Teens Should Send Naked Mole Rat Pics Instead Of Nudes, Charity Says

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

A Canadian organization wants to stamp out the “sextortion” of teenage boys and believes the solution lies with naked mole rats.

In May, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection started a new campaign called “Don’t Get Sextorted,” which suggest that teens respond to nude photo requests from strangers with pictures of naked mole rats instead of their own naked bodies.

The Centre provides a lot of memes designed to be used for that purpose.

Like this one:

And this:

The campaign targets boys, who comprise 30 percent of the reported victims of “sextortion,” the act of asking for naked photos and then blackmailing the sender.

“We started to receive calls from very distressed kids panicked over what to do, because the threats were, ‘If you don’t comply, I’m going to send this to all of your contacts,’” Executive Director Lianna McDonald told the Canadian Press. “They would think that this is only happening to me.”

Centre spokeswoman Signy Arnason told HuffPost most boys who are victimized by “sextortion” believe they are talking to a teenage girl who immediately starts asking for something sexual.

“As soon as the photo is sent, the blackmailing begins,” she told HuffPost.

The campaign hopes to reduce sextortion by using photos of the naked mole rat ― a pink, hairless rodent from Africa about three to four inches in length. 

“We’re hoping that this character will be effective in capturing the attention of boys to bring widespread attention to the issue,” McDonald said in a release. “We want our communications to empower boys to think twice before sending a nude. The threat of ‘sextortion’ is scary enough, but having the conversation doesn’t have to be.”

McDonald admits the humorous tone of the campaign is risky, but believes it’s the best way to reach teenage boys.

“Being steeped in child protection, it was a really big step for us to take,” she told the New Yorker. “It’s brazen. But when you’re dealing with young people, you have to think creatively. If we’re not getting their attention, we’re not doing our job.”

To that end, the Centre has also released a cheeky video explaining the dangers of “sextortion” and how naked mole rats can help.

Arnason said the naked mole rat campaign is meant to be prevention, not an intervention.

“We hope we see a decline in reports as a result,” she told HuffPost.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Puerto Rico Declared Zika Epidemic Over, But Experts Say That's Premature

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

Puerto Rico declared Monday that its 2016 Zika outbreak had ended, citing falling virus transmissions. Since April, 10 Zika cases have been reported in a four-week period, compared with 8,000 cases in a four-week period during the epidemic’s peak in August 2016.

But health experts caution that reduced transmissions don’t necessarily indicate the virus is no longer a threat. They point out that it’s not yet peak mosquito season and a more apt comparison can be made in August.

There’s also concern about the accuracy of Puerto Rico’s surveillance system, which led the U.S. to stop reporting Puerto Rico’s Zika numbers last fall.

“It is important that we remain vigilant in preventing, detecting, and responding to new cases and in supporting families already affected by Zika,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a statement.

The CDC travel notice for Puerto Rico remains in effect, and the agency recommends that women who are pregnant or trying to conceive avoid traveling to Puerto Rico, and that men who have traveled to Puerto Rico use condoms afterward.

“You don’t want people to become complacent,” Dr. Anna Durbin, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told HuffPost. 

“There are not as many cases, but Zika is still an important problem, because we’re still seeing transmission.”

Zika is a critical concern for pregnant women, because it’s linked to the severe birth defect microcephaly, which can cause developmental disabilities and babies being born with smaller-than-average heads. 

“We expect to see babies born in 2017 with Zika virus-related congenital birth defects, and we must ensure they receive the best care possible,” the CDC statement read.

According to the Puerto Rican Health Department, the territory has had 3,678 pregnant women infected with Zika virus and 35 reported cases of Zika-related birth defects. In comparison, the United States reported 1,883 Zika-affected pregnancies and 72 babies born with Zika-related birth defects.

There’s been some controversy about whether Puerto Rico has been underreporting Zika-related birth defects, which fall far short of predictions. A 2016 JAMA Pediatrics study estimated that Puerto Rico would see between 110 and 290 Zika-related microcephaly cases by mid-2017.

The CDC is working with Puerto Rico to standardize its reporting.

Then there’s the question of whether the Puerto Rican Health Department’s announcement helps or hurts citizens. Officials may want to reassure the population and jump-start tourism, but they also need to address the ongoing risk to citizens and travelers. 

“The message should be, yes, it looks as though the epidemic is waning, but you still need to protect yourself,” Durbin said. “Even if the risk could be much smaller, the consequences could be devastating.”

Durbin also noted that Puerto Rico is moving into its summer season, when mosquitos are most active. “I think they are also expecting it to pick up again,” she said.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

To The Mom Struggling To Hold Her Sh*t Together

Dear Mom Struggling To Hold Her Shit Together,

I have something important to tell you, mama: I don’t see you.

Now, don’t stop reading just yet. Please hear me out. It’s true I don’t see you, but I know what you are going through.

I know that these days you are almost always exhausted and fueled by caffeine and anxiety.

I know that you try your best to be a good mother, partner, daughter and friend, but all too often feel like you are failing at all of them.

I know that more than once a day you scream on the inside, “There’s only one of me!”

I know you feel deep mommy love, as well as deep mommy guilt, for not being the person you think you should be.

I know there are days when you feel like you want to run away, but then decide to just sit in your car in the grocery store parking lot a little longer then necessary just to be alone.

I know the weight of responsibility sometimes feels so heavy you can barely move.

I know the weight of responsibility sometimes feels so heavy you can barely move.

I know your to-do list is full of things like: make dentist appointments, get teacher appreciation gifts, clean the bathrooms, attend parent-teacher conference, do laundry, go food shopping, schedule play dates, “What’s for dinner?” and don’t forget to take a shower.

I know you struggle with balancing these things while also raising your little humans, and it can all feel like too much for one person to manage.

I know you worry that you are not patient enough, present enough, fun enough, or even enough at all.

I know too often you feel overwhelmed, disorganized and flawed.

I know all these things because I feel them too. I don’t see you, but I am you.

I don’t see you because you don’t let it show. Like me, you wear a brave mask. You smile to hide your stress, even on the bad days. You get up every day, put yourself together and do what needs to be done. You are strong. You are Mom.

No, I do not see you struggling, mama. In fact, it is quite likely that the only one who sees what you view as your “weaknesses” is you.

However, I most definitely am you, and I think all of us moms are from time to time. The ebb and flow of motherhood is like that. We all have the same cracks in our “Super Mom” armor. We are only human, after all.

