Scientifically known as the trapezius, this incredible fibrous structure is attached to the lower portion of your occipital bone (at the base of the skull) and extends toward your thoracic spine. Too much medical mumbo-jumbo? Okay, it’s the muscle that makes you look like a King Cobra and tells everyone not to f*ck with you.
Some people are genetically blessed with prominent, defined traps, while the rest of us do standing shoulder shrugs in hopes of getting ours to grow just a little bit. But did you know that shoulder shrugs aren’t the only exercise that can develop these alpha-looking muscles?
In fact, there are a few ways to treat your traps — and they all start with isolation movements and heavy weights.
Usually, shrug rows are great exercises for toning your back but, with a slight change in positioning, they can help you nail that King-Cobra. By laying face-forward on the incline bench, you can greatly stimulate your traps with an isolated shrug movement.
What’s nice about this exercise is that you can use horizontal resistance bands to build those traps. The key here is to squeeze those muscles in a controlled manner throughout the entire motion. The traps aren’t often worked out on their own — be sure to remain mindful throughout the exercise and try to activate only the targeted muscle group.
Most of us are familiar with doing military presses to get buff shoulders. To really target your trap muscles, consider laying flat on your face — no, really. Prone presses may look kind of odd, but they are a great way to get blood to those muscles and bulk them up.
Unfortunately, most gymgoers do shoulder shrugs completely wrong. When they pull up on the weight, they tend to use their legs to bounce, giving themselves an extra boost. To get your traps to grow, you have to stimulate the muscles, which means isolating the movement. So, sit before you shrug.
This helps remove the bounce and makes the exercise tougher — which is what you want.
For the first time ever, measurements from NASA Earth-observing research satellites are being used to help combat a potential outbreak of life-threatening cholera. Humanitarian teams in Yemen are targeting areas identified by a NASA-supported project that precisely forecasts high-risk regions based on environmental conditions observed from space.
“By joining up international expertise with those working on the ground, we have for the very first time used these sophisticated predictions to help save lives and prevent needless suffering for thousands of Yemenis,” said Charlotte Watts, chief scientist with the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development.
Cholera is a disease caused by consuming food or water contaminated with a bacterium called Vibrio cholerae. The disease affects millions of people every year, resulting in severe diarrhea and even death. It remains a major threat to global health, especially in developing countries, such as Yemen, where access to clean water is limited.
Starting this spring, the British government and international aid groups in Yemen began using these new cholera forecasts to target their work in reducing cholera risk. That work includes promoting good hygiene to prevent the spread of the water-borne disease and distributing hygiene and cholera treatment kits. The results to date suggest the forecast model has the potential to fundamentally change how the international community addresses cholera.
The research on forecasting cholera outbreaks funded by NASA’s Applied Sciences Program is being led by hydrologist and civil engineer Antar Jutla at West Virginia University, Morgantown, along with Rita Colwell and Anwar Huq, microbiologists from the University of Maryland, College Park.
The NASA forecast tool divides the entire country of Yemen into regions about the size of a typical U.S. county, and predicts the risk of cholera outbreaks in each region. To calculate the likelihood of an outbreak, the science team runs a computer model that combines satellite observations of environmental conditions that affect the cholera bacteria with information on sanitation and clean water infrastructure.
The predicted cholera risk based on analysis and satellite data in Yemen, June 2017. Blue color indicates low risk of cholera while red color indicates high risk of cholera.
The actual number of cholera cases in June 2017. The red area represent reported cholera cases.
In 2017, the model achieved 92 percent accuracy in predicting the regions where cholera was most likely to occur and spread in Yemen that year, even identifying inland areas that are not usually susceptible to the disease but suffered outbreaks. The Yemen cholera outbreak was the world’s worst in 2017, with more than 1.1 million suspected cases and more than 2,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization.
“The model has done an excellent job in Yemen detecting triggers of cholera outbreaks,” said Jutla, “but there is still a lot of work we need to do to have this forecast model give accurate predictions everywhere.”
International humanitarian organizations took notice. This January, Fergus McBean, a humanitarian adviser with the U.K.’s Department for International Development, read an article about the NASA-funded team’s 2017 results and contacted them with an ambitious challenge: to create and implement a cholera forecasting system for Yemen, in only four months.
