Russia says Putin won't die in a plane crash because their domestic aircraft 'are very reliable vehicles'

UNLIKE THE WAGNER GROUP LEADERSHIP

Kwan Wei Kevin Tan
Tue, June 11, 2024 

Recent aviation accidents have claimed the lives of Iran's president and Malawi's vice president.


But Russia says Vladimir Putin is safe if he travels on their "very reliable" domestic aircraft.


Russian flight safety incidents have more than doubled in the past year, per JACDEC.

A Russian official says the country's leader, Vladimir Putin, won't get caught in a plane crash if he travels on domestic aircraft, state news agency TASS reported on Tuesday.

"The Russian president uses domestic aircraft. These are very reliable vehicles," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists.

Peskov was speaking at a press briefing when he was asked about the recent aviation accidents that claimed the lives of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Malawi's Vice President Saulos Chilima.

Raisi was flying over northwestern Iran when his helicopter crashed on May 19. Iran's foreign minister, the governor of Iran's East Azerbaijan province, and other officials were also on board the helicopter. No one survived the deadly incident.

Chilima, meanwhile, was killed in a plane crash along with nine other passengers on Tuesday. Malawi's President Lazarus Chakwera said Chilima's plane was found "completely destroyed" near a hill in northern Malawi.

However, Peskov said such incidents were unlikely to occur with Russian aircraft, given what he said were Russia's rigorous safety standards.

"All machinery in our country that transports citizens is also maintained at the proper level. There are very strict standards in this regard, which are, of course, observed," Peskov said.

"We have monitoring agencies," he continued. "The system works."

To be sure, Russia doesn't exactly have the best record when it comes to flight safety.

In February, the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre (JACDEC) revealed that Russian flight safety incidents have more than doubled in the past year, going from 37 cases in 2022 to 81 in 2023.

The Russian aviation industry's flight safety problems are in large part due to crippling economic sanctions the West imposed following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Such restrictions have made it difficult for Russia's airlines to maintain their aircraft since they can't buy new planes or parts.

In fact, the number of flight safety incidents in Russia might be much higher, says JACDEC founder and CEO Jan-Arwed Richter.

"These numbers only reflect cases that became public. There is still a dark figure of unreported incidents," Richter told The Telegraph in February.

Business Insider

Kremlin Explains Why Putin Won’t Die in a Crash Like Iran’s Presiden

Allison Quinn

THE DAILY BEAST
Tue, June 11, 2024

The prospect of Russian President Vladimir Putin dying in a fiery plane crash came up Tuesday when the Kremlin was asked if it had any concerns about aircraft safety in the wake of two world leaders plummeting from the sky in recent weeks.

The vice president of Malawi was confirmed dead Tuesday in the latest plane crash, just a couple weeks after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi was killed when his helicopter went down.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov assured that Putin uses “domestic aircraft,” which he claimed are “very reliable” and “subject to special maintenance.” In fact, he said, all Russian aircraft are maintained in accordance with “strict standards” that ensure safety.

Russians Terrified by Putin’s Bunker Mentality as He Turns 70 With His Finger on the Nuclear Button

“There are regulatory agencies, so the system works here,” he said.

His assurances, strangely, came just a few hours after the Russian Defense Ministry announced that a military jet had gone down in the mountains of North Ossetia and killed all crew members on board after a “technical malfunction.”

The International Civil Aviation Organization, part of the United Nations, deemed Russia one of the four most dangerous countries to fly in after at least 180 aviation accidents there last year, twice as many as in 2022, Novaya Gazeta Europe reported. The country had a poor flight safety record even before Western sanctions left airlines deprived of spare parts for foreign-made planes.

Data from the Aviation Safety Network shows more plane crash fatalities in Russia over the past two decades than in any other country.

Showdown Brewing Over Ballistic Missile Interceptor Site On East Coast

Howard Altman
Tue, June 11, 2024 

Artist rendering of NGI in flight.