Please remember this the next time you feel like the only hot mess mom at the playground. It may not be obvious by looking around because we all wear our own masks, but you’re not the only one who feels like they’re dropping the ball in one way or another. It is ok. That is why we have each other. And wine. Or chocolate. You choose.

You got this, mama. Give yourself a break. Having our shit together all the time is overrated, anyway.

Love,

Your Fellow Hot Mess Mom

©2017 Mia Carella, as originally published on Scary Mommy

Read more from Mia Carella on her website, (this) mom with a blog, and follow her on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Trump's Plan To Privatize Infrastructure Won't Rebuild America

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

President Donald Trump on Wednesday laid out his vision for overhauling the nation’s infrastructure, including upgrading inland waterways that are crucial to commerce.

Speaking in Cincinnati, Trump called for upgrading crumbling levees, dams, locks and ports that would be funded through a mixture of public spending, loans and grants. He also said infrastructure projects could be dramatically accelerated by reducing the time required to obtain a permit. 

Overall, Trump argued, the onus should be on states, cities and corporations ― and not the federal government ― to fund new infrastructure projects.

“It’s time to recapture our legacy as a nation of builders and create new lanes of travel and commerce,” Trump said at an event on the banks of the Ohio River.

“The theft of American prosperity has come to a screeching halt, folks, and a new era of American greatness is about to begin,” he added, promising to bring back America’s coal and steel industries that use inland waterways to move their commodities across the country.

The president did not, however, offer any additional details about his promised infrastructure plan. His transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, told members of Congress on Wednesday it would be released “hopefully soon,” possibly in the third quarter of the year.

Trump said in his address to a joint session of Congress in February that “he would ask Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure of the United States ― financed through both public and private capital.” That sounds a bit like the president is proposing to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure, but he isn’t. When Trump says “produces a $1 trillion investment,” he in fact is referring to a $200 billion budget proposal that is mainly tax breaks to private corporations that would build ― and own ― public infrastructure.

In other words, it’s the same as the proposal released during the campaign by Wilbur Ross, now Trump’s commerce secretary, and Peter Navarro, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who now heads up Trump’s National Trade Council. That proposal called for an 82 percent tax credit on private equity invested in infrastructure.

There are two key benefits when the government spends money on roads, trains, bridges, schools and pipes: Americans get the built backbone they need, and the economy gets a boost because people are put to work.

Tax credits for private companies to build public works largely fail to provide either of those benefits. The economy doesn’t really get a true stimulus, because the tax credits simply go toward making projects that companies were already willing to do more profitable for those companies. And that deficiency is related to the second key failure of infrastructure privatization: Not everything that needs to get built gets built. For instance, a private company is not going to take on the challenge of removing lead pipes in Flint, Michigan, or countless other cities across America. That’s a project that needs to happen ― more than three years after the lead crisis began, residents still don’t have access to drinkable water from their taps ― but outsourcing the responsibility to a private company isn’t going to get it done.

The private sector can help accelerate completion of infrastructure projects. But most Democrats say funding vehicles such as public-private partnerships cannot adequately address the problem.

“It’s not the hamburger, but it can be the ketchup,” said Anthony Foxx, who served as transportation secretary during the Obama administration. “It helps for sure, but it’s not going to be the meat of where were are today in solving infrastructure problems.”

Trump’s speech was part of a weeklong promotion of Trump’s infrastructure proposals, which the White House dubbed “Infrastructure Week” on Monday. The event in Ohio, however, was eclipsed before Trump even finished speaking by another major development in the ongoing Russia investigation ― text of former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony ― giving ammo to critics who say the president’s focus on infrastructure this week was an attempt at misdirection ahead of Comey’s testimony on Thursday.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) even took a dig at the administration on Twitter.

Progressives in Congress have proposed their own $2 trillion plan to repair the nation’s infrastructure. They called Trump’s plan a giveaway to wealthy investors and urged him to work with Democrats to pass a bill that includes real funding for projects around the country.

“President Trump promised to make infrastructure a top priority, but he’s been in the White House nearly five months and this is the first we’re hearing he’s even beginning to address it. Americans are sick and tired of broken promises. We need action now,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said in a statement.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Mom's Comics Capture The Heartfelt And Hilarious Sides Of Parenthood

Artist Lucy Knisley has found the perfect blend of emotion and comedy in the comics she’s created based on her life as a mom.

On June 13, 2016, Knisley welcomed her son, whom she refers to as “Pal” online. (The pseudonym is short for the word “palindrome,” a reference to the date of his birth.) Since becoming a mother, the cartoonist and author has drawn her parenting experiences and shared them with her fans online. During Pal’s first year, Knisley has captured both heartfelt and hilarious moments with her family. 

Knisley told HuffPost her motherhood journey has inspired all of her comics about Pal and parenting. By sharing the comics online, she’s learned that even the strangest moments she’s experienced are relatable for many parents. 

“It’s incredible how often I’ve thought, ‘This is weird and I am a weird person for thinking it’ about one of my comics on parenting, only to find that my weirdness is shared by literally every parent on Earth,” she said.

From capturing Pal’s antics at bedtime to drawing what it’s like to change a wiggly baby’s diapers, Knisley uses her comics to sum up her everyday life as a mom. One topic she has focused on frequently is breastfeeding. Before Pal was born, Knisley was in labor for 40 hours and had undiagnosed preeclampsia. She finally had to have an emergency C-section during which she had two seizures. Needless to say, breastfeeding Pal after recovering “felt laughably hard,” in Knisley’s words. 

After finding an “awesome” lactation consultant, Knisley has managed to find the humor in Pal’s shenanigans while she breastfeeds him. In many of her comics, she jokes about his sharp teeth and the way he snaps her bra straps. 

A post shared by Lucy Knisley (@lucyknisley) on Jan 26, 2017 at 7:03pm PST

“A year out and we’re still going strong!” she told HuffPost about breastfeeding. “In the end, I’m glad to be nursing Pal, for convenience and regular connection breaks in my day, but I will literally fight anyone who ever says anything judgmental about parents who choose not to breastfeed.”

Knisley, who is working on her sixth published graphic novel, Kid Gloves, to share the story of her pregnancy and birth experience, told HuffPost she draws most of her comics in the little time she has after Pal falls asleep and before she heads to bed. 

