima would finally herald the demise of nuclear power, it seems that quite the reverse has turned out to be true. With its appeal now fast growing, particularly in Asia, Russia has been wooing prospective clients with a range of tempting incentives.


A business model known as ‘BOO’ (build, own, operate) has been one of Rosatom’s most successful ploys in this respect. Offered through its export division, Atomstroyexport, BOO was first used five years ago in a deal struck with Turkey and has featured in other agreements since. In effect, the purchasing country simply has to provide a suitable site and sign up to buying the electricity produced, with Russia covering the costs of building and operating the power plant. Particularly for developing countries which cannot afford the high up-front capital investment, the attraction of the BOO model is clear, and there are significant direct benefits for Russia too, not least in terms of the employment it supports.

Brilliant strategic move?

However, there is another side to consider – the push towards exporting nuclear power represents both a move to diversify income now, and a hedge against the future.

By channelling the income stream gained from oil and gas sales into long-term assets, the goal is to cement the country’s future role as a major energy nation. With even Russia’s vast hydrocarbon reserves set to run out eventually – assuming that the world does not abandon fossil fuels altogether, as some suggest it must, long before they do – recycling O&G profits into nuclear power generation against a background of rising demand makes good business sense.

Writing in January 2014, Adams said, “Russia’s decision to invest in nuclear energy capabilities is a brilliant strategic move befitting a nation of chess players”, but back then the Russian sovereign wealth fund was big, and getting bigger. Times – and gas revenues – have changed since then

Driving new developments

Export initiatives aside, there is considerable domestic scope for Russia’s nuclear industry, with Moscow having set a target of increasing the share of electricity generated to 25% by 2030, and Rosatom focussed on developing new technologies, including types of reactors that will be able to burn some spent fuels.

The rising economic and strategic importance of the Arctic, too, provides a potential driver for atomic technology, as Russia looks to develop the Northern Sea Route and explore for energy and mineral resources in the High North. The experience gained with nuclear powered ice-breakers has already led to the production of the Academic Lomonosov – a 144m-long, non-self-propelled vessel, equipped with two reactors and able to generate up to 70MW of electricity. As the flagship of a planned whole new class of ship-based generators, it is destined to be the world’s first mass-produced floating nuclear power station when it comes into service towards the end of 2016.

Mobile and capable of powering small cities, ports or industrial infrastructure, these floating reactors could be a huge asset in remote or inhospitable regions, and Rosatom say that 15 countries, including China, Indonesia and Malaysia, have already expressed an interest in the vessels.

According to the WNA, there are 70 nuclear reactors currently under construction – the most in a quarter of a century – and some 500 more are proposed. While not all of those will ultimately go ahead, it speaks to the world’s growing appetite for nuclear power and for Russia, owning around 40% of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity and a significant share of the proven global uranium reserves. The value of Russia’s current tally of international deals already runs to over $100bn, and the new nuclear tech titan is really only just beginning to flex its muscles.

Happy Birthday, NATO: It’s Time to Retire!

Original source of the article


Written by Danielle Ryan


Birthdays are always a good time to take stock of one’s achievements, make some resolutions and contemplate the road ahead. So, with NATO turning sixty-seven today, perhaps it’s time for the military alliance to engage in some honest self-reflection.

The problem is, sometimes it’s just hard to let go. No one wants to admit their glory days are behind them. Everyone wants to feel they have a purpose, some grand vision yet to fulfill. When the time comes to hang up your hat, some bow out gracefully. Others need to be dragged kicking and screaming.

If Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove’s latest comments are anything to go by, the alliance won’t be performing a graceful exit any time soon. Instead, the 28-member bloc is simply recalibrating its efforts in an attempt to justify its existence and remain relevant.