“It was a race against the start of rainy season,” McBean said.
The U.S. researchers began working with U.K. Aid, the U.K. Met Office, and UNICEF on the innovative approach to using the model to inform cholera risk reduction in Yemen.
In March, one month ahead of the rainy season, the U.K. international development office began using the model’s forecasts. Early results show the science team’s model predictions, coupled with Met Office weather forecasts, are helping UNICEF and other aid groups target their response to where support is needed most.
“This ground-breaking initiative is a testament to the importance of interdisciplinary and multi-agency efforts to improve disease preparedness and response,” said John Haynes, program manager for health and air quality applications in NASA’s Earth Science Division, at the agency’s headquarters in Washington.
McBean believes in this new approach. “We are confident acting on the model’s predictions this year. We know that acting early is a more effective way of operating and is likely to result in a much better outcome for people.”
Colwell, who compared the 2017 Yemen results to passing the first stage of a three-stage drug trial and discovering the drug is saving the lives of a particular type of patient, said that the science team’s next step is to create global risk maps for cholera. In the same way meteorologists issue severe storms warnings, these risk maps and forecasts would allow people to prepare for and prevent outbreaks.
NASA uses the vantage point of space to understand and explore our home planet, improve lives and safeguard our future. Earth observations and information made possible by NASA form the foundation for critical environmental planning and decisions by people all over the world. The agency makes its Earth observations freely and openly available to those seeking solutions to important global issues.
Featured image: The United Nations Children’s Fund, with support from U.K. Aid, distributes clean water and information about cholera to prevent outbreaks of the disease in Yemen. Humanitarian teams in Yemen are targeting areas identified by a NASA-supported project that precisely forecasts high-risk regions based on environmental conditions observed from space.
This article originally appeared on NASA. Follow @NASA on Twitter.
The keto diet has been quite buzz-worthy as of late, especially since the high-fat and low-carb way of eating has spawned tons of keto-friendly products and online recipes. But while the keto approach supposedly has its advantages (some claim it lowers sugar levels and gives you improved energy), there are other disadvantages (we’re talking a lot of fat consumption) to the diet that are worth acknowledging.
Yes, the keto diet is said to help accelerate weight loss, but if you aren’t careful, the diet can actually lead to unintentional weight gain. To see just how you can gain weight on the keto diet, we spoke to expert nutritionists, dietitians, trainers, and medical professionals about all the sneaky ways the keto diet may be making you gain weight. Here are some things they recommend keeping in mind.
1. Your genetics are working against you.
“The keto diet may not be working for you if it isn’t right for your body type and your genetics,” nutritionist Dr. Elizabeth Trattner told INSIDER. To determine if keto is the right diet match for your body, Tratter recommended getting your APO-E gene tested, especially since she said this gene will help you discover how you metabolize fat. She also recommended looking into other possible genetic issues, as she explains that this will help you find the best diet match for your body.
2. You aren’t taking care of yourself in other ways.
(Flickr / lululemon)
“No matter what diet you’re on, not working out or sleeping enough will definitely make you gain weight,” Dr. Trattner said. Food allergies and stress are other culprits of weight gain according to Dr. Trattner, as she said they allow for the secretion of cortisol, which causes you to hold onto weight instead of losing it.
3. You really aren’t observing the keto diet correctly.
“The only way someone would gain weight on the keto diet is if they binged on high calorie foods for an extended amount of time such as full-fat dairy, avocados, coconut oil, fatty cuts of meat and nuts,” board-certified cardiologist, Dr. Luiza Petre explained to INSIDER. To avoid sabotaging any progress you’ve made on the diet, Dr. Petre recommended being cautious of any low-carb foods, and consuming whole, real foods as much as possible.
4. You are consuming too many calories.
(Flickr / Neil Conway)
“Some will say that you don’t need to have a caloric deficit in order to lose weight, but that’s simply not the case for everyone,” explained board-certified clinical nutritionist Sunny Brigham, MS, CNS. When you are consuming a high-fat diet, it’s very easy to go overboard on the calories, Brigham said. To make sure you don’t overindulge, she suggests tracking your food intake (with an app) for a few days to see where the caloric level is, and adjust accordingly from there.
