Understanding The Russian Disinformation Defense – As Predicted in 2018

sundance at cth

Various mainstream media reports have discussed the latest declassification releases by saying the releases show the Steele Dossier was infected with “Russian Disinformation”.

The framework of this “Russia disinformation” defense narrative is completely and utterly false.  The fabrications within the Steele Dossier assembly of lies, came almost exclusively from operatives in and outside government associated with the Clinton campaign; and a dedicated group of  purposeful allies in the intelligence community; who were attempting to weaponize intelligence, even false intelligence for similar political purposes.

However, that said, in 2018 CTH outlined this exact defense and why they would deploy it. Below I am re-posting a research outline from August 2018; and what you will find in the conclusion of the outline is this:

By doubling down on the Russian Collusion narrative the conspirators created a ‘catch-22’ defense. They could/can claim Deripaska was/is giving disinformation in his version of events to support the interests of Russia and sewing chaos in America etc. And any Republican who would give Deripaska a platform to tell what happened in 2016 would be doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin. See how that works?

The soft coup team protects themselves by impugning the motive of Deripaska, and diminishing his credibility under the auspices of Russian disinformation.

Sound familar?  Let’s revisit the 2018 entire outline and see how predictable this was.

~ Originally Written 2018 ~

Adam Waldman is the lawyer/lobbyist for Oleg Deripaska, the Russian billionaire who appears to be a key background player in the 2016 DOJ/FBI scheme against presidential candidate Donald Trump. Additionally, Mr. Waldman represents the U.S. interests of Christopher Steele, a contract employee of Deripaska and author of the Clinton-Steele Dossier that was used by the DOJ/FBI during their counterintelligence operation against presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Because of his centrality, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley recently requested testimony from Mr. Adam Waldman, surrounding his contacts and engagements -with Deripaska, and by extension the DOJ/FBI- throughout the 2016/2017 operation to undermine and remove President Donald Trump.

In a response letter released August 18, 2018 (full pdf below) lawyers representing Mr. Waldman told Senator Chuck Grassley their client was “out of the country and not expected to return for several weeks.” SEE BELOW:

However, internet researcher/investigator almostjingo noticed that Mr. Waldman’s wife Barbara Sturm posted an instagram picture today of them dining with friends in New York last night, August 22, 2018:

(Link) Barbara Sturm second from left, husband Adam Waldman far right.

Whoopsie, apparently the letter from Mr. Waldman’s lawyers was intentionally false and simply an effort to avoid giving testimony to congress. Adam Waldman cannot be “out of the country for several weeks” and simultaneously having dinner in New York last night.

Here’s the full attorney letter: View this document on Scribd

Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska is a key figure at the epicenter of the DOJ and FBI activity that was taking place in 2016. Through his affiliates, lawyers and associates, Deripaska is directly connected to dossier author Christopher Steele, Fusion-GPS, and the collaborative FBI efforts of Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok.

Adam Waldman (left) and Oleg Deripaska (right)

In the early 2016 text messages and email conversations between DOJ Official Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele, the interests of Oleg Deripaska are a centerpiece of a quid-pro-quo where Deripaska gains a travel VISA and possible exemption from the Magnitsky Act in exchange for cooperation with the FBI effort against Donald Trump.

Adam Waldman was also the person in contact with corrupt Senate Intelligence Committee vice-chairman Mark Warner early in 2017 when the ‘insurance policy’ was deployed against newly elected President Donald Trump. As discovered in text messages, Waldman was the liaison, the person providing plausible deniability, between Senator Warner, Christopher Steele and Oleg Deripaska.

(Link to All Text Messages)

As many people are now aware, the SSCI is the most corrupt committee apparatus within congress; and as noted in the text messages, Adam Waldman only wanted to work with the Senate Intelligence Committee on his endeavors.

Within the Adam Waldman text messages to Senator Mark Warner, Waldman also notes the relationship between his client Christopher Steele and former Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Dianne Feinstein staffer, Daniel Jones.

Lawyer and Lobbyist Adam Waldman represents central figures: Oleg Deripaska, Christopher Steele and also Julian Assange. However, the connection between Waldman, Steele and Daniel Jones becomes additionally important.

You might remember that Daniel Jones raised $50 million to continue funding the Fusion-GPS investigation *AFTER* the 2016 election. It is likely part (perhaps most/all) of the money came from Oleg Deripaska, via his lawyer lobbyist Adam Waldman.