‘Not a peace program, a war program’

Intending to provide collective security against the Soviet Union, the military alliance was founded on April 4, 1949 by 12 countries, led by the United States. The bloc would aim to prevent the spread of communism and promote American economic interests across the European continent. Once the Soviet Union collapsed and ceased to exist in December 1991, NATO was at a bit of a loose end. Instead of disbanding, the organization continued to usher in new members in bouts of expansion that were sure to provoke modern Russia.

As I have written before, there were those even at the time of the organization’s founding that foresaw such a situation emerging. US Senator Robert A. Taft — the son of President William Howard Taft — was one of them. Taft was outspoken in his misgivings about the appropriateness of such an alliance. He believed that a military bloc built on arming nations against the USSR could leave Moscow feeling “ringed” in and could lay the groundwork for another world war — even going so far as to say it is “not a peace program, it is a war program.” In a speech explaining his vote against the formation of the alliance, he asked: “How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?”

For as long as it has existed, NATO has been geared primarily towards serving Washington’s geostrategic interests. It was then, as it is now, far more about creating vassal states in Europe that would do America’s bidding than it was about keeping them safe. The goal was to unite as many nations as possible under a pro-Washington umbrella which would rarely, if ever, question US foreign policy.

NATO’s greatest hits

Despite the fact that its original adversary obviously no longer posed any threat to its member states, NATO could hardly just sit twiddling its thumbs, waiting for something to happen. It wouldn’t do to simply disband such a useful tool of political influence, so Washington needed to make it look useful. It needed to justify its existence.

Suddenly, the alliance was about to fall head over heels in love with “humanitarian” interventions. Or, as Noam Chomsky has put it, the NATO that emerged after 1991 was basically “a US-run intervention force.” More interesting though, was the fact that NATO’s interventions over the past two-and-a-half decades have actually had little to do with maintaining the security of its members, despite the fact that it claims its “essential purpose” is to “safeguard” their freedom and security. The “defensive” alliance, which is “committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes,” has simply acted as a front for US aggression on three different continents.

In one of NATO’s most recent displays of its commitment to peace, it called for the implementation of a no-fly zone in Libya and then proceeded to bomb the country — once the richest in Africa — back into the dark ages, leaving it a failed state. Under the guise of humanitarian intervention, NATO provided cover for a regime-change operation that Washington had been planning for decades.

During the 1990s, NATO intervened in the Yugoslav wars, which involved a disastrous attempt to implement a no-fly zone in Bosnia between 1993 and 1995 and a 78-day bombing campaign in Yugoslavia which reduced much of Belgrade’s infrastructure to rubble and killed hundreds of civilians. These conflicts posed no direct threat to NATO states, but the pretense was that of necessary“humanitarian” intervention. The reality, as ever, was about little more than shifting the political balance into Washington’s favor.

Justifying its existence

But none of that is enough. Washington can’t sell NATO as a peace-loving military organization that intervenes in external conflicts out of the goodness of its heart. Nobody would be much interested in joining that. There still must be a tangible, visible threat to the safety of member states. Enter a “resurgent and aggressive” Russia. NATO’s press office has gone into overdrive since 2013 hyping a Russian threat. Vladimir Putin has been on the verge of invading the Baltics for about two years now. That there is no evidence of any imminent threat to anyone is irrelevant; the idea is to keep repeating it until everyone believes there is.

Moscow’s sin, Breedlove recently said, is that it “continues to seek to extend its influence on its periphery and beyond.”There is of course huge irony in hearing this from the head of a military organization that allows the US to extend its influence about four and a half thousands miles away from its border.

Not content to let bygones be bygones and work in tandem with Moscow on crucial issues, differences aside, NATO has continued to exacerbate tensions. As one analyst noted, by expanding towards its border, NATO has “deliberately and recklessly posed a major threat to the security of the Russian Federation.” All the while, NATO has played the victim.

Time to say goodbye

A broken clock is right twice a day. US presidential candidate Donald Trump may be a bumbling fool, but in his latest assessment of NATO as “obsolete” he is absolutely correct.