“Ninety-nine percent of them are drawn in the half-hour between getting the baby to sleep and going to sleep myself,” she said. “One percent gets drawn during rare times when he is chill enough to not grab the pen out of my hand when I’m trying to draw while he’s awake.”

Pal has gotten a head start on sharing his mom’s love for art. He’s already tried crayons and finger paints, which Knisley said “he tried to eat and throw respectively.” He also loves to read with his parents. 

Knisley described parenting to HuffPost as being “inherently vulnerable” and realizes that sharing her experiences so publicly can add to that. Luckily, she has a group of friends and fans she calls “an incredible parenting network of support.” She also loves that she now has a creative way to remember both sweet and funny moments with Pal.

“It’s fun to look back on how I felt and what he was doing a few months ago, and reminisce,” she said.

See more of Knisley’s parenting comics below. Some may require you to scroll through more than one image. For more of Knisley’s work, check out her site and her Twitter.

A post shared by Lucy Knisley (@lucyknisley) on Jan 25, 2017 at 2:15pm PST

A post shared by Lucy Knisley (@lucyknisley) on Mar 26, 2017 at 11:34am PDT

A post shared by Lucy Knisley (@lucyknisley) on May 10, 2017 at 7:31pm PDT

A post shared by Lucy Knisley (@lucyknisley) on Jan 16, 2017 at 6:41pm PST

A post shared by Lucy Knisley (@lucyknisley) on Dec 19, 2016 at 6:03pm PST

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

New Podcast Pairs Prisoners And Professor For A Look At Life Behind Bars

A new podcast is offering a rare glimpse into the lives of prisoners.

“Ear Hustle,” which premieres on June 14, is the brainchild of San Quentin State Prison inmates Earlonne Woods and Antwan Williams, and Bay Area professor Nigel Poor. 

A collaboration with podcast company Radiotopia, “Ear Hustle” is operated out of the prison’s media lab. The series plans to delve into experiences and hardships unique to prisoners, such as the effect incarceration can have on their memory, celebrating holidays in prison and ministering on death row. 

Woods was incarcerated for second-degree robbery and is serving 31 years to life. Williams, in for armed robbery, was sentenced to 15 years in prison at 18 years old. 

According to Poor, media has had its place in the prison for quite some time. In fact, she previously worked on a radio series with Woods and Williams titled “San Quentin Prison Report,” which would come to serve as the inspiration for the podcast.

“We were interested in doing longer stories, ones that weren’t so news-oriented,” Poor said in an email to HuffPost on Wednesday. “We wanted to be able to work more like artists and less like journalists … We feel like the podcast allows us more freedom to work creatively, experiment with more impressionistic storytelling.”

Poor said the podcast has the prison’s full support, but each episode has to first be approved by the prison’s Lt. Sam Robinson, who’s been working at San Quentin for 21 years. 

The podcast’s three creators make up the entire cast and crew. Williams doesn’t co-host the show with Woods and Poor, instead operating as the show’s co-producer and sound designer.

But it’s not so much the size of the crew that Poor says is most challenging about producing the podcast. 

“We have to be able to work together without the benefit of communicating once I leave the prison: we do not have access to phones, email or the internet,” she said. “So the work we do has to be done while we are in the prison together. There is no virtual commuting to work.” 

Poor knows, however, that these obstacles will prove worthwhile.

“I hope [the podcast] can show that incarcerated and non-incarcerated people can work together as equal colleagues with respect and professionalism,” she said. “One of the things I see in prison is a terrible waste of human potential. My personal belief is that we as humans thrive when we find purpose and a way to be productive citizens ― [it] is my humble opinion that this would make a difference in rehabilitation.”

“I also hope that our stories will allow people to see those who are incarcerated in a more three-dimensional way,” she continued. “It seems the media ― TV, movies and sometimes news reporting ― thrives on reinforcing tired tropes and it would be wonderful to broaden that representation.”

The first episode of “Ear Hustle” will be available on iTunes and Ear Hustle’s website beginning June 14. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Read The Most Dramatic, Unnerving Parts Of James Comey's Testimony

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

WASHINGTON ― Former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify Thursday about President Donald Trump’s alleged interference with a federal investigation into potential Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Here are some highlights from his prepared testimony.

Comey says he spoke with Trump nine times ― including in six phone calls. He only spoke one-on-one with Obama twice.

“I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.”

Trump invited Comey to dinner at the White House. Comey assumed others would be there. It was just the two of them.

“The President and I had dinner on Friday, January 27 at 6:30 pm in the Green Room at the White House. He had called me at lunchtime that day and invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my whole family, but decided to have just me this time, with the whole family coming the next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed there would be others.

“It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.”

Comey believed Trump wanted to “create some sort of patronage relationship.”

“The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

“My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI’s traditionally independent status in the executive branch.”

Comey was “uneasy” about the meeting. Then Trump asked for “loyalty.”

“I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten-year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not ‘reliable’ in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody’s side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

“A few moments later, the President said, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.’ I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

“At one point, I explained why it was so important that the FBI and the Department of Justice be independent of the White House. I said it was a paradox: Throughout history, some Presidents have decided that because ‘problems’ come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.”

The whole thing was “very awkward.”

“Near the end of our dinner, the President returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from Jim Mattis, Jeff Sessions, and many others. He then said, ‘I need loyalty.’ I replied, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ He paused and then said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ I paused, and then said, ‘You will get that from me.’ As I wrote in the memo I created immediately after the dinner, it is possible we understood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’ differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty – had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.

“During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.”

After an Oval Office meeting, Trump talked to Comey about “letting Flynn go.”

A few weeks later after an Oval Office briefing on counterterrorism, Trump pulled Comey aside to talk one-on-one.

“The President signaled the end of the briefing by thanking the group and telling them all that he wanted to speak to me alone. I stayed in my chair. As the participants started to leave the Oval Office, the Attorney General lingered by my chair, but the President thanked him and said he wanted to speak only with me. The last person to leave was Jared Kushner, who also stood by my chair and exchanged pleasantries with me. The President then excused him, saying he wanted to speak with me.

“When the door by the grandfather clock closed, and we were alone, the President began by saying, ‘I want to talk about Mike Flynn.’ Flynn had resigned the previous day. The President began by saying Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong in speaking with the Russians, but he had to let him go because he had misled the Vice President. He added that he had other concerns about Flynn, which he did not then specify…

“The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, ‘He is a good guy and has been through a lot.’ He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would ‘let this go.’”