These are the types of questions that need to be answered. Hence, Senator Chuck Grassley requesting Mr. Waldman to appear and give testimony. However, it is the uncomfortable issues behind these questions that were apparently so concerning they led Waldman’s own lawyers to lie about his whereabouts.

It appears a little hypocritical for Mr. Waldman to be evading questioning considering it was Waldman who contacted journalist John Solomon earlier in the year to present a story conducive to his client Oleg Deripaska. He was full of information in May, 2018, but when facing questioning about that information in August – he disappears.

Waldman’s current triangulation is part of the reason for our earlier emphasis/warning on the construct of the May 2018 Solomon article. After all, everyone involved in the ‘soft coup attempt’ is desperate to safeguard their own interests.

Adam Waldman was representing Oleg Deripaska’s interests in the U.S. to politicians and officials. In May of 2018, John Solomon was contacted by Adam Waldman with a story about how the FBI contacted Deripaska for help in their Trump Russia investigation in September of 2016.

Keep in mind, this is Waldman contacting Solomon with a story.

Waldman told Solomon a story about how his client Oleg Deripaska was approached by the FBI in September of 2016 and asked for help with information about Paul Manafort and by extension Donald Trump. Within the backstory for the FBI and Deripaska was a prior connection between Robert Mueller and Deripaska in 2009.

Again, as you read the recap, remember this is Waldman contacting Solomon. Article Link Here – and my summary below:

♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier. The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support. Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help. This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin. Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd. He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.” 

This story, as told from the perspective of Adam Waldman -Deripaska’s lawyer/lobbyist- is important because it highlights a connection between Robert Mueller and Oleg Deripaska; a connection Mueller and the DOJ/FBI never revealed on their own.

I wrote about the ramifications of the Solomon Story HERE. Again, hopefully most will review; because there’s a larger story now visible with the new communication between Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr.

It is likely that Oleg’s 2016 entry into the U.S. was facilitated as part of a quid-pro-quo; either agreed in advance, or, more likely, planned by the DOJ/FBI for later use in their 2016 Trump operation; as evidenced in the September 2016 FBI request. Regardless of the planning aspect, billionaire Deripaska is connected to Chris Steele, a source for Chris Steele, and likely even the employer of Chris Steele.

The FBI used Oleg Deripaska (source), and Oleg Deripaska used the FBI (visa).

Here’s where it gets interesting….

In that May article John Solomon reports that Deripaska wanted to testify to congress last year (2017), without any immunity request, but was rebuked. Who blocked his testimony?

In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman. Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier. Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele. {Text Messages}

As you can see from the text messages (more here), the House Intelligence Committee wanted to interview Deripaska. However, based on their ongoing contact and relationship Deripaska’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, asks Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chair Mark Warner for feedback.

Oleg Deripaska was blocked from testifying to congress. Now, it was obviously not from the HPSCI (Nunes Committee), but rather by the Senate Intel Committee, via Vice-Chair Senator Mark Warner. Oh yes, THAT Senator Mark Warner again.

Now, think about this…. Yes, with Oleg Deripaska in the picture there was indeed Russian meddling in the 2016 election; only, it wasn’t the type of meddling currently being sold. The FBI/DOJ were using Russian Deripaska to frame their Russian conspiracy narrative.
It is almost a certainty that Deripaska was one of Chris Steele’s sources for the dossier.

Now, put yourself in Deripaska’s shoes and think about what happens AFTER candidate Donald Trump surprisingly wins the election.

All of a sudden Deripaska the asset becomes a risk to the corrupt Scheme Team (DOJ/FBI et al); especially as the DOJ/FBI then execute the “insurance policy” effort against Donald Trump…. and eventually enlist Robert Mueller.

It is entirely possible for a Russian to be blackmailing someone, but it ain’t Trump vulnerable to blackmail; it’s the conspiracy crew within the DOJ and FBI. Deripaska now has blackmail material on Comey, McCabe and crew.

After the 2017 (first year) failure of the “insurance policy” it now seems more likely President Trump will outlive the soft coup. In May 2018, Oleg tells Waldman to call John Solomon and tell him the story from a perspective favorable to Deripaska.

As the story is told, in 2017 Oleg was more than willing to testify to congress… likely laughing the entire time… but the corrupt participants within congress damned sure couldn’t let Deripaska testify. Enter corrupt SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner:

Um, we’ve got a problem here Mark…

The Russians (Deripaska) really do have leverage and blackmail… but it ain’t over Trump. Oleg has blackmail on Comey, McCabe and conspiracy crew. Oleg Deripaska must be kept away from congress and away from exposing the scheme.