Sixty-seven years after its founding, NATO exists for no good reason. Where threats don’t exist, it imagines them. Where tensions should be minimal, it heightens them. In the grander scheme of things, it serves the interests of only one of its members.

It’s time to call it a day.

Reprinted with permission from RT.

Bosnia – Hotbed of Radical Islam in Europe


Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

From 1992 to 1995, Bosnia was ravaged by a war pitting Muslims (known as Bosniaks), Serbs and Croats against each other.

Thousands of foreign Mujahedeen guerrillas entered the country to battle rampaging Serb forces. The 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement ended the fighting. It also partitioned Bosniaalong religious lines, creating two quasi-national entities – the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Bosnian Serb Republic.

Yet, after the war, many jihadists did not leave. The Saudi government has spent millions funding the construction of mosques and religious education centers. More ominously, Saudi-backed clerics have vigorously promoted Wahhabism, an intolerant and extreme form of Islam. In pamphlets, books and sermons, Wahhabis demand an Islamist Bosnia where Orthodox Christian Serbs and Catholic Croats are subjugated under Shariah law. The goal is also to drive out Western, especially American, influence. It’s no accident that Mr. Jasarevic is a Wahhabi. Militant Islam has regained a foothold in the Balkans.

For the past decade, anti-American sentiment has intensified among segments of Bosniaks. Following the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, U.S. troops found more than 1,000 dead jihadists on the battlefield possessing Bosnian passports. The Saudis have supported several Bosnian charities serving as front groups for al Qaeda cells. Radical organizations, such as the Young Muslims, have proliferated. During the Iraq war, some Bosnian Muslim fighters joined the insurgency against American forces. At one of Sarajevo’s main mosques, the second-highest-ranking cleric in the country, Ismet Spahic, publicly denounced the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq as “genocide.” Western intelligence reports say Bosnia has become fertile soil for recruiting “white al Qaeda” – Islamic extremists with Caucasian features, who could easily blend into American or European cities and commit heinous atrocities.

Western public officials, however, have refused even to acknowledge the Islamist problem. For example, from 2002 through 2006, the international high representative for Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown, repeatedly downplayed the rise of Wahhabism under his watch. Mr. Ashdown acted as the viceroy of Bosnia. He preferred to preside over pompous ceremonies, amass administrative power and gorge at elaborate banquets. He refused to speak out against incidents of Islamic extremism, such as vandalism against Catholic churches, the harassment of priests and nuns, and the growing persecution of Bosnian Croatians. He feared offending Muslim sensibilities.

The irony is that it was American air power that finally brought the Bosnian Serbs to heel and saved countless Bosniak lives. And still, jihadists such as Mr. Jasarevic are eager to wage holy war. This reveals the moral depravity and spiritual darkness at the heart of Islamic fundamentalism. The fundamentalists cannot be appeased. The West – including the peoples of the Balkans – must awaken to this evil force lurking in the heart of Europe.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.




USA Presidential Elections – USA Democracy Debunked

Original publisher of the article


Who will be the next President of the United States?


Thierry Meyssan analyses the political and electoral system of the United States. He believes that the only true issue of the Presidential election is the maintenance of power in the hands of the WASPs, which has never been contested since the Declaration of Independence. While Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the guarantors of this status, the candidacy of Donald Trump announces a profound upheaval of the system which will only occur once the Anglo-Saxons become the minority.

The US primaries offer a depressing spectacle during which the main candidates do not seem to be aware that their reckless judgements and demagogic declarations will have consequences, both interior and exterior, if they should manage to become President.

Despite appearances, the Presidential function enjoys only limited power. Thus, it was obvious to everyone that President George W. Bush was incapable of governing, and that others did it for him. In just the same way, it is obvious that President Barack Obama is unable to inspire obedience in his own administration. For example, we can see men from the Pentagon waging a ferocious war against men from the CIA on the battlegrounds of Ukraine and Syria. In reality, the main power of the White House is not in commanding the armies, but in naming or confirming 14,000 senior civil servants – 6,000 of whom are nominated when the new President takes office. Beyond appearances, the Presidency is therefore the guarantee of the maintenance of power by the governing class – which is why it is the power structure, and not the People, who decide the election.