The White House does not want to see a third ballistic missile interceptor site created on the East Coast in addition to the ones already in operation in Alaska and California.

“There is no operational need for such a site to protect the Homeland against potential ballistic missiles originating from Iran or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK),” the White said in its “Statement on Administration Policy.”

North Korea Solid Fuel HWASONG18 ICBM. KCNA

The Biden administration is “strongly” opposing a measure in the House Armed Services Committee's (HASC) Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act legislation calling for the establishment by December 2030 of an “additional continental United States interceptor site, located at the Department of Defense’s conditionally designated preferred site of Fort Drum, New York.”


In arguing for the Fort Drum site, HASC had an opposite take from the White House, stating that it is “needed to enhance the protection of the United States homeland against potential long-range ballistic missiles originating from Iran or North Korea.”

HASC also mandated that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) begin providing an annual report, starting no later than Dec. 31, about the status of the planning and design, construction, development, and equipment requirements for the interceptor site. In addition, the committee wants to know plans for deploying additional missile defense sensor discrimination capabilities there.

The HASC legislation does not include a price tag, but last year, then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley told Congress it “would take billions; I don't know exact cost figures, but take billions,” to build the Fort Drum interceptor site.

The U.S. now has two launch sites already established to counter long-range ballistic missile threats; the primary one at Fort Greely, Alaska, and a smaller one at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The missiles are Ground-Based Interceptors or GBIs.

A Ground-Based Interceptor. US Army

GBIs are part of the U.S. military's Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile defense system (GMD). GMD is designed to physically knock out long-range ballistic missile threats to the U.S. homeland while they are still in space. The entire GMD system architecture ties into a network of ground-, sea-, and space-based sensors and command and control systems. You can read all about how midcourse intercept works in this past explainer of ours.

The White House said that the existing sites will be sufficient to counter threats under the planned Next Generation Interceptor (NGI) program, which will ultimately replace the GBI. You can read much more about that program in our deep dive that questioned its exorbitant nearly $20 billion price tag here.

An infographic from Lockheed Martin on its NGI design., Lockheed Martin

The Pentagon “has prioritized improving the probability of successfully intercepting missile threats by completing development” of NGI, “ which will begin fielding in 20 available silos in Alaska in 2028,” the White House stated. “The NGI will protect all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico against existing threats from the DPRK and potential future threats. The Department will continue to monitor developments in these threats and evolutions in the capability of the nation’s Ballistic Missile Defense System.”

The NGI is a multiple-kill vehicle interceptor "hit-to-kill" kinetic weapon designed to destroy its targets by smashing into them outside the Earth's atmosphere. By contrast, the GBI features a single Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) that engages a single target. You can see a successful test of a GBI last year in the video below.

https://youtu.be/kxRDK2SYSlg?t=3

Multiple kill vehicles allow the NGI to engage more than one target at a time or assign more than one kill vehicle to an incoming target. That’s a big advantage over single-kill vehicle interceptors like the GBI, especially given the very limited numbers being produced. This will allow for better effectiveness defending against multiple missile attacks. This all relies on a multitude of sensors, from the sea to space, to help detect, classify and guide the warhead to the target or targets. The Pentagon’s developing satellite-based space tracking layer, which provides global indications, warning, tracking, and targeting of advanced missile threats, should eventually help make these engagements more seamless and less reliant on terrestrial sensors.

The Pentagon is asking for more than $2.5 billion in the Fiscal Year 2025 budget for the GMD program. That includes continuing NGI All-Up Round (AUR) development “to enhance homeland defense interceptor capability and capacity to increase current fleet size to 64 interceptors (44 GBIs and 20 NGIs) as early as the end of the decade.”