Comey “understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn.”

Comey’s FBI leadership team “concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General’s role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role.

“After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed. The investigation moved ahead at full speed, with none of the investigative team members – or the Department of Justice lawyers supporting them – aware of the President’s request.”

Comey told Jeff Sessions that Trump was acting inappropriately. Sessions went mum. 

“I took the opportunity to implore the Attorney General to prevent any future direct communication between the President and me. I told the AG that what had just happened – him being asked to leave while the FBI Director, who reports to the AG, remained behind – was inappropriate and should never happen. He did not reply.”

Trump told Comey he wasn’t involved with Russian “hookers.”

“On the morning of March 30, the President called me at the FBI. He described the Russia investigation as ‘a cloud’ that was impairing his ability to act on behalf of the country. He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia.”

Trump wanted to know if some “satellite” associates of his had done something wrong.

“The President went on to say that if there were some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out, but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and hoped I would find a way to get it out that we weren’t investigating him.”

Trump asked for loyalty again, and complained about the “cloud” over his administration.

“On the morning of April 11, the President called me and asked what I had done about his request that I ‘get out’ that he is not personally under investigation. I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back. He replied that ‘the cloud’ was getting in the way of his ability to do his job. He said that perhaps he would have his people reach out to the Acting Deputy Attorney General. I said that was the way his request should be handled. I said the White House Counsel should contact the leadership of DOJ to make the request, which was the traditional channel.

“He said he would do that and added, ‘Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.’ I did not reply or ask him what he meant by ‘that thing.’ I said only that the way to handle it was to have the White House Counsel call the Acting Deputy Attorney General. He said that was what he would do and the call ended.

“That was the last time I spoke with President Trump.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Networks Will Interrupt Daytime Shows For Real-Life Soap As Comey Testifies

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

CBS, NBC and ABC are setting aside regular daytime programming to air former FBI director James Comey’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Thursday. 

The hearing begins at 10 a.m. ET, when Comey will discuss his interactions with President Donald Trump and face questions from the panel.

CBS announced Tuesday that it would be airing coverage hosted by Norah O’Donnell, Gayle King and Charlie Rose of “CBS This Morning.” NBC will offer coverage hosted by Savannah Guthrie of the “Today” show, while ABC’s George Stephanopoulos will host coverage on that network, per Variety

Coverage of the highly anticipated event will elbow aside shows like “Let’s Make a Deal” in local markets on CBS and “Live with Kelly and Ryan” and “Rachel Ray” in local markets on ABC. NBC’s “Today” show typically runs through the time slot. It will preempt regular daytime soaps and talk shows.

The decision to interrupt scheduled programming for such an event is unusual. But considering how other Washington drama ― in the form of White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s press conferences ― has been a ratings boon for cable news networks, it’s likely to be a smart move.

The hearing is already generating plenty of buzz. A BBC reporter said it would likely be “the biggest piece of political theater the nation’s capital has seen in a generation,” and bars around the D.C. area are planning to open early with themed drinks. (One particularly aggressive establishment will reportedly offer free drinks every time Trump tweets during the testimony. Oh, and Trump may be live-tweeting.)

President Trump fired Comey last month in a surprise memo. On Thursday, the former FBI director will testify that the president asked for “loyalty” and suggested the FBI stop investigating former national security advisor Mike Flynn, whom Trump characterized as “a good guy.” 

The full text of Comey’s testimony, including his assertion that Trump made him feel “uneasy,” has been made public at the former director’s request.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

NATO Would Be Totally Outmatched In A Conventional War With Russia

Donald Trump’s recent whirlwind world tour began with him signing a series of arms sale agreements with the Saudi government totaling some $110 billion, a move interpreted by the American president as proof positive of Riyadh’s commitment to fighting terrorism and containing Iran. In short, Saudi Arabia, in Donald Trump’s view, put its money where its mouth was.

It ended with Trump dedicating a memorial celebrating the transatlantic bonds between Europe and the United States at the new headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels. The memorial commemorated the terror attack of 9/11 and NATO’s response, manifesting the foundational premise underpinning NATO, set forth in Article 5 of the NATO Charter, that an attack against one member was an attack against all. 

It was widely expected that President Trump would give remarks appropriate to the occasion, praising the alliance and reinforcing its unifying principle of collective security. Instead, America’s NATO allies where chastised for their collective failure to comply with a target level of defense spending equivalent to two percent of each member’s gross national product.   

“Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense,” Trump scolded the assembled leaders of NATO. “If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.”

While he mentioned the terror attack of 9/11, Donald Trump did not raise the issue of Article 5, even indirectly. From Donald Trump’s transactional world view, when it comes to collective defense, you have to pay to play; Europe was in arrears, and the president was not about to reward them for that fact.

For a national defense neophyte like Donald Trump, military prowess is measured in dollars allocated to the task, something that can be measured on a spreadsheet for accountants to pore over. For anyone acquainted with the reality of war, however, these numbers translate into blood and steel. By any standard, blood and steel, circa 2017, is prohibitively expensive. In 1980, the annual cost of maintaining an American soldier hovered around $30,000; today that cost is $170,000 and growing. The M-1 Abrams main battle tank, which entered service in 1980, cost $4.3 million each. The cost of refurbishing an M-1 tank to the new M-1A2 standard needed to fight and survive on the modern battlefield is between $8-10 million. When combined together into an armored brigade combat team, the 4,700 soldiers, 87 M-1 main battle tanks, and hundreds of other armored fighting vehicles costs a staggering $2.6 billion per year to operate and maintain in a peacetime environment; combat operations and/or realistic training deployments increase that cost by at least another billion dollars. 

For a national defense neophyte like Donald Trump, military prowess is measured in dollars.

These costs are prohibitively high, which is why only five of the U.S. Army’s 15 armored brigade combat teams are maintained at full readiness levels.  The Heritage Foundation has estimated that the U.S. Army would need at least 21 Brigade Combat Team (BCT) equivalents to fight and prevail in a ground war in Europe; it currently maintains three BCTs in Europe, including one on permanent rotation. Effective European-based deterrence would require an additional three to four American BCTs, at a cost of more than $15 billion in annual operation and maintenance costs, and hundreds of millions in basing and support expenses. 

