In a bold move, the US government has accused Russia of employing state-run media to interfere in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The accusations centre around Russia’s use of propaganda, disinformation, and influence campaigns, with a specific focus on RT (formerly Russia Today), a Kremlin-backed news network.

The US Treasury Department has swiftly responded to these allegations by announcing sanctions on 10 individuals and two entities directly linked to these efforts. Among those sanctioned are Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT, and her deputy, Elizaveta Brodskaia. They are being held responsible for orchestrating a campaign to manipulate public opinion in the US by recruiting social media influencers to spread false information. This tactic is not new but has proven highly effective in shaping public discourse.

The sanctions aim to freeze assets, restrict travel, and hamper the financial operations of the individuals and organizations involved. This is a clear signal that the US government is treating this interference seriously, as it views any foreign meddling in its electoral processes as a severe violation of its sovereignty.

The White House has been vocal in its response to these accusations, stating that Russian President Vladimir Putin was likely aware of the interference efforts. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby remarked, “We believe Mr. Putin feels they prefer Kamala Harris over Trump,” underscoring the belief that Russia is once again attempting to influence the outcome of a US presidential election.

This is not the first time Moscow has been accused of meddling in US elections. In 2016, similar allegations led to investigations and sanctions, sparking ongoing tensions between the two countries.

The Krakow Post

Ukrainian forces have recently shot down a previously unseen Russian drone, sparking questions about the new tactics and technology being deployed by Moscow. This drone is particularly noteworthy due to its jet engine—a feature not commonly found in older Russian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). This marks the first time this specific model has been observed on the battlefield.

Ukrainian soldiers were taken aback by the drone’s advanced design. Unlike the propeller-driven Shahed-136, which Russia frequently employs, this new model is powered by a jet engine, indicating it was designed for high-speed operations. Its aerodynamic “flying wing” design suggests possible stealth capabilities, potentially making it more challenging to detect with radar.

Curiously, the drone lacked reconnaissance equipment, such as cameras, and carried no weapons, suggesting it was not intended for conventional reconnaissance or attack missions. Experts speculate that the drone might be an experimental model used by Russia to test Ukraine’s air defence systems. By deploying an unarmed, high-speed drone, Russia could be assessing how easily their new designs can be detected and neutralized.

The drone appeared to be a primitive, experimental model rather than a finished product from a sophisticated manufacturing process, reinforcing the theory that Russia is experimenting with new UAV designs. These prototypes might be used as decoys to evaluate their durability and effectiveness under real combat conditions.

While the exact specifications and capabilities of this mysterious drone remain unknown, its appearance suggests that Russia is actively developing and testing new unmanned technology.

ED: This video runs for 57 minutes … It deals mainly with army language, slang and abbreviations … I found the time to watch it all, most of you should find it interesting.

This pretty much condenses life into 79 seconds. If you don’t see yourself in this video at least once, you must be living on another planet…

ED: From my inbox thanks to Mike Kenavan

The Australian Government is taking a step forward in its commitment to strengthening the nation’s Defence industry workforce with the launch of the Schools Pathways Program: Open Competitive Grant Opportunity. This initiative, valued at over $11 million across two financial years (2024-25 and 2025-26), underscores the dedication to a future “made in Australia.”

The Schools Pathways Program is designed to raise awareness of career opportunities within the Defence industry and encourage students to engage in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. By fostering interest in these critical fields, the program aims to build a robust pipeline of talent ready to meet the needs of Australia’s Defence sector.

Eligible organisations will be able to apply for funding ranging from $150,000 to $2,000,000 to deliver activities that align with the program’s goals. In addition to supporting student engagement, the program also offers professional development opportunities for teachers and provides resources for parents and carers to guide their children toward rewarding STEM careers.

Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery, the Hon Pat Conroy MP, emphasized the importance of this initiative, stating, “This Government is committed to developing the defence industry skills we need for a future made in Australia.”