NGI funding provides for “the analysis, design, development, prototyping, integration and relevant environment testing to mature the booster, payload, sensor, and design-specific critical technologies and technology elements,” of the weapon, according to the Pentagon. It also “upgrades and consolidates ground testing infrastructure and facilities” as well as upgrades and replaces “ground system infrastructure fire control/kill vehicle software to improve the reliability and cybersecurity resiliency of the GMD weapon system.” In addition, it funds “Ground, Cyber and Flight testing to support the Integrated Master Test Plan.”

A notional rendering of the Next Generation Interceptor. Lockheed Martin

In April, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) downselected Lockheed Martin to be the prime contractor on the $17.8 billion NGI program. That was after MDA awarded development contracts for NGI to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman in March 2021.

That's a very large price tag for a program that, as of now, includes just delivered 20 interceptors. As it sits, NGI will augment GBI, but there are hopes that it would replace the latter entirely as those older interceptors age out and become less operationally relevant.

While existing North Korean ballistic missile technology can reach the entirety of the United States, the reliability of its reentry vehicles and nuclear warheads remains in question. North Korea's rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal and long-range missile inventory has also drawn concerns that it could numerically outpace the GMD system in the not too distant future. As for Iran, it is developing its long-range ballistic capabilities as well but has yet to design one that can reach more than 1,200 miles.

Some have argued that a greater amount of focus is needed on securing the homeland against lower-end conventional threats, like long-range attack drones and cruise missiles, than against ICBMs. America’s GMD capability can only work against low-volume nuclear missile attacks by rogue states, not major powers like China and Russia.

NGI, which won’t come online until 2028 at the earliest, has yet to be flight-tested. The U.S. has made a huge bet that it will be able to add to and possibly replace GBI to meet North Korean and Iranian threats.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Supreme Court asks Biden administration for feedback on Hawaii Big Oil lawsuit

Zack Budryk
Mon, June 10, 2024 



The Supreme Court solicited the Biden administration’s views on two lawsuits by the city of Honolulu that accuse the oil and gas industries of knowingly suppressing the truth about their roles in climate change.

“The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States,” the court wrote Monday.

The Hawaii capital first sued several major fossil fuel companies in 2020, alleging they had created a public nuisance with their contributions to climate change and failing to warn the public about how their products would affect the environment.


Hawaii’s top court had earlier ruled that the lawsuit could proceed, writing that the defendants “knew about the dangers of using their fossil fuel products, failed to warn consumers about those known dangers, and engaged in a sophisticated disinformation campaign to increase fossil fuel consumption, all of which exacerbated the impacts of climate change in Honolulu.” The defendants responded by appealing to the nation’s highest court.

The court’s request will push back its decision on whether to review the case. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the consideration. While the order does not provide an explanation, Alito’s most recent available financial disclosures indicate he owns stock in ConocoPhillips, one of the defendants in the lawsuits.

Several states and localities are the plaintiffs in ongoing lawsuits seeking to hold oil and gas companies civilly liable for the effects of climate change. The Honolulu cases are the furthest along, and a Supreme Court decision on either side could have major implications for such legal arguments.

In a statement, Ted Boutrous, counsel for Chevron Corp., said “the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision flatly contradicts U.S. Supreme Court precedent and federal circuit court decisions, including the Second Circuit which held in dismissing New York City’s similar lawsuit, ‘such a sprawling case is simply beyond the limits of state law.’ These meritless state and local lawsuits violate the federal constitution and interfere with federal energy policy.”

Shell, ConocoPhilips and Exxon Mobil declined to comment to The Hill.

The Hill has reached out to the other defendants in the case — Sunoco, Aloha Petroleum, Marathon Petroleum, BHP and BP — and attorneys representing Honolulu for comment.




Supreme court ruling delays climate litigation big oil has sought to thwart
Dharna Noor
Mon, June 10, 2024 

An oil refinery in Houston, Texas, in 2020.Photograph: Mark Felix/AFP/Getty Images

The supreme court on Monday asked the Biden administration to weigh in on big oil’s request to thwart litigation that could put them on the hook for billions of dollars.