Blood and steel for our NATO allies is no less expensive; the cost of a German soldier hovers at just over $100,000 per year, while the cost of a German Leopard 2 main battle tank built the new 2A7V standard costs around $10 million; Germany plans on bringing over 100 Leopard 2 tanks back into service between 2019 and 2023 (enough to equip two armored battalions) and increasing the Bundeswehr’s inventory to some 320 tanks. Germany would need to double this amount at a minimum to possess a realistic deterrent capability, an option mooted by the fact that the German Army has trouble keeping 30 percent of the armored forces it currently possesses operational.  The associated expenses and relative operational readiness status for the French and British militaries are about the same as Germany; neither country is even remotely prepared to fight, let alone prevail, in a major ground war in Europe against a Russian foe.

The Fulda Gap

While modern war is fought using a multitude of weaponry, when it comes to the kind of large-scale fighting one could expect in a general European war, the dominant weapon on the battlefield is the main battle tank. The main battle tank has been a part of the European military landscape for more than 100 years; for nearly 70 years since the end of the Second World War, the main battle tank had underpinned the American military presence in post-war Europe. While the total numbers of deployed tanks fluctuated over time, the armored units fielded by the United States served as the backbone of the military capability of NATO, an alliance entered into in 1954 between the United States, the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and twelve other European nations in response to fears of Soviet aggression.

Fulda was a small city in the German State of Hesse that, had it not been for the Cold War, few people outside of its immediate environs would ever have cause to hear of. Instead, the combined accidents of history and geography turned this quiet rural city into ground zero for a Third World War. The end of the Second World War found American troops situated well to the east of Fulda, having occupied all of Thuringia and western Saxony; both of these territories were subsequently added to the Soviet post-war zone of occupation, bringing the line of demarcation right to the foothills of the Thuringian highlands that dominate the eastern approaches to Fulda.

West of Fulda the hills turn into fertile plains that form a natural corridor – the so-called “Fulda Gap” – leading straight to Frankfurt, some 60 miles (95 kilometers) to the southwest, and the Rhine River beyond. These were not vast distances. 5,000 men of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment and a screening force of around 150 tanks patrolled the Fulda frontier. Further west, along the approaches to Frankfurt, were the three armored brigades of the 3rd Armored Division, comprising another 15,000 men and 350 tanks. Some 30 miles southwest of Frankfurt, on the west bank of the Mainz River, were another 15,000 men of the 8th Mechanized Infantry Division and their 300 tanks. 35,000 men, 800 tanks, and thousands of other armored vehicles, artillery pieces and trucks – this was all that stood between the Soviet Army and the Rhine River.

Facing off against this concentration of American combat power were two sizable Soviet formations. The first, the 8th Guards Army, consisting of an armored division and three motorized infantry divisions, comprising some 50,000 men and 1,200 tanks, was responsible for blasting a hole in the American defenses; behind it would come the 1st Guards Tank Army, another 35,000 men and 1,000 tanks whose mission was pursuit and exploitation of a defeated enemy to depths of up to 120 miles after the front was ruptured by initial assault force. A 1979 Soviet exercise allocated seven days for Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops to defeat American and NATO forces and reach the Rhine River; American plans for reinforcing Germany required ten days. Any conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States along the Fulda front would have been, from the outset, a race against time.

Fortunately, for Europe and the World, that race was never run. In 1990, as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union came to a close, nearly 14,000 American main battle tanks were deployed on European soil, along with over 300,000 military personnel; another 250,000 American troops were ready to be flown in on short notice to marry up with pre-deployed equipment, including tanks, stored in various European depots. A decade later that number had been reduced to a few thousand tanks and 117,000 troops; by 2015 the number was zero tanks and 65,000 soldiers. The United States went from a posture of imminent preparedness for a war in Europe in 1990, to a situation where major ground conflict in Europe no longer factored in American military planning.

The Iron Brigade

The 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team (BCT) of the 4th Infantry Division (the “Iron Brigade”) is one of the premier combat units in the United States Army today.  One of 15 Armored BCTs in the army today, the “Iron Brigade’s” five maneuver battalions (two armor, one cavalry, one mechanized infantry and one artillery), comprising some 4,700 soldiers, 90 main battle tanks, 150 armored fighting vehicles, and 18 self-propelled artillery pieces, represent the greatest concentration of lethal firepower in an organized combat unit in the American military. In January 2017, this formidable fighting force was deployed from its home base in Fort Carson, Colorado, to Europe as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

Atlantic Resolve is an ongoing initiative on the part of the United States intended to reassure NATO that America’s commitment to collective security in Europe has not diminished in the face of Russian actions in the Ukraine since 2014, including Moscow’s annexation of the Crimea, an act that violates the principle of European national inviolability that has underpinned European security since 1945. Since 2015, the United States has conducted a series of military deployments and maneuvers designed to demonstrate America’s ability to back this commitment with meaningful military power. The deployment of the “Iron Brigade” represents the latest manifestation of this commitment, which involves a continued rotation of an armored BCT into Europe every nine months, creating a permanent American armored presence in Europe.

The officers of the “Iron Brigade” exude confidence in their mission. “We are here to deter,” the Brigade Commander, Colonel Christopher Norrie, told western media shortly after his arrival in Europe in January 2017. “If I were looking at it through the eyes of a potential aggressor, I would say it’s an exceptionally capable deterrent.” His subordinate commanders echoed Colonel Norrie’s words, and confidence. “We have been training for this mission for the last year,” Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Capehart, the commander of an armor battalion, the 1/68 “Silver Lions,” observed. “I think it shows the agility of an armored brigade that can be able to push combat power forward, build it and get it out here firing within ten days.”

The 10-day benchmark cited by Lieutenant Colonel Capehart, however, is misleading. On order to get its vehicles and equipment to Europe, the “Iron Brigade” had first to transfer this material by rail from Fort Carson, Colorado to Beaumont, Texas, where it was loaded into ships that then transported the combat material to the German port city of Bremerhaven, where it was off-loaded and “pushed forward” to bases in Poland. The reality is that the time needed to deploy the “Iron Brigade” to Europe was not 10 days, but more than two months.