Let’s remember that, according to the Constitution (article 2, section 1), the President of the United States is not elected by universal suffrage, as the ignorant media pretend, but only by the 538 governing representatives. The Constitution states no obligation for these governors to nominate electors who correspond to the desires expressed by their citizens during the preceding ballot. Thus, in 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to invalidate the electors designated by the governor of Florida, even when there was doubt concerning the desires expressed by the electors of that state.

Let us also remember that the «primaries» are not organised by the political parties, as in Europe, but by the states – under the responsibility of the governors and each according to his own system. The primaries are designed so that, in fine, the major parties each present a candidate for the Presidential function who is compatible with the interests of the governors. They are therefore organised on the Soviet model of «democratic centralism» in order to eliminate any individual with an original thought, or simply anyone who may risk questioning the system, to the profit of a «consensual» personality. In the case where the participating citizens are unable to nominate a candidate, or particularly if they manage to nominate one who is incompatible with the system, the party Convention which follows will decide, if necessary, by overturning the citizens’ vote.

The US primaries are therefore not a «democratic moment», but on the contrary, a process which, on the one hand, allows the citizens to express themselves, while on the other, directs them to give up their own interests and line up behind a candidacy which conforms to the system.

n 2002, Robert A. Dahle, professor of Constitutional Law at Yale university, published a study of the way in which the Constitution had been written, in 1787, in order to ensure that the United States would never become a true democracy [1]. More recently, in 2014, two professors of Political Science, Martin Gilens at Princeton and Benjamin I. Page at Northwestern, demonstrated that the system has evolved in such a way that all laws are now voted at the demand and under the control of an economic elite, without ever taking into account the opinions of the population [2].

Barack Obama’s Presidency was marked by the financial crisis, followed by the economic crisis in 2008, whose main consequence was the end of the social contract. Until now, it was the «American Dream» which united US citizens, the idea that anyone could rise out of misery and become rich by the fruit of their own efforts. All sorts of injustice could be accepted, as long as there was always the hope of being able to «get clear». As from now, with the exception of the «super-rich» who continue to get richer, the best that can be hoped for is to avoid plummeting into oblivion.

The end of the «American Dream» first of all led to the creation of movements rooted in anger – to the right, the Tea Party in 2009, and to the left, Occupy Wall Street in 2011. The general idea was that the unegalitarian system was no longer acceptable, not because it had weakened, but because it had become fixed and permanent. The supporters of the Tea Party claimed that in order for the situation to improve, it was necessary to lower taxes and let people work their own way out, rather than waiting for social protection – while the people of Occupy Wall Street thought, on the contrary, that it was better to tax the super-rich and redistribute what had been taken from them. However, this stage was overtaken in 2015 by Donald Trump, a billionaire who has no argument with the system, but claims that he has profited by the «American Dream» and that he can relaunch it. In any case, that’s how the citizens seem to have understood his slogan « America great again ! » Trump’s supporters have no intention of tightening their belts a few more notches in order to finance the military-industrial complex and reboot imperialism, but hope, in their turn, to be empowered to become rich, just like several generation of US citizens before them.

While the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have legitimised respectively the candidacies of Ted Cruz for the Republicans and Bernie Sanders for the Democrats, the candidacy of Donald Trump endangers the positions acquired by those who protected themselves during the financial crisis in 2008 by blocking the system. It thus appears that he is not opposed to the super-rich, but to the senior civil servants and political professionals, all the «hidden profiteers», who enjoy huge salaries without ever taking personal risks. If we were to compare Trump to certain European personalities, we would not be looking at Jean-Marie Le Pen or Jörg Haider, but at Bernard Tapie and Silvio Berlusconi.

How will the gouvernors react?
Who will they elect as President?