Guess who else must be controlled and/or kept away from congress?

Julian Assange.

Assange has evidence the Russians didn’t hack the DNC.

Between Deripaska’s first-hand knowledge of the DOJ/FBI work on both the Dossier and the DOJ/FBI intention for his use as a witness; and Julian Assange’s first-hand knowledge of who actually took the DNC email communication;… well, the entire Russian narrative could explode in their faces.

Control is needed.

You can almost hear the corrupt U.S. intelligence officials calling their U.K. GCHQ partners in Britain and yelling at them to do something, anything, and for the love of God, shut down Assange’s access to the internet STAT…. Yeah, funny that.

Now, who moves into position to control Julian Assange?

Well, well, well…. Lookie here? Who dat? Apparently the SSCI wants to interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in a closed session. Signed by none-other than our corrupt-o-crats Richard Burr and Mark Warner. Yeah, funny that.

Lest anyone need a reminder…. “The most corrupt part of congress is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). The SSCI is the center of the deepest part of the Deep State swamp. The SSCI never, ever, E.V.E.R… does anything that does not protect and advance the self-interest of the corrupt Washington DC professional political class.”

Now do we see why the SSCI is the center of protecting the entire fraudulent apparatus?

It’s somewhat humorous to look at this fiasco from the perspective of Oleg Deripaska. He must be having a lot of laughs with his Ruskie friends about these stupid Americans and how the intelligence apparatus of the United States of America is controlled by corrupt politicians trying to save themselves and the corrupt institutions.

The Russians, notorious for sowing discord, are being used as a shield from sunlight upon actions taken by U.S. own intelligence officers: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, James Clapper etc.

There’s a reason why I keep emphasizing the source of the John Solomon story was Adam Waldman. Think about it from the perspective of the conspiracy group reading how Oleg instructed Waldman to present his story.

With Deripaska telling Solomon how the FBI contacted him; the background of their prior collaborative relationship; and the likelihood of Deripaska giving information to Chris Steele for the dossier; the scheme team really, really, needed to double down on the Russian conspiracy narrative in case Oleg ever did testify to congress.

By doubling down on the Russian Collusion narrative the conspirators created a ‘catch-22’ defense. They could/can claim Deripaska was/is giving disinformation in his version of events to support the interests of Russia and sewing chaos in America etc. And any Republican who would give Deripaska a platform to tell what happened in 2016 would be doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin. See how that works?

The soft coup team protects themselves by impugning the motive of Deripaska, and diminishing his credibility under the auspices of Russian disinformation.

Devin Nunes Discusses DC Political Games, Wuhan Virus and Spygate

Devin Nunes appears on Fox News weekend to discuss the ongoing congressional back-and-forth over funding Wuhan Virus economic relief and specifically funding the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) within the CARES act.  Nunes also discusses Beijing’s responsibility for the outbreak and their lies.

Additionally, Representative Nunes discusses the latest revelations within the recently declassified footnotes and classified documents. On this subject CTH will provide additional information later; however, one of the overlooked questions surrounds why media, total media (including Solomon and Herridge), have never questioned participants.

Think about it… Over the past three years there has been a great deal of sunlight onto the specifics of the events. We now know the primary participants in the intelligence operations against Donald Trump. However, not a single media outlet has ever attempted to question: FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, James Baker, Joe Pientka, Bill Priestap, Tashina Guahar, James Crowell, Sally Moyer, Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Dana Boente or even Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson or Rod Rosenstein…. Why not?

Peter Navarro Discusses Chinese Duplicity and Ongoing COVID-19 Battle

White House manufacturing and trade adviser Peter Navarro appears on ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the activity of China during the Wuhan Virus. Navarro brings up a good point that prior to the pandemic outbreak Beijing purchased all of the global PPE, gained control of the global supply, and is now profiteering from the problem they created.

Navarro and Pompeo (audio clip) point out that China’s 5G Hauwei endeavor is now likely to collapse as people around the world realize rebuke the dangerous and manipulative Chinese communists.

Additionally, Navarro gives examples of how the Defense Production Act (DPA) is being used to make rapid changes to manufacturing processes and generate industrial health products in record time.