The armored BCT is a self-sufficient combat unit, designed by intent to operate independent of higher echelons of command and combat support. This is in sharp contrast to the American combat brigades of the Cold War, which were designed to function as part of a larger unit, usually a division or corps. This current organizational structure is reflective of the posture taken by the United States over the course of the past quarter century that holds that large-scale ground combat in Europe was no longer a primary mission for the American military. Contemporary conflict scenarios contemplated fighting non-state and failed state opponents where the combat power of the armored BCT would prove to be overwhelming; the most proficient enemy force the armored BCT trained to confront was what was a “near peer” opponent whose equipment and training was inferior to that of the Americans.

As part of their preparation for their European deployment, the “Iron Brigade” participated in a two-week exercise, “Decisive Action Rotation 16-09,” at the National Training Center (NTC) in Fort Irwin, California, between August 26 and September 9, 2016. During this training, the “Iron Brigade” engaged in realistic simulated combat operations against an opposition force (OPFOR) configured for both low-intensity and “near peer” conflict. The presence of “near peer” OPFOR represents a return, in part, to the Cold War-era style training that the U.S. Army conducted at the NTC in the 1980s (after 9/11, the NTC had been largely reconfigured to prepare Army units for their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, where low-intensity combat training was the priority.) 

In the 1980s, the OPFOR at the NTC were elite troops trained and equipped to replicate the combat power of a Soviet Motorized Rifle Regiment; American battalions facing off against the OPFOR were confronted with the spectacle of more than 150 Soviet-style armored vehicles bearing down on them in mass attack, a phenomenon few battalions were able to prevail against (they also faced massed artillery attack, and vigorous electronic warfare conditions, where their communications were actively jammed.)  The realism of the NTC training evolutions in the 1980s played a significant role in preparing the U.S. Army for large-scale ground combat against a Soviet-style threat, and has been cited as being a central factor for the stellar performance of the U.S. military against Iraq in 1991.

Renewed Russian Strength

Deterrence – the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences – is a military mission, and constitutes one of the stated objectives of the deployment of the “Iron Brigade” to Europe. The intended target of the deterrence mission of the “Iron Brigade” is, by design, Russia. In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, the Russian military underwent a significant reduction in force and capability that transformed it into a shell of its former Soviet-era glory. Both the 8th Guards Army and 1st Guards Tank Army were disbanded, their component units either suffering a similar fate or reorganized into smaller brigade-sized elements reflecting the reality that Russia, like the United States, believed large-scale ground combat in Europe to be a thing of the past; casting the Russian Army circa 2008 as a “near peer” opponent would not have been a flawed assumption on the part of the American military.

This status changed in the aftermath of the Russian-Georgian war of August 2008. While the Russian military prevailed in that conflict, against a much smaller and weaker opponent, the poor performance by many Russian units led the Russian high command to realize that fundamental change was needed if Russia were to be able to field a world-class military. Russia closely examined the performance of western militaries, with a focus on the United States and NATO, and undertook a massive program of reorganization and modernization, with an emphasis on increased professionalism and operational preparedness.  The Russian military that intervened in Crimea in 2014 was orders of magnitude better than the one that faced off against Georgia in 2008, with modern communications, new equipment, and well-trained professional soldiers led by highly skilled officers.

The Soviet soldier of the 1980s was a three-year conscript, whose training limitations mandated simple but functional equipment, and tactics that stressed mass over finesse. Today, the Russian soldier is a contracted professional, a volunteer who is paid a salary for service over a period of enlistment, usually around five to six years in length. The new Russian soldier doesn’t come cheap, although at a cost of $65,000 per year, he is nearly a third less expensive than his NATO and American counterpart. A new T-14 Armata main battle tank costs the Russian government around $3.7 million; again, about one third the expense of a NATO and American tank. The newest model T-72/T-80 main battle tank retrofitted with reactive armor and other upgrades is even less expensive.  Conventional wisdom has held that the inherent superiority of NATO and American equipment and training would offset the numerical advantages Russia could accrue due to cheaper overhead and operational costs; the experience of the United States in Iraq, where M-1 main battle tanks cut through Iraqi T-72 tanks like a hot knife through butter only reinforced this perception. However, the Iraqis made use of inferior export versions of the T-72; the Russian army uses a different model, with modern reactive armor and associated defensive systems that are designed to defeat the latest American and NATO anti-armor weapons.

NATO and American anti-armor weapons continue to play catch up to new innovations being fielded by the Russians.

After evaluating Russian capabilities in the aftermath of the Cold War, American intelligence determined that the notion of American qualitative superiority was a myth; had there been a war in Europe, the tanks of the then-Soviet Army would have been nearly impervious to the weapons then available to NATO and American forces. Today, the NATO and American anti-armor weapons continue to play catch up to new innovations being fielded by the Russians.  The Americans like to quantify the Russian Army as being “near peer” in terms of its capabilities; the fact of the matter is that it is the U.S. and NATO armored forces that are “near peer” to their Russian counterparts, and there are many more Russian tanks in Europe today than there are NATO and American.

Since 2001 the U.S. Army has been singularly focused on fighting the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, and ISIS. The Russians, on the other hand, have oriented their military preparation toward countering the threat posed by NATO and the United States. Following the harsh reaction of NATO in response to Russian military action in Crimea and the Donbas, the Russian military took their preparations one step further, reconstituting the 1st Guards Tank Army along organizational lines mirroring those of Soviet times, during the Cold War. This army, comprising a tank division, two motorized rifle divisions, and two separate brigades (one tank and one motorized), consists of more than 50,000 men and over 800 tanks, and is deployed facing Poland and the Baltics. If the 3rd Armored BCT were to confront any Russian threat during its deterrence mission in Europe, it would be the 1st Guards Tank Army.

A Losing Proposition

It is hard to imagine any scenario that has 90 tanks (the number deployed by the 3rd Armored BCT) deterring a force of 800 tanks (the number deployed by the 1st Guards Tank Army.) Of even greater concern is the mismatch in artillery; the 18 self-propelled artillery pieces in the 3rd Armored BCT would be facing off against more than 700 distinct artillery and artillery rocket weapons. The Russian military has traditionally incorporated artillery fires into its operations to a degree far greater than that of any other military, including the United States.  The Russians routinely train in large-scale combined arms – i.e., incorporating supporting artillery and air power with maneuver – operations, something the United States stopped doing after 9/11. The simple fact of the matter is that of the two major ground combat forces in Europe today – the Russian military and NATO – only the Russians are prepared to fight and win a general war in Europe.