Until now, the «US aristocracy» – according to the expression of Alexander Hamilton – was composed exclusively of WASPs, or White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Originally, the «P» stood for «Puritans», but with time, the concept widened to include all «Protestants». However, a first exception was made in 1961, with Irish Catholic John Kennedy, whose election enabled a peaceful resolution of the problem of racial segregation, and a second, in 2008, with the Kenyan Barack Obama, which enabled the illusion of racial integration. In any case, in neither of these cases did the elected official use his power to to renovate the governing class. Furthermore, despite the promise of general disarmament by Kennedy and nuclear disarmament by Obama, neither of them was able to do make any headway at all against the military-industrial complex. It is true that in both cases, they had been obliged to accept a representative of the complex as their Vice-President – Lyndon B. Johnson and Joe Biden – a replacement measure which, in Kennedy’s case, was activated.

Donald Trump, with his straight-talking attitude, incarnates a form of populism which is opposed to the conventional manners of the «politically correct» so dear to the WASPs. The uneasy alliance between the President of the National Governors Association, the governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, and Donald Trump clearly demonstrates that an agreement between Trump and the ruling class will be very difficult to establish.

We are left with two other options – Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. Cruz is a Hispanic who, on the intellectual level, became a WASP after his «conversion» to evangelical protestantism. His nomination enabled an operation comparable to that of the election of Obama, but this time by manifesting a desire to integrate the «Latinos» after having favoured the «blacks». Unfortunately, although he was launched by a company which works for both the CIA and the Pentagon, he is a totally artificial personage who will have a hard time fitting the costume. That leaves feminist lawyer Hillary Clinton, whose election will enable power to manifest a desire to integrate women. But her irrational behaviour and explosions of hysterical fury creates anxiety. Furthermore, she is currently the target of a serious legal enquiry which makes her easy to blackmail and therefore to control.

Please use the LINK to finish reading of the original article



Silk Road of 21 st century: “One belt, one road”


By Zivadin Jovanovic, Chairman of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals


Beginning of March I have returned from China where I participated in the International Silk Road Think Tank conference, held in the Chinese Municipality of Shenzhen.
The Belt and Road Initiative refers to the proposal by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013. There were 80 think tank participants from about 50 countries of Europe, Asia, Middle East and South America. High representatives of the government agencies from a number of countries, such as high ranking diplomats were also present (from Israel, Iran, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan). Among prominent politicians who participated were Alfred Gusenbauer, former Chancellor of Austria, Roza Otunbayeva, former President of Kyrgyzstan, and others.
Hosts and organizers were the Chinese Center for Contemporary World Studies (CCCWS), the Government of the Municipality of Shenzhen and the Fudan University of Shanghai. The International Think Tank Association of the New Silk Road was established and the Shenzhen Declaration were launched.
Foreign guests also visited Beijing, Chongqing and the district of Dazu, Sichuan Province. In Shenzhen (seat of mobile telephone production, 13 millions of inhabitants, next to Hong Kong) a welcome to the foreign participants was accorded by top local Government leaders and high politicians and scientists from Beijing.
Chongqing, with 33 million inhabitants on the Yangtze River, I learned, is the largest city in China, producing 3 million cars and 55 million laptop computers yearly. It plays one of the key roles in connecting Central China regions eastward to the Pacific and South East Asia and westward to Central Asia, the Volgograd region in Russia and Central Europe.
This particular connectivity Chongqing –Volgograd region was promoted by presidents of China and Russia – Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.
The Silk Road is a multidimensional global project and aims at modernizing and expanding fiscal connectivity between China, Asia, Africa and the whole of Europe, economic development of the vast belt along the New Silk Road but at the same time, reinforcing cultural cooperation, understanding and mutual trust among nations and civilizations. It presupposes construction and modernisation of modern roads, railways, air connections, energy, food and industry production, modernisation of Sea transport, facilities and communication, in general. It requires investment of about 900 billion US dollars from chinese sources. EU is expected to provide additional 315 billion of US dollars in order to be able to fully benefit from the Initiative. So far, according to available information, the EU could secure only 60 billion approaching China for the rest. The US seem to be unwilling so far to join, or support the Chinese New Silk Road Initiative. The US has not joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in spite of the fact that their closest European allies, including Great Britain, have joined this Bank which already attracted about 60 member countries. Instead, US seem trying to get together all Asian and Pacific Ocean countries which supposedly have any reservation, or issue in dispute, towards China, to form an alternative integration counterbalancing if not obstructing Chinese Initiative. Not
being pleased with EU joining the Chinese Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank. Washington apparently steps up pleasures on Brussels to approve TTIP and let it coming into force, as possible. Kind of “dead race”, for some countries economic for the others geopolitical one, is going on not only among adversaries, but among some traditional allies, too.