He added, “The launch of this grant opportunity is yet another example of delivering on the Defence Industry Development Strategy, supporting a resilient, competitive, and innovative Australian sovereign defence industrial base, and a future Defence industry workforce to support our national security.”

This latest grant opportunity builds on the $5.1 million already invested through inter-governmental agreements with South Australia and Western Australia over the financial years 2023-24 and 2025-26, further accelerating the Government’s investment in a highly skilled workforce.

Applications for the Schools Pathways Program grant will open in early September 2024. Detailed guidelines and additional information about the grant can be found at business.gov.au.

Reflecting on the broader impact of this initiative, Minister Conroy concluded, “The Schools Pathway program is a great example of how the Government is accelerating investment in a robust and highly skilled workforce, which will allow us to meet the needs of our Defence industry partners now and into the future.”

Photo: Army Maintenace Fitter – Defence Photo 

Defence Media Release

Exercise Tarang Shakti 24 is being held at Air Force Station Jodhpur from 30 August to 13 September 2024. This marks the first time the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has deployed combat aircraft to India for a multinational exercise. The RAAF has sent three EA-18G Growler aircraft from No. 6 Squadron, along with up to 120 personnel.

This exercise is a significant milestone for India as it is the inaugural edition of Exercise Tarang Shakti. The event has drawn participation from 11 nations and 18 observer nations, underscoring its global importance.

Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Stephen Chappell, emphasized that Australia’s participation in Exercise Tarang Shakti highlights the nation’s commitment to supporting regional partners and fostering international cooperation to tackle shared security challenges. “India is a top-tier security partner for Australia, and through the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Australia and India, the Government is continuing to prioritize practical and tangible cooperation that directly contributes to Indo-Pacific stability,” Air Marshal Chappell stated.

He further noted that Australia’s involvement in international exercises like Tarang Shakti 24 showcases the RAAF’s advanced capabilities, ensuring rapid response and adaptability to emerging threats in the Indo-Pacific region. The exercise also offers Australian aviators the opportunity to enhance interoperability with foreign militaries, develop a mutual understanding of tactical operations, and strengthen international relations.

Australia and India have significantly bolstered their air defence cooperation in recent years, including hosting Indian Air Force Flankers at Exercise Pitch Black in 2018, 2022, and 2024. The RAAF also engages in various training and engagement activities with the Indian Navy’s P-8I Neptune surveillance aircraft. Moving forward, Australia is committed to deepening and expanding its defence cooperation with India, recognizing its crucial role in regional stability.

Summary of IPA Report

For years, Australia’s decision-makers have deluded themselves into believing that the CSIRO’s GenCost modelling is an accurate and reliable foundation for designing our nation’s energy future. This misplaced trust has led us astray, hiding the real costs of our energy choices. According to Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), “We have been misled for too long on the true cost of the energy options on the table.”

The IPA’s newly released research report, “The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy: Why a System Built on Renewables Is the Most Expensive of All Options,” authored by University of Queensland Adjunct Professor Stephen Wilson, exposes the harsh realities of Australia’s future energy system. The report delivers a critical message: the federal government’s current energy system plan, coupled with its 2030 emissions targets, will result in a minimum four-fold increase in the average wholesale price of electricity. This sobering conclusion should make every Australian reconsider the direction we are headed.

The Flawed Approach of CSIRO’s GenCost Modelling

At the heart of the issue is the CSIRO’s Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) methodology, which the federal government has heavily relied upon. However, the report argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed and misleading. The LCOE method only looks at the costs associated with generating electricity but neglects the broader, more critical aspect—the Total System Cost. According to the research, any meaningful decisions about our energy future should be based on Total System Cost, which considers all the expenses tied to delivering electricity to consumers.

Wilson’s report demonstrates that when a system is built on variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind, the Total System Cost can be at least twice as high as that of a system based on coal or nuclear baseload generation. This stark contrast is crucial for understanding why renewable energy is not the cheapest option, despite popular belief.