5. You are having too many “cheat days.”
“Many people observing the keto diet still have cheat meals or cheat days, and to be honest, this diet clearly doesn’t work like that,” registered dietitian Jenn LaVarderatold INSIDER. Just one day of eating too many carbohydrates can take your body out of ketosis, LaVardera suggested, which can ultimately threaten any weight loss you may have experienced on the diet.
6. You’re not eating enough.
“The body will reduce the number of calories it needs when it’s presented with a significant calorie deficit,” said Kyle Kamp, registered dietitian behind Valley to Peak Nutrition. What this means for keto dieters is that the weight loss will stall or plateau, Kamp added.
7. You’re missing hidden sources of carbohydrates.
(David Saddler / Flickr)
“There are very few foods completely devoid of carbohydrates, and foods that are not readily recognized as a high carb food will still contain some carbohydrates,” Kamp suggested. Case in point: nuts and vegetables, he said.
8. You’re drinking alcohol.
“The carbs in alcohol are not doing you any favors on the keto diet, especially since you’re only allowed a small amount of them,” suggested Lyuda Bouzinova, ACE certified fitness nutrition specialist and co-founder of Mission Lean. Given that most mixed drinks (and beer) have extremely-high sugar and carb contents, Lyuda said you’ll want to avoid them altogether when observing the diet.
9. You are eating too much fat.
“Anytime you are taking in more calories than your body needs, you will gain weight,” explained certified Nutrition Coach Esther Avant. “Too much of any food can cause a person to gain weight, and fats are no different.”
According to Avant, fats are the most calorie dense of the three macronutrient groups. Both proteins and carbohydrates have four calories per gram, she said, while fats have nine calories per gram. However, she stresses that this does not mean that fats are bad for you, but it does mean that eating a lot of them (which is usually encouraged on the keto diet) can contribute to your daily calorie intake.
10. You are eating too much protein.
“Too many proteins will stop your body from getting into ketosis due to a process called gluconeogenesis,” explained fitness trainer Ryan Weaver. Gluconeogenesis, he said, is a metabolic process that transforms excess protein into glycogen and keeps your body reliant on the energy resulted from glucose. This can usually lead to unintentional weight gain, he suggested.
This article originally appeared on Insider. Follow @thisisinsider on Twitter.
My guest today is Scott Mann who spent 23 years as an Officer in the United States Army, 18 of those as a Green Beret in Army Special Forces, where he specialized in unconventional missions in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
He is the author of two international best-selling books: Game Changers and Straight Talk About Military Transition.
He’s also given 3 TED talks.
In our conversation we talk about how Green Berets build rapport with local tribes, how he almost took his life after leaving the military, and how leaders can connect with their people.
Order of Topics:
Using SOF training for COVID-19
How Green Berets compare to other SOF units
How to go into a village and establish trust
Architect of the Afghan SOF program
Almost committing suicide
How to transition from the military
Green Beret principals
How to build relationships
Sign up for my newsletter for a few useful and insightful things that have helped me over the last month. You can sign up here.
The three-day Battle of Gettysburg, the bloodiest battle of the Civil War and one that tipped the scales in favor of the Union, started 155 years ago.
The Union fielded 90,000 troops in the battle, and the Confederacy 75,000, according to historian James McPherson. Eleven thousand died, 29,000 more were wounded, and 10,000 were missing or captured.
The hallowed grounds of Gettysburg, as McPherson described them, witnessed nearly 10 times as many casualties as the D-Day invasion in World War II.
There were many engagements over three days of combat — such as Devil’s Den, the Slaughter Pen, and the Valley of Death — but some were more consequential to the battle, and therefore the war itself, than others.
Here’s how the battle unfolded.
Here is a shot of Gettysburg from Cemetery Hill, which was taken in July 1863. The battle started, some historians say, because both armies were looking for shoes in the town. McPherson says this story cannot be proved or disproved, but whatever the case, it was a “meeting engagement” or “encounter engagement.”