Secretary Mnuchin -vs- Jake Tapper

The Wall St Establishment Globalists
want to take back control

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin appears on CNN to discuss the ongoing congressional funding issues around the Paycheck Protection Program.  Mnuchin notes the effectiveness of the Trump/Mnuchin community banks responding to their small business customers on Main Street.  This success was specifically by design and foresight two years ago.  

It is important to remember the modernized community and credit union banking system was specifically created by the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018 to be the direct conduit to main street.  It is likely the effectiveness of that agile financial system has actually stunned the institutional banks and their UniParty big club politicians.  The Big Club didn’t realize how nimble the banking system was that Trump/Mnuchin created.

In my opinion, the effectiveness of the community and credit union banking system has turned the eye of Sauron onto them.  Thus the Wall St. multinational banks are attempting to punish the White House by activating their paid footsoldiers in congress to impede it. 

Congress (both sides) are not blocking the PPP funding program (via SBA for Main Street) for the reasons most people think.  Pelosi and McConnell are both trying to help  their Big Bank/Big Club, Wall Street, benefactors by punishing customers of the Main St banking system Trump/Mnuchin put into place two years ago….

It’s a much bigger battle than most understand.

In late October 2017 the Senate voted, narrowly, to strike down a CFPB banking rule that was set to begin in 2019. The CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), is the watchdog financial agency created by Congress in the aftermath of the mortgage mess.

The CFPB rule, five years in the making, would have allowed individual and class action lawsuits against financial institutions by consumers and lawyers instead of arbitration to settle disputes. The Democrats and those who supported the rule framed the arguments around protecting consumers from predatory banks. However, those against the rule pointed out the cost to smaller banks, community banks and credit unions.

Big banks and multinational financial enterprises (ie. The Big Club) can afford massive groups of lawyers to defend their interests; smaller community banks and credit unions cannot afford such litigious costs. The K-Street lobbyists were against the regulatory rule as a natural outcome of their general disposition toward regulation. However, K-Street was specifically ambivalent to the final senate vote because increased systemic regulation supports their competitive ability to dominate the U.S. financial system.

Trump and Mnuchin viewed the entire U.S. banking system as too monolithic and generally positioned to the benefit of Wall Street and not Main Street. As such their approach toward regulation was to split the regulatory financial system into two segments according to the size of the bank (or financial entity). Big institutional banks (more than $10 billion) retained comprehensive regulation over their practices; however, smaller banks do not have the same level of regulatory and compliance mandates. This approach is the modern era financial outlook that, like MAGAnomics, is entirely new and bold.

“we do not support a separation of banks from investment banks, we think that would have a very significant problem on the financial markets, on the economy, on liquidity; and we think that there is proper things that potentially we could look at around regulation, but we do not support a separation of banks and investment banks.”

~ Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifying to the Senate Banking Committee, May 18th 2017

At first blush that statement from Secretary Mnuchin might seem to run counter to the Trump administration’s prior policy statements outlining a preference for a reinstatement of some form of “Glass-Steagall” regulatory separation between commercial banking and investment banking. However, it doesn’t.

When combined with the totality of Mnuchin’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Mnuchin is saying the current “too big to fail” (‘too big to succeed’) issue had created a problem for lending liquidity. Specifically, if divisional separation is required – the banks’ best interests would naturally put the investment division ahead of commercial lending and the liquid capital within the overall U.S. economy would shrink.

After watching hours of interviews and presentations, and after looking at the policy briefs from within the Mnuchin led Treasury, CTH understood what the administration was  doing based on the executive orders signed earlier in the year….

Back in July 2010 when Dodd-Frank banking regulation was passed into law, there were approximately 12 to 17 banks who fell under the definition of “too big to fail”.

Meaning 12 to 17 financial institutions could individually negatively impact the economy, and were going to force another TARP-type bailout if they failed in the future. Dodd-Frank regulations were supposed to ensure financial security, and the elimination of risk via taxpayer bailouts, by placing mandatory minimums on how much secure capital was required to be held in order to operate “a bank”.

One large downside to Dodd-Frank was that in order to hold the required capital, all banks decreased lending to shore-up their liquid holdings and meet the regulatory minimums.

Without the ability to borrow funds, small businesses have a hard time raising money to modernize or create new business. In the big picture growth in the larger economy is hampered by the absence of capital.

Another downstream effect of banks needing to increase their liquid holdings was exponentially worse. Less liquid large banks needed to purchase and absorb the financial assets of more liquid large banks in order to meet the regulatory requirements. Indeed this is exactly what happened.