The High Cost of Renewables: A Price Too High to Pay

Australia once enjoyed some of the lowest electricity prices in the industrialised world, but those days are long gone. Now, we are among the nations with the highest electricity costs, a situation that has been exacerbated by decades of poor decision-making, rooted in flawed advice and ideological bias. “Decades of poor decision-making based on flawed and misleading advice and ideology is crushing the most productive sectors of our economy,” Hargreaves noted.

The report’s analysis of the Total System Cost method reveals three distinct wholesale energy cost zones:

• $50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) zone: This represents the total cost of the inherited coal-based generation system, which has been the backbone of Australia’s energy infrastructure.
• $100 per MWh zone: This reflects the total cost of a generation system led by reliable 24/7 options, such as coal and nuclear power.
• $200 per MWh zone: This represents the total cost of a generation system primarily based on variable renewable energy sources, like wind and solar.

The study shows that as the energy system shifts from the $50 cost zone of coal-based power to the $200 cost zone of renewables, the actual outcomes for consumers will likely result in even higher electricity prices. This shift is not merely an academic concern but a pressing economic reality that will hit Australian households and businesses hard.

Unseen Costs of Renewable Infrastructure

The report also highlights a critical oversight in the government and CSIRO’s current modelling: the failure to account for the enormous infrastructure costs associated with transitioning to a renewable energy system. The infrastructure required to support a renewable-dominated grid, including extensive upgrades to poles, wires, and storage facilities, represents a massive and often overlooked expense. When these costs are factored in, the case against a renewable-led energy future becomes even stronger.

According to Hargreaves, “Total System Cost calculations make clear that an energy system led by variable renewable generation is by far the most expensive approach government could take.”

The Need for a Reality Check on Australia’s Energy Future

Australia’s current energy system, primarily based on coal, represents the lowest cost option, according to the report. The next most affordable option would be a system built on new baseload power plants, whether they are coal-fired or nuclear. Yet, the government’s plans seem determined to phase out coal-fired generation, not on the basis of cost but due to emissions concerns.

While renewable energy sources like wind and solar are often touted as “free” because they do not require fuel, the reality is far more complex. The upfront investment required for renewable energy infrastructure is substantial, and the LCOE, which is used by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) relying on CSIRO’s GenCost model, fails to capture the true costs involved. This oversimplified calculation does not provide an accurate picture of the Total System Cost across the different types of generation needed to serve customer demand consistently.

The True Cost of Renewables: A System on the Brink

As the report underscores, a system that relies heavily on renewable energy will inevitably lead to much higher costs for consumers. The transition from a coal-based system at $50 per MWh to a renewable-based system at $200 per MWh will place a significant financial burden on Australians. Even if temporary price relief is provided through subsidies or other measures, the underlying economic issue remains unresolved.

In summary, the report by Adjunct Professor Stephen Wilson can be distilled into several key points:

• The energy system with the lowest Total System Cost is the one we currently have, based on coal-fired power.
• The LCOE of any generation type does not reflect the Total System Cost, making it an inadequate metric for decision-making.
• Renewable technologies can play a role in the energy mix, but their involvement should be limited to avoid escalating the Total System Cost.

Contrary to popular belief, coal-fired power plants are not destined to become obsolete after a set number of years. These plants can be periodically refurbished and continue to operate, making them a viable option for the foreseeable future. The benchmark for comparing costs should not be hypothetical new coal plants but the existing coal fleet, which remains the most cost-effective option.

Conclusion: A Call for Honest Assessment

Australia must face the facts. National security cannot be achieved without energy security, and a reliable, affordable energy system is crucial for the country’s future. Our leaders must urgently reassess the true costs of the energy alternatives and stop relying on the discredited GenCost modelling from CSIRO.

As the report concludes, the lowest cost system is the one we already have, and the next lowest cost system would be built on new baseload power plants, whether coal or nuclear. It’s time Australians were given the facts, and it’s time for our leaders to commission a thorough and honest analysis of the true costs of our energy options.

