The EU open borders model "is turning steadily into a catastrophe for European civilasation"

It is not difficult to agree with what Iain Martin, editor of CapX, writes:

It is manifestly clear that the idea that the EU equals security and Brexit equals isolation (splendid or otherwise) for Britain is complete bunkum. It should be perfectly possible for the major players to cooperate against ISIS as national governments, within or outwith the European Union, and to work together closely, without the need for an ever-expanding and self-serving EU superstructure.

But then the inability to see this is at root what is wrong with the EU more broadly, and the reason the UK is having its referendum at all. Even when Britain talked of leaving and tried to negotiate a distinct set of arrangements, and suggested that the federalist mantra of Jean-Claude Juncker and co is a dead end, it did not seem to produce much of a recognition of reality. Speaking as a European (who is nonetheless sceptical of the EU, which is not the same thing as Europe) my concern is that what has been constructed is transparently unfit for purpose. It is a botched bureaucracy, built on a notionally nice idea, being rendered inoperable by history. The EU open borders model and obsession with anti-democratic integration rather than trade and friendly cooperation is turning steadily into a catastrophe for European civilisation

Cameron´s argument that the EU makes UK safer is demolished by Brussels attacks

A spot on comment on a sad day by the Telegraph´s Europe Editor Peter Foster:

Downing Street had hoped to make security a key plank of the campaign to remain in the EU, but on days like today, the very phrase “European security” sounds like a bad joke.
Mr Cameron wants to argue that we need to remain part of European agencies like Europol and Eurojust precisely to prevent terrorist atrocities in Britain, but in the rough and tumble of the campaign that counter-intuitive argument will be hard to make.
Inevitably, attacks such as this – striking at the very capital of the European project – risks deepening the urge among some British voters to retreat behind our borders, throwing up the “Brexit” sign as we go.
Mr Cameron and other leaders will argue that would be a short-sighted mistake – unravelling the same Europe now under terrorist assault – but every new attack renders the argument that the EU makes us safer a little harder to make.

Russia's stagnating gas giant Gazprom is expanding its intelligence gathering operations

Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's former money machine, stagnating gas giant Gazprom is, assisted by a French company, building a huge data collecting center in the UK:

The marketing arm of UK-based oil and gas company Gazprom is building a new data center in Manchester, using a third-party hosting facility which will be closely aligned with another data center, already built, in London.

OAO Gazprom is one of the largest gas and energy companies in the world and the marketing arm GM&T helps to promote its energy trading and energy retail activities in the European markets in which it operators, including optimizing its energy commodity assets and downstream expansion using Gazprom’s trading network.

GM&T director of global IT Rob Pringle said the division has grown rapidly with the growth of Gazprom’s gas and power trading and retail systems. --

GM&T is working with Paris-based multinational Nextira one for its new DC2 facility which will be implemented as a dedicated suite inside a third-party facility, which with the London data center will provide disaster recovery, backup systems and services for the global operations.

Director of global IT Rob Pringle talks about the "growth of Gazprom's gas and power trading and retails systems". However, in reality the world's most corrupt and  mismanaged energy company is stagnating everywhere. The only "arm" with real growth seems to be intelligence gathering - which should make western security services worried.

This is what the Financial Times recently wrote about Gazprom:

Wherever it turns in Europe – by far the biggest contributor to its $38bn net profit last year – it faces difficulties. Often, they are the result of the US shale gas boom of the past decade that has sent shockwaves through the global energy market.

Gazprom has been forced to cut prices to its western customers and is being investigated by the EU for suspected market abuse. At home, it is facing growing competition and may lose its treasured monopoly on gas exports.

“Gazprom is a stagnating company,” says Igor Mikhailov, portfolio manager at Uralsib, a Moscow investment bank. “It’s losing market share inside Russia, its negotiating power in Europe is waning and it spends all its cash flow on big projects that don’t add value.”

Obama is a security threat

Just when it would be time to get tough with dictator Vladimir Putin, US president Barack Obama is preparing to "reach out" to him (once again)! No question about it, Obama is a security threat. 

The regime, meanwhile, has steadily escalated a campaign against the leaders of the peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrations that erupted in Russia in late 2011. For Russians, the cynical tactics are bone-wearyingly familiar: Transparently trumped-up criminal cases are being brought against the activists, with the promise of lengthy prison terms. Alexei Navalny, the founder of an anti-corruption organization, has himself been charged with corruption. Last week leftist firebrand Sergei Udaltsov was placed under house arrest ahead of his upcoming trial on charges of organizing an anti-Putin rally in May.

Some Russian analysts believe that the regime is well on its way to crushing the opposition movement, which attracted the support of much of the urban middle class. Others regard the repression as the death spasms of an exhausted autocracy. “There are classical criteria of a dying regime and its key signs are evident in Russia,” Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Endowment’s Moscow office wrote recently, citing “the Kremlin’s inability either to preserve the status quo or begin changes.” Either side might be right, though our bet is with Ms. Shevtsova.

What’s strange is that the Obama administration would seek to undertake a major new piece of business with Mr. Putin without regard for this ugly climate. New U.S.-Russian nuclear warhead reductions, while welcome, are hardly urgent: The big challenges of nuclear weapons lie elsewhere in the world. At the same time, the survival of a pro-democracy movement in Russia is an important and pressing U.S. interest, just as Mr. Putin’s growing hostility to the United States threatens U.S. initiatives in the Middle East and elsewhere. Maybe offering Mr. Putin a new nuclear weapons deal is the best way to counter his noxious policies — but it is hard to see how.

Read the entire Washington Post article here