A similar mismatch in military capacity and capability exists with the four 1,500-man “battlegroups” deployed by NATO in Poland and the Baltics. Each “battlegroup” is formed around a battalion-sized formation provided by NATO members; there is no viable plan in place to reinforce these units in a timely fashion, meaning that casualties among men and equipment could not be replaced, allowing for the rapid reduction of combat capability under conditions of the kind of heavy combat a ground war in Europe against Russian forces would entail.  If either the 3rd Armored BCT or any of the NATO “battlegroups” were to engage the 1st Guards Tank Army, it is very likely most of their units would be rendered combat ineffective by massed artillery fires before they even had a chance to engage the hundreds of Russian tanks bearing down on them. 

Moreover, Russian electronic warfare capabilities are so advanced that the ability of the subordinate units of the NATO “battlegroups” and/or the 3rd Armored BCT to communicate with one another would be severely degraded, further diminishing combat effectiveness. American reinforcements, aboard ships and aircraft transiting the Atlantic, would be vulnerable to interdiction by Russian naval and air power. Once in Europe, these forces would assemble in ports and airfields known to the Russians and vulnerable to attack. Both American and NATO reinforcements would need to travel on rail lines similarly susceptible to interdiction. Russian logistical lines of communications would be relatively short; those of the United States would stretch back thousands of miles. Warfare under these conditions would be madness.

The U.S. Army has prepositioned an additional Armored BCT’s worth of equipment in warehouses in Poland; there are plans afoot to increase this capability to a full armored division.  But under any scenario, it would take the Army ten days to fall in on this equipment and bring it up to full operational capability.  The most optimistic scenarios have the 1st Guards Tank Army occupying Riga, the capitol of Latvia, within 60 hours of the start of any Russian-NATO conflict.

Of even greater concern is the modern-day equivalent of the Cold War’s Fulda Gap, known as the “Suwalki Gap.” The Suwalki Gap is named for a Polish town that sits astride the narrow corridor of land that connects Lithuania with Poland.  NATO planners are concerned about any Russian attack here, as it would effectively cut off the Baltics from Poland and the rest of Europe – and as things currently stand, there is nothing the 3rdArmored BCT, or any other combination of U.S., Polish and NATO forces, could do to stop the Russians. 

The United States has spent billions of dollars funding the deployment of units such as the 3rd Armored BCT to Europe, and preparing for the deployment of even more force. But this is very much a losing proposition; Russia has assembled overwhelming force, and would be able to easily match or exceed any buildup the United States and NATO may embark on. The last thing Europe and the United States needs is an expensive new Cold War in Europe, especially when the underlying causes for such could be resolved with deft diplomacy.

Stumbling Towards De-escalation

Donald Trump’s alienation of NATO may actually turn out to be the best action the United States could take in regard to the continued viability of NATO, exposing the hypocritical reality that Europe is, on its own, incapable of defending either Poland or the Baltics from a Russian attack, and unwilling and/or unable to pay the price such a defense would require. Europe’s three principle powers – the United Kingdom, France and Germany – lack both the political will and economic resources required to rebuild their militaries to the levels needed to effectively deter Russia in Eastern Europe, where the reality on the ground is that the paltry NATO “battlegroups” deployed to Poland and the Baltics, together with the 3rd Armored BCT, represent little more than a symbolic tripwire that would be swept aside by any concerted Russian attack. Neither NATO nor the United States currently have the ability to reinforce and sustain these forces in combat in a timely fashion, virtually assuring their piecemeal destruction at the hands of Russian formations purpose-built to destroy them. 

The fact is that both NATO and the United States have allowed their national security to be hijacked by Poland and three Baltic nations whose collective hatred of all things Russian creates an inherent tension that the deployment of NATO “tripwire” forces can only exacerbate, and never deter.  Neither London, Paris, Berlin nor Washington, D.C. should permit their larger national security interests to be held hostage by a historical enmity toward Russia that exists in Poland and the Baltics, whether justified or not. NATO’s original mission was to keep the Russians from reaching the Rhine, not fight and die in the same forests and fields surrounding the Masurian Lakes district where Russian and German soldiers died by the hundreds of thousands in 1914 and 1945. Allowing the decision for a general war in Europe between NATO and Russia in 2017 to be made in Warsaw, Riga, Vilnius or Tallin is the modern day equivalent of placing the fate of 1914 Europe in the hands of a radical Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo, with potentially similarly tragic results.

Contrary to popular belief, Article 5 of the NATO Charter is not a suicide pact.  While the language of the text holds that “the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” it notes that each Party “will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” The key to the viability of Article 5, however, is Article 3 of the NATO Charter, which states that “[i]n order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”

There is no debating the point that the European nations of NATO have collectively failed to live up to their obligations under Article 3; as such, it is only logical that the United States, under President Trump, may opt not to respond with armed force against any Russian move on the Baltics, especially when such a move may be prompted by provocations by either the Baltic states or Poland operating under the false bravado that a broad-based reading of Article 5 might promote. Whether intentionally or not, the fallout from Donald Trump’s refusal to single out Article 5 as the cornerstone of America’s commitment to NATO, and instead indirectly highlight Europe’s collective shortcomings vis-à-vis Article 3, may actually inject a sobering dose of reality into the evolving military situation in Poland and the Baltics. A recognition by all parties that America will not automatically fill the gap left by a miserly European defense establishment unwilling to match its harsh anti-Russian rhetoric with blood and steel may actually help ratchet down NATO-Russian tensions before the build-up of military forces along the Suwalki Gap, and elsewhere, reaches the point of no return, triggering a self-fulfilling prophesy of war in Europe no one wants, and no one could win.

Whether Donald Trump has actually factored in the price of blood and steel when making his pronouncements about NATO’s need to meet its financial obligations requiring military spending is unknown at this time; certainly none of his statements have indicated that the president is even aware of the linkage between Article 3 and Article 5. The president’s childish glee at all things military, and his gratuitous embrace of the real sacrifice such service entails, is symptomatic of someone who never served (or, in Trump’s case, is compensating for having pointedly avoided service during the Vietnam era).  The president has no clue what jammed communications are, or how it feels to be under sustained indirect artillery fire, or what the effects of precision fire can achieve on blood and steel alike; yes, he has surrounded himself with men who do understand these realities, but has not, to date, exhibited any indication that these advisors have done anything more than stoke the president’s unrealistic infatuation with the theory of sacrifice (solemn gatherings, headstones laid out with copasetic, parade-like precision, and grieving relatives who look on in mournful adulation as the president exploits their suffering for his personal political gain) as opposed to its ugly reality (the harsh sound of agonal respirations as a comrade takes his or her last breath, the lingering smell of blood and human bodily fluids that only violent death or severe injury brings, and the lifetime of haunting reflection that comes when ones actions have resulted in the loss of human life.)