(Library of Congress)
The first day of the Battle of Gettysburg was a skirmish compared with the last two days, as troops from both sides were still filing into the area. Still, as night fell, “three thousand dead and dying soldiers and the moans of many of the additional seven or eight thousand wounded” could be seen and heard on the field, McPherson said. Below is a photo of dead Union soldiers after the first day’s fighting.
(Library of Congress)
Though the Confederates had not captured the Cemetery and Culp’s hills by the end of the day, the prospect of the battle still appeared promising for Robert E. Lee and the Rebel army.
John L. Burns, who is pictured below, is one of the more colorful people to take part in the battle. On the first day of the battle, the 69-year-old Gettysburg resident grabbed his musket and joined the Union ranks, much to the confusion of the Northern officers, when he saw the battle materializing.
(Library of Congress)
He was deployed to the woods and picked off numerous Confederate troops before getting shot in an arm and a leg. When the Confederates found him wounded and wearing civilian clothes, after the Union soldiers had retreated from the area, he told them he was just a lost old man who had gotten caught in the cross fire. This picture, by famed Civil War photographer Mathew Brady, was taken shortly after the battle.
On the second day of the battle, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee sought to capture the two hills known as Little and Big Round Top. The Confederate troops advanced uphill numerous times, but the Union lines held. Below is a shot of dead Southern troops at the foot of Little Round Top, known as the Slaughter Pen.
(Library of Congress)
One of the heroes of Little Round Top was Col. Joshua Chamberlain. He had been ordered to hold the extreme left of the hill with his 20th Maine Regiment and stop the flanking Rebels. His 360 men were outnumbered and low on ammunition when he decided on a daring, yet successful, bayonet charge. In the end, his regiment took 400 prisoners, and the line held.
(Library of Congress)
Chamberlain was awarded the Medal of Honor for his exploits on Little Round Top. An ardent abolitionist and scholar who could read seven languages, Chamberlain was elected governor of Maine in 1866.
The third day of battle, which culminated with Pickett’s Charge, proved disastrous for the Confederacy. After an insane barrage of Rebel cannon fire to soften the strongly fortified Union positions, Robert E. Lee sent three divisions, about 13,000 men, across a mile-long open field between the Cemetery and Seminary ridges.
(Library of Congress)
When the Rebels were exposed, the Union artillery atop Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge opened fire. “We could not help hitting them with every shot,” one Union officer said.
The Northern troops, as they were slaughtering the Confederate troops, chanted “Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg,” a crushing earlier defeat for the Yankees. Only a few Confederate soldiers reached the Union lines. In less than an hour, 7,000 Rebel soldiers were dead or wounded.
One of the unsung heroes for the North, a man who graduated last in his class at West Point and would later become famous at the Battle of Little Big Horn, was Gen. George Custer. Before Pickett’s Charge and during the North and South’s dueling artillery barrages, there were numerous cavalry engagements in the field. Custer led several Union regiments, at one point getting his horse shot out from underneath him before jumping onto an empty steed and continuing in the fight.
The commander of the Northern Army of Virginia, Robert E. Lee, and perhaps the best general of the Civil War, made a costly error with Pickett’s Charge. Brimming with confidence after Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, he believed himself and his men invincible.
(Library of Congress)
After the three Rebel divisions had retreated from the field, Lee asked General George Pickett to rally his division for a counterattack. Pickett replied, “General Lee, I have no more division now.” Lee eventually withdrew his remaining army from Gettysburg, and the Union did not give chase, much to the anger of President Abraham Lincoln.
About 11,000 men were killed during the Battle of Gettysburg, the bloodiest of the Civil War. Company F of the 6th North Carolina regiment lost every soldier. One Minnesota regiment lost 82% of its men in five minutes.
“Wounded men were brought into our houses and laid side by side in our halls and first-story rooms,” one Gettysburg resident said. “Carpets were so saturated with blood as to be unfit for further use. Walls were bloodstained as well as books that were used for pillows.”
Pictured here are three Confederate soldiers taken prisoner after the battle. It is one of the most famous pictures of the Civil War, which was taken by Mathew Brady. “You see exactly how the Confederate soldier was dressed,” Southern historian Shelby Foote once said. “You see something in his attitude toward the camera which is revealing of his nature.”