The one-line order will delay the litigation from advancing to trial. It follows an unprecedented pressure campaign from far-right fossil fuel allies on the court.

“Big oil companies are fighting desperately to avoid trial in lawsuits like Honolulu’s, which would expose the evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s climate lies for the entire world to see,” said Richard Wiles, president of the non-profit Center for Climate Integrity, which supports climate accountability litigation.

Honolulu is one of dozens of cities and states to sue oil majors for allegedly hiding the dangers of their products from the public. In October, Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that the suit can go to trial.

But the defendants petitioned the US supreme court in February to review that decision, arguing the cases should be thrown out because emissions are a federal issue that cannot be tried in state courts.

The high court receives thousands of petitions each year, giving each one only a small chance of being reviewed. But in recent weeks, rightwing fossil fuel allies have pushed the justices to take up oil companies’ request, publishing a slew of op-eds and social media advertisements.

Some of the groups behind the pressure campaign – which experts say is unprecedented – are connected to far-right supreme court architect Leonard Leo, who co-chairs the ultraconservative legal advocacy group the Federalist Society.

“I have never, ever seen this kind of overt political campaign to influence the court like this,” said Patrick Parenteau, professor and senior climate policy fellow at Vermont Law School, told the Guardian last week.

It is not clear how much Monday’s order will delay the Honolulu case, which was filed in 2020. In October 2022, the supreme court referred a similar petition, involving a climate accountability case brought by Colorado communities, to the Department of Justice. The solicitor general weighed in the following March, siding with the plaintiffs.

While awaiting an opinion in the Honolulu case, companies may also file motions to stay – or pause – proceedings in similar litigation filed by other cities and states, though it is not clear the lower courts will grant them.

On the campaign trail, Biden promised to push his justice department to “strategically support” climate litigation. Advocates say Monday’s order will provide the Biden Department of Justice with an opportunity to make good on that promise.

The solicitor general, they say, should affirm the Hawaii supreme court’s earlier decision and call for the petition to be rejected.

The oil companies insist that only federal policy should handle the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. But the plaintiffs and their supporters say that the lawsuit is “not seeking to solve climate change or regulate emissions”, but rather aiming to force big oil to “stop lying and pay their fair share of the damages they knowingly caused”, said Alyssa Johl, vice-president of legal at the Center for Climate Integrity.

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the supreme court’s consideration of the petition, probably because he owned stock in ConocoPhillips, a defendant in the case.


Supreme Court seeks US government views on Honolulu climate suit against oil

 companies

Mon, June 10, 2024 


A no parking sign turns motorists away from a view on the coastline southeast of Honolulu


By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to offer its views on a bid by Sunoco and other oil companies to scuttle a lawsuit by Honolulu accusing them of deceiving the public about climate change.

The request will delay a decision by the justices on whether to hear an appeal filed by the oil companies after Hawaii's top court let the suit proceed. Other defendants in the lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law, include Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, BHP Group, Marathon Petroleum, Chevron and Shell.

Honolulu has accused them of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by the burning of fossils fuels.

The administration's legal position will come in a brief filed by the solicitor general, the Justice Department lawyer who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court.

The suit was filed in 2020 by the city and county of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, a semi-autonomous city agency. The plaintiffs said misleading statements made by the companies about the impact of their fossil fuel products paved the way for property and infrastructure damage caused by human-induced climate change.

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

China has a ‘near monopoly’ on many critical minerals. JPMorgan says it could be the next battleground with the U.S.

Will Daniel
Mon, Jun 10, 2024

China has a “near monopoly” on the mining of many raw materials that are critical for the production of semiconductors and other technologies, JPMorgan said Monday, highlighting the importance of key minerals in the escalating U.S.-China trade war.

President Biden upped the ante in the ongoing spat with China last month when he targeted Chinese products including solar cells, EVs, batteries, steel, aluminum, medical equipment, and more with a raft of new tariffs.