Apart from the EU which has primarily economic interests to join the Initiative, the Group “China plus 16” has been established three years ago to cater for the interests of Central and South East European countries within the Initiative. For various infrastructural projects of this particular Group, for the time being, China has provided 10 billion US dol-lars. Serbia has been promised 1.5 billion which makes her a rather high ranking partner. Part of that sum has already been engaged in construction of two very important bridges – one over Danube and the other over Sava river, with the rest reserved for modernization of the Belgrade-Budapest railway. It is only the beginning of modernisation of the European corridor No. 10, connecting the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki in Greece with Central and Northern Europe.

China is also engaged in the construction of the Belgrade-Bar Highway (Montenegro, Adriatic), the thermoelectric project Obrenovac II, while negotiations are under way about the construction of a free zone Industrial Park, the first of that kind in this part of Europe. In all Serb-Chinese joint projects special consideration is given to compliance with the highest EU standards of environmental protection. Some participants in the discussion at the Shenzhen Conference have underlined the importance of connecting “Three Seas” – Adriatic, Black and Baltic. In order to optimize connectivity the Danube River water way
should be improved and modernized. The Initiative of the New Silk Road (“Belt and Road”) is only four years old. Yet, it has already embraced 75 Free zones and Industrial parks in 35 countries along the Belt. They employed about 950,000 persons and provided the tax revenue of over 100 billion of US dollars to the participating countries. New highways, railways, ports and bridges – in addition. Isn’t that a promising start of the New Silk
Road Initiative, notwithstanding hardships in the global world economy?



Oliver Stone condemns Clinton’s corrupt policy


Source of the original article

An Academy Award-winning movie director criticized former US State Secretary for contributing to almost every major conflict of recent decades and for refusing to accept the fact that “the Cold War” era is over.


Mr. Stone spoke in support of Democratic candidate for President of the United States Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders arguing that he is the one who will not further invest in war, but will rather take time delving into internal problems instead.

“I’m praying still for Bernie Sanders because he’s the only one willing, at least in the name of fiscal sanity, to cut back on our foreign interventions, bring the troops home, and with these trillions of dollars no longer wasted on malice, try to protect the ‘homeland’ by actually rebuilding it and putting money into its people, schools, and infrastructure”, the critically-acclaimed moviemaker wrote on his Facebook page.

Although the Oscar-winning director admitted that the numbers currently favor Hillary Clinton, Stone denounced the front-runner’s ‘corrupt’ policy.

“He [Sanders] is the only one who has raised his voice against the corruption in our politics,” Mr. Stone asserted. “Clinton has embraced this corruption.”

He added that Clinton’s presidency would bring more destruction that good, citing the ex-Secretary of State’s unflattering record which includes supporting multiple conflicts like “the barbaric ‘contras'” against the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, bombing of the former Yugoslavia in 1999, the never-ending Iraq War, “Afghan mess”, “the destruction of the secular state of Libya” and most recent attempt at “regime change” in Syria.

“Every one of these situations has resulted in more extremism, more chaos in the world, and more danger to our country,” he warned.