In 2010 there were approximately twelve “too big to fail banks”, and that was seen as a risk within the economy, and more broad-based banking competition was needed to be more secure.

Unfortunately, because of Dodd-Frank, by 2016 those twelve banks had merged into only four even bigger banks that were now even bigger risks; albeit supposedly more financially secure in their liquid holdings.

This ‘less banks’ reality was opposite of the desired effect.

The four to six big banks (JP Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, US BanCorp and Mellon) now control $9+ trillion (that’s “TRILLION). Their size is so enormous that small number of banks now control most of the U.S. financial market.

Because they control so much of the financial market, instituting a Glass-Steagall firewall between commercial and investment divisions (in addition to the Dodd-Frank liquid holding requirements), would mean the capability of small and mid-size businesses to get the loans needed to expand or even keep their operations running would stop.

2010’s “Too few, too big to fail” became 2016’s “EVEN FEWER, EVEN BIGGER to fail”.

That’s the underlying problem for a Glass-Steagall type of regulation now. The Democrats created Dodd-Frank which:

•#1 generated constraints on the economy (less lending),

•#2 made fewer banking options available (banks merged),

•#3 made top banks even bigger.

This problem is why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin created a parallel banking system of smaller community and credit union banks that are external to Dodd Frank regulations and can act as the primary commercial banks for small to mid-sized businesses.

This intended banking design of smaller, more connected to Main Street lending, is why President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin did not support the CFPB banking rule that allowed lawsuits against all financial entities.

The goal of “Glass Steagall”, ie. Commercial division -vs- Investment division, was actually achieved by generating an entirely new system of banks under different regulation. The currently remaining ten U.S. “big banks” operate as “investment division banks” per se’, and are subject to larger regulatory requirements. However, the lesser regulated community banks/credit unions operate as the “Commercial Side” benefiting Main Street.

Instead of fire-walling an individual bank internally within its organization, the Trump/Mnuchin plan fire-walled the banking ‘system’ within the U.S. internally.

Hope that makes sense.

Stirrings of unrest could portend turmoil as economies collapse

Article written by Liz Sly in "The Washington Post":

BEIRUT -As more than half the people in the world hunker down under some form of enforced confinement, stirrings of political and social unrest are pointing to a new, potentially turbulent phase in the global effort to stem the coronavirus pandemic.

Already, protests spurred by the collapse of economic activity have erupted in scattered locations around the world. Tens of thousands of migrant laborers stranded without work or a way home staged demonstrations last week in the Indian city of Mumbai, crowding together in defiance of social distancing rules.

In locked-down Lebanon, which was confronting financial collapse even before the novel coronavirus paralyzed the economy, angry people have swarmed onto the streets in Beirut and the northern city of Tripoli on at least three occasions. In Iraq, where a six-month-old protest movement demanding political change fizzled in the face of the country's coronavirus curfew, there have been spontaneous but brief outbursts of rage in the city of Nasiriyah and the impoverished Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City.

For now, fears of infection are keeping most people indoors. Strict controls imposed by governments and security forces deter the kind of organized protests that were sweeping the world from Hong Kong to Chile before the pandemic struck. The health crisis has come as a boon for some authoritarian leaders, empowering them to introduce the kind of controls on their citizens they could only have dreamed of before the spread of covid-19, the disease the novel coronavirus causes.

In Kenya as of Saturday, as many people had died in police crackdowns on citizens defying curfew as from covid-19, according to human rights groups and government statistics.


But the restrictions aimed at halting the coronavirus are also causing new poverty, new misery and new rumblings of discontent among the world's working poor, for whom hunger can appear to be a more immediate threat than being infected.

"I'd rather die of the virus than die of hunger, or see my son or my wife go hungry, but I can't provide them with food," said Hussein Fakher, 20, who used to earn a little less than $20 a day driving a tuk-tuk in a now-shuttered market in Baghdad. He got into a fight with police who tried to fine him for violating Iraq's curfew when he went out to seek work. "What should I do?" he asked. "Beg? Steal?"

The United Nations and the International Monetary Fund are among those that have warned in recent days that the pandemic could unleash what U.N. Secretary General António Guterres called "a significant threat to the maintenance of international peace and security."

With the IMF forecasting the worst global recession in nearly a century, there is a risk of "an increase in social unrest and violence that would greatly undermine our ability to fight the disease," Guterres said.