The president does, however, understand business, and NATO as it is currently configured and focused is the epitome of bad business – pouring money into an investment whose only yield is death and destruction. NATO is a deterrence-based alliance, whose collective defensive posture is by design intended to thwart aggression targeting its members. This cohesion falls apart when NATO seeks to become a regional police force enforcing standards of conduct that, while embraced by NATO members, are not widely adhered to or even agreed upon outside the NATO umbrella. NATO involvement in Kosovo, against Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya has been a mixed bag of sub-standard performance and unmet objectives that have exposed the harsh reality that NATO cannot operate on any meaningful scale independent of American leadership, blood and steel. 

While Donald Trump has oscillated on the issue of NATO’s obsolescence, his gut reaction to NATO’s unwillingness to underwrite the cost of either confronting Islamic extremism or containing Russia is spot on – either pay up, or shut up.  Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May can wax philosophically all they want about “going it alone,” but the economies of Germany, France and the United Kingdom, individually and collectively, are incapable of underwriting the kind of military expansion and modernization that would be required to make up for decades of American hand-holding; it would be political suicide for any of these leaders to attempt to put money where their mouths are.

Donald Trump has made it clear that under his watch, America is not willing to pay a price in blood and steel to confront Russia on the issue of the Ukraine; nor is he prepared to do the same for misguided NATO muscle flexing in Eastern Europe. Whatever the genesis of this mindset may be, it is in the end a sound decision that both Americans and Europeans will grow to appreciate in the decades to come, unencumbered as they will be by the horrific consequences of a European war that does not need to be fought and, if Donald Trump has his way, will not be fought.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.

It’s unclear why this trend persists, but researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct, they say, and people who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.

“Intelligence — in rationally solving problems — can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities,” study lead author Edward Dutton, a research fellow at the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the United Kingdom, said in a statement. [Saint or Spiritual Slacker? Test Your Religious Knowledge]

Smart cookie

In classical Greece and Rome, it was widely remarked that “fools” tended to be religious, while the “wise” were often skeptics, Dutton and his co-author, Dimitri Van der Linden, an assistant professor of psychology at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, wrote in the study.

The ancients weren’t the only ones to notice this association. Scientists ran a meta-analysis of 63 studies and found that religious people tend to be less intelligent than nonreligious people. The association was stronger among college students and the general public than for those younger than college age, they found. The association was also stronger for religious beliefs, rather than religious behavior, according to the meta-analysis, published in 2013 in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review.

But why does this association exist? Dutton set out to find answer, thinking that perhaps it was because nonreligious people were more rational than their religious brethren, and thus better able to reason that there was no God, he wrote.

But “more recently, I started to wonder if I’d got it wrong, actually,” Dutton told Live Science. “I found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias.”

For instance, a 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that college students often get logical answers wrong but don’t realize it. This so-called “bias blind spot” happens when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, within their own thinking. “If anything, a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability,” the researchers of the 2012 study wrote in the abstract.

One question, for example, asked the students: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” The problem isn’t intuitive (the answer is not 10 cents), but rather requires students to suppress or evaluate the first solution that springs into their mind, the researchers wrote in the study. If they do this, they might find the right answer: The ball costs 5 cents, and the bat costs $1.05.

If intelligent people are less likely to perceive their own bias, that means they’re less rational in some respects, Dutton said. So why is intelligence associated with atheism? The answer, he and his colleague suggest, is that religion is an instinct, and it takes intelligence to overcome an instinct, Dutton said. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]

The religion-is-an-instinct theory is a modified version of an idea developed by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, who was not involved in the new study.

Called the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, Kanazawa’s theory attempts to explain the differences in the behavior and attitudes between intelligent and less intelligent people, said Nathan Cofnas, who is pursuing a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom this fall. Cofnas, who specializes in the philosophy of science, was not involved with the new study.

The hypothesis is based on two assumptions, Cofnas told Live Science in an email.

“First, that we are psychologically adapted to solve recurrent problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors in the African savanna,” Cofnas said. “Second, that ‘general intelligence’ (what is measured by IQ tests) evolved to help us deal with nonrecurrent problems for which we had no evolved psychological adaptations.”

The assumptions imply that “intelligent people should be better than unintelligent people at dealing with ‘evolutionary novelty’ — situations and entities that did not exist in the ancestral environment,” Cofnas said.

Dutton and Van der Linden modified this theory, suggesting that evolutionary novelty is something that opposes evolved instincts.

The approach is an interesting one, but might have firmer standing if the researchers explained exactly what they mean by “religious instinct,” Cofnas said.

“Dutton and Van der Linden propose that, if religion has an instinctual basis, intelligent people will be better able to overcome it and adopt atheism,” Cofnas said. “But without knowing the precise nature of the ‘religious instinct,’ we can’t rule out the possibility that atheism, or at least some forms of atheism, harness the same instinct(s).”

For instance, author Christopher Hitchens thought that communism was a religion; secular movements, such as veganism, appeal to many of the same impulses — and possibly ‘instincts’ — that traditional religions do, Cofnas said. Religious and nonreligious movements both rely on faith, identifying with a community of believers and zealotry, he said.

“I think it’s misleading to use the term ‘religion’ as a slur for whatever you don’t like,” Cofnas said.

The researchers also examined the link between instinct and stress, emphasizing that people tend to operate on instinct during stressful times, for instance, turning to religion during a near-death experience.

The researchers argue that intelligence helps people rise above these instincts during times of stress. [11 Tips to Lower Stress]

“If religion is indeed an evolved domain — an instinct — then it will become heightened at times of stress, when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear evidence for this,” Dutton said. “It also means that intelligence allows us to be able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible consequences of our actions.”

People who are able to rise above their instincts are likely better problem-solvers, Dutton noted.

“Let’s say someone had a go at you. Your instinct would be to punch them in the face,” Dutton told Live Science. “A more intelligent person will be able to stop themselves from doing that, reason it through and better solve the problem, according to what they want.”

The study was published May 16 in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science.

Original article on Live Science.

Editor’s Recommendations

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.