(Library of Congress)
President Abraham Lincoln visited the battlefield on November 19, 1863, to dedicate the Gettysburg cemetery. It was here that he would deliver one of the best-known speeches ever given, the 269-word Gettysburg Address. Lincoln is seen in the middle of the photo in the midst of sitting down. The speech was so short that the photographer did not have time to capture him delivering it.
(Library of Congress)
Lincoln’s full Gettysburg Address:
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
The reply that came during a seance, according to a defendant’s testimony given at a Kyiv court on March 10, 1948, was that the Soviet dictator was no such thing.
Coming at a time when Josef Stalin’s cult of personality was at its height, such a conversation was sure to attract attention. Especially because the founding father of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, was allegedly the one replying from beyond the grave during the conjuring, more than two decades after his death.
Other court evidence revealed that during one of the seances “Lenin” predicted from the afterlife that war was coming — six countries would soon free the Soviet people from Stalin’s yoke.
When asked about the future of Soviet power, an unidentified Russian revolutionary responded that “it won’t exist, with the help of America.”
Such “conversations” were revealed in archived documents of trial testimony and interrogations carried out by the Soviet State Security Ministry (MGB), which included the secret police.
Aside from Lenin, the court heard from a number of early Soviet A-listers, some of whom might have cause to slander Stalin.
Lenin and Stalin.
There was archrival Leon Trotsky, who was assassinated in Mexico City in 1940 on the Soviet leader’s orders. And Nadezhda Alliluyeva, Stalin’s second wife, who died under mysterious circumstances after a public argument with her husband in 1932.
Others speaking from the grave included the writers Maxim Gorky and Aleksandr Kuprin, as well as famed rocket scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.
Their questioners were not members of the Bolshevik inner circle, but ordinary residents of the north-central Ukrainian town of Bila Tserkva who had never even belonged to the Communist Party.
For their role in conjuring up voices from the past, Ilya Gorban, his sister Vera Sorokina, and his lover Olga Rozova were arrested and accused of anti-Soviet acts and the “creation of an illegal religious-mystical group of spiritists.”
Gorban was an unaccomplished artist when he moved to Bila Tserkva from Kyiv in early 1947, a year before the trial.
The 44-year-old native of the Poltava region had designed museum exhibits and prepared posters and portraits of Lenin for demonstrations. He was wounded during World War II while manning an anti-tank gun near Orel.
He had married and fathered a child. But the marriage ended in divorce and his daughter lived with her mother.
Gorban settled into his new life in Bila Tserkva with his sister, Vera, and got a job at the local industrial plant as a sculptor.
A book lover, he frequented the city library and soon entered into a romance with 39-year-old Olga Rozova, a library employee.
Rozova was married. But her husband — Andrei Rozov, a journalist with a newspaper in Voronezh — had been accused of belonging to an “anti-Soviet Trotskyite terrorist organization” in 1938 and imprisoned for 10 years.
While at work, Gorban had a conversation with colleague Mikhail Ryabinin, who asked the sculptor if he believed in the afterlife and the existence of spirits.
Gorban said he did not, but he did take Ryabinin up on his recommendation that he read the Spirits Book — written in 1856 by Frenchman Hippolyte Leon Denizard Rivail under the pen name Allan Kardec and considered one of the pillars of spiritism.
The doctrine of spiritism, or Kardecism, centers on the belief that the spirits of the dead survive beyond mortal life and can communicate with the living. The communication usually takes place during seances conducted by a person serving as a medium between this world and the otherworld.
Gorban read it with fascination and proposed that Ryabinin organize a seance. His friend declined, however, saying according to case files that “all these sessions with plates — they are nonsense and baby talk. I contact the spirits at a higher level.”
Gorban’s sister agreed to try, however, and together they conducted a seance based on what they had learned.
They lit candles and sat at a table with a sheet of paper in the center. On the paper the letters of the alphabet, the numbers zero through nine, and the words “yes” and “no” were drawn in a circle.
A seance board similar to the one used in Bila Tserkva
A saucer with an arrow from the center to the edge was set over the paper.
The idea was to call on the spirts of a particular person and, if he or she appeared, to ask them questions. If all went well the saucer, beneath the hands of participants, would begin to rotate freely and without force, spelling out answers by pointing to the appropriate symbols on the paper.