Wealthier countries where workers are losing jobs by the millions are not immune. Conservative groups in the United States are organizing protests against lockdowns in several states, including Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. In Germany, courts have ruled in favor of groups seeking to stage demonstrations in several towns and cities against coronavirus restrictions.

In Italy's relatively impoverished south, the lifting of restrictions earlier this month led to a crime wave that obliged police to guard supermarkets targeted for robberies by hungry citizens.

But it is the world's poorer nations, which can't afford subsidies for those who lose jobs, that are most vulnerable to heightened unrest, said Cátia Batista, professor of economics at Lisbon's Nova University. More than 2 billion people worldwide depend on daywork to survive, according to the International Labor Organization, and for many of them, not working often means not eating.

A recent study by a U.N. think tank, the World Institute for Development Economics Research, warned that 500,000 people could slide into poverty as a result of the pandemic's restrictions, reversing three decades of progress in the war against poverty.

"If people don't work, they don't get paid, and there is a risk of hunger," said Batista. "The natural response is unrest."

The emerging economies of Africa will also be badly hit, she said. Relatively few coronavirus cases have been reported there so far, largely due to the lack of testing, but many Africans will be questioning why they are unable to work when there appears to be no immediate threat to their lives.

The Middle East, already ravaged by war, could be a key flash point, analysts say. The Arab Spring revolts of nearly a decade ago are still playing out in the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen and Libya. A second wave of protests in Iraq, Lebanon and Algeria over the past year was tamped down by the restrictions aimed at halting the pandemic, but that quiet may not last.

Hardship has already triggered several individual acts of desperation. A video circulating on social media in Lebanon showed a man setting fire to his taxi after police ticketed him for breaking the lockdown. Another showed the flaming figure of a Syrian refugee running in a field, after he set himself on fire because he was unable to feed his family.

A man died after also setting himself on fire in Tunisia, where the spark of the Arab Spring was lit nearly a decade ago by the self-immolation of a fruit seller told by a policewoman that he was not allowed to sell on the streets.

The next round of unrest in the Arab world could be uglier and more violent than the organized protest movements that have sought political change, said Fawaz Gerges, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics.

"I fear social explosions," he said. "This will not be about democracy. This will be about abject poverty. This is where the danger lies. This will be about starvation."

Much will depend on how long the coronavirus pandemic lasts, said Ali Fathollah-Nejad of the Brookings Institution in Doha, Qatar, who studies Iran. There, anti-government protests that erupted last fall have subsided in the face of the worst outbreak of the coronavirus in the Middle East. A report by Iran's parliament publicized last week suggested Iran could have 10 times more than the official number of reported coronavirus cases, currently put at 79,494, and twice as many deaths as the 4,958 officially reported.

The dangers are deterring people from going onto the streets, and the authorities can point to the health risk posed by large gatherings to discourage people from participating. "But the root causes of the protests - the economy, poverty and corruption - are not going away," he said.

A second or third wave of coronavirus infections could rattle even authoritarian states such as China, whose ruling Communist Party has maintained a tight grip on its citizens for the past three decades by delivering soaring prosperity in return for political loyalty.

The announcement by the Chinese authorities on Friday that the Chinese economy had shrunk by 6.8% in the first quarter of 2020, marking the country's first recession since capitalist-style reforms unleashed explosive growth in the 1990s, was a reminder that the social contract could be at risk, said Yasheng Huang, a professor with the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dozens of people in the city of Wuhan, where the coronavirus first emerged late last year, took to the streets after lockdown restrictions were lifted earlier this month to demand rent forgiveness. Violent clashes erupted between police and protesters on the border between the provinces of Hubei and Jiangxi after lockdown restrictions were lifted in Hubei and police in the neighboring province refused to allow Hubei residents to enter.

Trust in the government is key for maintaining the loyalty of citizens who are forced to endure severe setbacks to their livelihoods for the sake of quelling the spread of infections for the populace at large, Huang said. That trust was eroded by clear evidence that the government sought to hide the initial severity of the coronavirus's spread, perhaps prolonging and deepening the economic costs to the country as a whole.

The struggle of the United States in managing its coronavirus outbreak, however, has tempered much of the frustration Chinese were feeling with their own government, he said. "The fact that the United States is failing at such a colossal level is actually helping the Chinese narrative, that they have the best system in the world to deal with this," Huang said.

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Stirrings-of-unrest-could-portend-turmoil-as-15211460.php