“The Biden administration’s latest tariff announcement on $18 billion of Chinese imports has elevated the debate on whether China’s dominance in the critical minerals supply chain will emerge as the latest battleground for U.S.-China strategic competition,” wrote JPMorgan’s executive director of strategic research, Amy Ho, and global head of research, Joyce Chang, in a note to clients.

In 2022, China produced 68% of the world’s rare earth minerals, which are used for things like magnets and batteries, and 70% of its graphite, which is used in lubricants, electric motors, and even nuclear reactors.

However, China’s real dominance lies in its mineral processing capabilities, according to JPMorgan. China processed 100% of the world’s graphite supply in 2022, 90% of rare earths, and 74% of cobalt (another critical mineral for batteries).

“Increasing dependence on critical minerals, which are key inputs to semiconductors, EVs, military weapons etc., has raised concerns that China could use its dominance in this supply chain to retaliate against U.S. industrial policy,” Ho and Chang warned.

The U.S. and China’s tit-for-tat trade war began in 2018, when then-President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on a range of Chinese goods and commodities, including solar panels and steel, citing the country’s intellectual property (IP) theft and unfair trade practices. Since then, tensions between the world’s two largest superpowers have only escalated, with a high-stakes battle over semiconductor IP and manufacturing taking center stage amid the AI boom.

Import-only minerals

Of the minerals that the U.S. Geological Survey has identified as critical to the U.S. economy and national security, the U.S. was 100% reliant on imports for 12 of them.

1. Arsenic

Top source: China

Applications: Semiconductors

2. Cesium

Top source: Germany

Applications: Research and development

3. Fluorspar

Top source: Mexico

Applications: Manufacturing of fuel, foams, refrigerants, and more

4. Gallium

Top source: Japan

Applications: Integrated circuits and optical devices

5. Graphite

Top source: China

Applications: Lubricants, batteries, and fuel cells

6. Indium

Top source: South Korea

Applications: Liquid crystal display screens

7. Manganese

Top source: Gabon

Applications: Manufacturing of steel and batteries

8. Niobium

Top source: Brazil

Applications: Manufacturing of superalloys

9. Rubidium

Top source: China

Applications: Electronics research and development

10. Scandium

Top source: Japan

Applications: Manufacturing of alloys, ceramics, and fuel cells

11. Tantalum

Top source: China

Applications: Manufacturing of electronic components, capacitors, and superalloys

12. Yttrium

Top source: China

Applications: Manufacturing of ceramics and lasers

China is the top source for five out of 12 of these critical minerals, and the second or third top source for an additional three: Fluorspar, Galium, and Scandium. But China isn’t the only nation the U.S. relies on for key minerals. Mexico, Japan, and Korea are among the other top sources.

The U.S. relies on imports for 50% or more of its supply of an additional 29 minerals beyond the dozen listed above. This includes a 90% plus net import reliance for titanium, 14 rare earths, and bismuth.

Will China weaponize its ‘near monopoly’ on critical minerals?

With the U.S.-China trade war heating up, minerals could prove an exploitable weak point for Beijing. In a worst-case scenario where China increases export restrictions for key minerals or implements a full ban, the electronics, oil refining, defense, and EV sectors would be especially at risk, JPMorgan’s Ho and Chang noted.

Still, for now, JPMorgan’s strategists don’t foresee a serious mineral turf war taking place. “There are growing concerns that China will weaponize its position, but we expect China’s response to remain proportionate and limited based on past actions,” they wrote Monday, adding that the U.S. can also look to alternative suppliers and substitutes.

The pair offered a few recommendations for how the U.S. can stabilize its supply of critical minerals to protect the defense industry, support the EV transition, and prevent economic fallout from a potential commodity trade war.

First, Ho and Chang noted that creating new U.S. mining capacity isn’t an option to fix the U.S.’s reliance on mineral imports. New mining operations take years to start, come with environmental risks, and regulatory approval in the U.S. is often uncertain. It takes 16.5 years, on average, for a mining project to move from discovery to production in the U.S., according to the International Energy Agency. And securing a permit for a mine alone takes an average of seven to 10 years.