Altogether, Gorban and his sister conducted 15 to 20 seances in the summer and autumn of 1947. At times they reached out to people outside the Soviet circle. The spirits of deceased relatives were often conjured up, including the siblings’ mother, who allegedly gave the pair everyday advice. They even got a hold of Alexander Pushkin, but the Russian poet “cursed” them.
Gorban’s girlfriend, Olga Rozova, began to join the sessions, and the group conjured up a late writer who began to compliment her.
“I suspected that this was a trick of Gorban’s, with whom I had been in an intimate relationship,” she recalled during her courtroom interrogation. “The whole session was of a purely personal, amorous character.”
Some sessions were held at Rozova’s apartment, which was inside the library. A friend of hers who headed the local school library, Varvara Shelest, took an interest and also started attending the sessions.
The last seance, according to testimony of group members, was held in December 1947.
They asked Lenin’s spirit about the monetary reforms enacted that year, which included the denomination of the ruble and the confiscation of personal savings.
Knock on the door
A couple of months later Chekists — agents of the feared secret service — came for them.
Rozova was detained on Feb. 19, 1948; Sorokina and Gorban were taken away the next day.
The case was transferred to the authorities in Kyiv, and the trial began on March 6, just two weeks after the suspects were detained.
From the MGB’s point of view, the seances were evidence of the formation of an “illegal religious-mystical group” — which on its own could have led to imprisonment. But the authorities took things one step further by adding the more serious “anti-Soviet” charge.
“This seance had a sharply anti-Soviet character,” read one file. “This deliberate slander pertained to one of the leaders of the [Communist] Party and government.”
When initially questioned, the three did not appear to hide that they had participated in seances. Gorban and Sorokina wrote them off as an attempt to have fun; Rozova said there was no intended goal.
Joseph Stalin, Lenin, and Mikhail Kalinin.
But ultimately their confessions were recorded by their interrogators — the sessions were driven by anti-Soviet sentiment and were just a “convenient screen” for “slanderous agitation.”
In his interrogation report, Gorban was quoted as saying he had “tried to defame and slander the Soviet powers and the leaders of the Party and government” to expose the “talentlessness” of Soviet leaders to his alleged accomplices.
Disgruntled by postwar poverty, it was Gorban who had directed the movements of the saucer, according to the documents.
During their trial, those alleged admissions were recanted. Each of the three defendants declared that they did not believe in the otherworld or spirits. When queried about their religious beliefs, each answered that they were atheists. And their sessions, they said, were for entertainment.
“I didn’t think that our sessions were anti-Soviet,” Sorokina testified. “What we did was, of course, not good, but I was, am, and will remain a Soviet person.”
As for the saucer, Gorban said, he had no idea how it moved. All admitted to partial guilt, according to the court files.
The ruling in their case came on March 10, after just two court sessions.
The three were found guilty of anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation, and of participation in a counterrevolutionary organization.
Gorban was sentenced to 25 years in a labor camp; Rozova and Sorokina to 10 years each. Gorban would have been executed had the verdict come a year earlier — but the death penalty had recently been suspended.
The mystery of ‘North’
The role of Gorban’s colleague in all this was not forgotten. A criminal case was opened against Ryabinin — the man who had suggested Gorban read the Spirits Book — the same day the others were sentenced.
It is unclear, however, what might have happened to him.
Rozova’s friend, Shelest, also remains a mystery. Despite her attendance at the group’s seances, she was apparently never detained.
According to the case files, she disappeared shortly after the others were nabbed. Material related to her was transferred to a different case, a common step intended to avoid the search for the accused slowing down the investigations of those detained.
When it later emerged that the others had been arrested as part of an underground sting operation, Shelest’s name was not listed among the targets. And when the MGB informed other Soviet authorities about the eradication of a group of spiritists in Bila Tserkva, it made mention only of an informant — codenamed “Sever” (North) — who had attended some of the sessions.
But Shelest’s name did pop up. During their trial the three defendants claimed it was Shelest who initiated most of the “political” questions posed to spirits — including Trotsky, Alliluyeva, and Gorky. Rozova said she had suspicions that Shelest had manipulated the saucer’s movements.