The Krakow Post

Germany’s political landscape has been thrown into disarray following the recent electoral success of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Often labelled as the country’s leading “far-right” party, the AfD’s victories in state elections have sparked widespread controversy and concern about the future direction of German politics.

The AfD made history by winning a state election in Thuringia and came close to securing another victory in Saxony. This marks the first time since World War II that a “far-right” party has won a state election in Germany, a development that has sent shockwaves through the country’s political establishment. In Thuringia, the victory was led by Björn Höcke, a figure often associated with the more radical elements within the party. Meanwhile, in Saxony, the AfD finished just behind the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), highlighting the growing appeal of the AfD in Germany’s eastern regions.

The election results have placed immense pressure on Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government. The governing coalition, consisting of the Social Democrats (SPD), Greens, and Free Democrats (FDP), received less than 15% of the vote combined in these state elections. This dismal performance reflects the growing discontent among voters with the national government’s handling of key issues such as inflation, economic stagnation, and internal divisions. Additionally, there is widespread frustration with the government’s immigration policies and its support for military aid to Ukraine, sentiments that the AfD has effectively capitalized on.

The conservative opposition, led by the CDU, faces significant challenges in forming governments without involving the AfD. Despite leading in national polls, the CDU must navigate complex coalition-building processes to exclude the AfD, a task that is becoming increasingly difficult as the AfD gains strength in key regions. In Thuringia, for example, even a coalition of the CDU, Scholz’s SPD, and the newly formed Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance would fall short of a majority. The AfD’s growing influence, particularly in eastern Germany, complicates the formation of governments that align with more traditional conservative or centrist values.

The implications of these election results are profound for Germany’s political future. With another state election in Brandenburg on September 22, the outcome could further weaken Scholz’s coalition and bolster the AfD’s momentum. The success of the AfD underscores the deep divisions and dissatisfaction within the country, driven by a range of factors including economic concerns, immigration, and scepticism towards the European Union.

Recent incidents of Islamist extremist violence have also fuelled public anxiety, leading to increased support for the AfD’s anti-immigration stance. The AfD’s ability to tap into these concerns, coupled with growing unease over inflation and economic management, has resonated with a significant portion of the electorate. Many Germans are turning towards policies that advocate for less government spending and tighter control over the nation’s finances, seeing these as necessary measures to protect Germany’s economic stability.

The media frequently describes the AfD as a “far-right” party, a label that is largely based on its controversial policies. The AfD strongly opposes illegal immigration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, and advocates for stricter border controls. However, the party also supports moderate legal immigration based on qualitative criteria, where there is irrefutable demand that cannot be met by domestic resources or EU immigration.

The AfD is also known for its Euroscepticism, with the party being critical of the European Union and even calling for Germany to leave the Eurozone. This stance reflects a broader nationalist agenda that emphasizes traditional German culture and values, a message that resonates with voters who feel that these are under threat from globalization and liberal policies. Additionally, the AfD supports welfare policies that prioritize native Germans over immigrants, a position often referred to as welfare chauvinism.

The Need for Far-Right Politics?

The rise of the AfD raises important questions about the need for far-right politics in Germany. For many, the AfD’s success is a troubling sign of growing intolerance and a retreat from the progressive values that have defined post-war Germany. Critics argue that the party’s nationalist and anti-immigration policies threaten social cohesion and undermine the country’s commitment to human rights and European integration.

However, supporters of the AfD argue that the party is simply responding to the legitimate concerns of ordinary Germans who feel abandoned by the mainstream parties. They point to the failures of the established political class to address issues such as immigration, economic inequality, and national sovereignty, which have left many voters feeling disillusioned and alienated.

The question of whether there is a need for far-right politics in Germany is ultimately a reflection of the broader tensions and uncertainties facing the country. As the AfD continues to gain ground, it is clear that the party is tapping into a deep well of dissatisfaction and frustration that cannot be easily dismissed. Whether this will lead to a fundamental realignment of German politics or merely a temporary surge remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Germany’s political landscape is in turmoil, and the AfD’s recent electoral success is a clear indication of the challenges that lie ahead.