Instead of new mining operations, Ho and Chang recommended the diversification of mineral sourcing, the implementation of new mineral mining technologies, and strategic stockpiling of key minerals. They estimated that technological innovation and recycling could reduce demand by 20% to 40%, while material substitution could alleviate strains on supply and reduce costs over the next few decades. In addition, strategic stockpiling by the US government and corporations could act as a buffer against sudden supply chain disruptions.

“More opportunities exist to diversify critical mineral suppliers than there are for oil, and the countries that are in the process of broadening their mining and process capabilities include allies such as Canada, Australia, the EU, and Japan,” they added. “The U.S. should remain optimistic.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Norway just loosened China’s stranglehold on rare minerals critical to the global economy—and it’s a huge win for Europe and the U.S.


Fortune· Rodger Bosch—AFP/Getty Images

Paolo Confino

Tue, Jun 11, 2024

Norway just struck a gold mine. Well, a rare mineral mine.

The Norwegian mining company, Rare Earths Norway, just uncovered the largest deposit of rare earth elements in Europe. The discovery has major implications not just for the company, which is certainly poised for a windfall, but for global geopolitics.

Rare Earths Norway found the deposit in the Fen Carbonatite Complex located in the southern tip of the country, according to a press release. These rare elements, which are a family of 17 metals, are used in a host of consumer electronics like smartphones and flat-screen TVs. They’re also critical to the green-energy transition because they are key components in products like electric vehicles and wind turbines. But, as the name suggests, they are in short supply around the world. By dint of geography or luck, the vast majority of rare earth elements are found and extracted in China, giving the world’s second largest economy extraordinary influence in determining their supply and demand across the world. Currently, China accounts for 70% of the extraction of these elements from the ground and 90% of their processing, according to research from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, an independent energy research institute.

Norway’s discovery would finally make Europe a player in the industry.

“It is important to state that there is absolutely no extraction of rare earth elements in Europe today,” Rare Earths Norway CEO Alf Reistad told CNBC.

Rare Earths Norway’s discovery comes at a time when Europe and the U.S. have had tense trade relations with China. Many of those tensions are wrapped up in national-security issues as well. Europe is wary of China, given its allyship with Russia, which has been largely ostracized on the continent, certainly by members of the European Union. Meanwhile, the U.S. and China are engaged in what one economist called a “forever” trade war. The U.S. has accused China of intentionally oversupplying global markets with certain products, like electric vehicles. The concern is that because China has cornered the market on rare elements it could also manipulate that market by doing the opposite and purposefully withholding supply to drive up prices—something it has threatened to do, but hasn’t yet pulled the trigger on.

Norway has already made some strides in trying to chip away at Europe’s dependence on China to get access to the materials. In January, the Norwegian parliament voted 80–20 to allow offshore, deep-sea mining of rare minerals in remote waters to the north of the country. Norway, which is already a major producer of oil and natural gas, would become the first country to allow its seabed to be mined for rare minerals. Current plans would see Norway mine 108,000 square miles, an area roughly the size of Colorado. The newly discovered deposit only strengthens Europe’s hand against rivals like China.

Though the fact that these reserves were located in China was due to chance, China’s ability to make the most of them and use them as a strategic geopolitical tool—even a cudgel—was intentional. Through years of domestic industrial policy, China secured patents in the technology needed to extract the rare elements, directing huge amounts of government resources toward the project, and investing heavily in extracting ore from deposits across the globe.

Once its dominance was established, the Chinese government sought to protect it. Last year, China banned the export of technology used to extract gallium and germanium, two elements used in chip manufacturing. China’s strong market position was also favored by lax labor standards. “This dominance has been achieved through decades of state investment, export controls, cheap labor, and low environmental standards,” the Oxford Institute researchers wrote.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com