In requesting a pardon in 1954, one year after Stalin’s death, Rozova wrote that “at the trial it became clear to me that Shelest had been tasked with creating an anti-Soviet crime from our seances.” She further argued that Shelest continued to live in Bila Tserkva, yet no one was trying to question her.
Around the same time a prosecutor wrote that while Sorokina and Rozova were “addicted to spiritism because of their curiosity and irresponsibility,” their actions did not result in serious consequences. The two, the prosecutor argued, should be released.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that while the verdicts handed down against Gorban, Sorokina, and Rozova were correct, their sentences were too harsh.
Sorokina and Rozova were released on Feb. 22, 1955, seven years after their arrest. The decision came too late for Gorban, who died in 1950 while incarcerated at a labor camp near the Arctic Circle.
In 1992 — less than one year after the dissolution of the Soviet Union — all three were rehabilitated.
Turkey unveiled a full-scale mock-up of a new indigenous stealth-fighter concept on June 17, 2019, at the 2019 Paris Air Show.
The unveiling of the new TF-X, which is expected to be Turkey’s first homegrown fifth-generation fighter, comes as the US prepares to kick its ally out of the F-35 program in response to the country’s planned purchase of the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system.
“Our machine is a mock-up, but in 2023 there will be a real machine, and first flight is in 2025, and [it will be in] service in 2028,” Temel Kotil, the president and CEO of Turkish Aerospace Industries Inc. (TAI), the company behind the model and new fighter concept, revealed at the event, Defense News reported.
The TF-X program was launched to replace the Turkish Air Force’s aging fleet of F-16s. The fighter was intended to be interoperable with other Turkish Air Force assets, including the F-35, TAI said on its company website.
The mock-up TAI showed off at the air show is the twin-engine version, one of three different variations the company has explored in recent years, The War Zone reported, adding that the aircraft shares design similarities with the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35.
A promotional video highlighted some of the potential capabilities of the new TF-X. For example, the aircraft is said to be capable of flying at Mach 2 and have a combat radius of roughly 600 nautical miles. Kotil told reporters that it would be able to carry the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile in the internal weapons bay.
TAI is involved in the fuselage production for the F-35, which gives it the knowledge and skills necessary to develop a homegrown fifth-generation fighter, the company said. “Hopefully, this will be also a good fighter for NATO and the NATO allies,” Kotil said, according to Defense News.
This aerospace program may be taking on new urgency as the US takes steps to remove its NATO ally from the F-35 program, a direct response to Ankara’s unwavering decision to purchase the S-400 despite US objections.
“Turkey’s procurement of the S-400 will hinder your nation’s ability to enhance or maintain cooperation with the United States and within NATO,” Patrick Shanahan, the acting Pentagon chief, recently wrote in a letter to Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, CNN reported.
The US has said the F-35 and S-400 are incompatible because the latter could be used to collect intelligence on the US fighter. The US has given Turkey until July 31, 2019, to reach an agreement.
If Turkey fails to do so, the US will block its ally from purchasing the F-35 and permanently halt the training of Turkish pilots on the advanced fighter. The training program has already been suspended.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
Is it time for America to support regime change in Iran? A growing chorus inside the Beltway says “yes.” According to them, the arc of history bends toward freedom in Iran. Reuel Marc Gerecht and Ray Takeyh argue in TheWall Street Journal that “[d]evising a strategy to collapse the clerical regime isn’t difficult” because “the essential theme in modern Iranian history is a populace seeking to emancipate itself from tyranny.” They see the growing economic chaos in Iran as birth-pangs of emancipation and call for America to act as midwife.
Many intellectuals before Gerecht and Takeyh have advanced theories of unstoppable historical change, driven by forces the wise can interpret and accelerate. In the nineteenth century, Hegel thought history was rushing toward human freedom. Marx thought it drove toward the collapse of capitalism and the rise of socialism. More recently, some thought the end of communism foreshadowed an inevitable global shift toward liberal democracy — an “end of history.” Dictatorships elsewhere, they thought, were living on borrowed time. One small push and the tide of history would do the rest.
They put their theory to the test in Iraq in 2003. They promised regime change in Iraq would lead the whole Middle East into the next stage of history: peaceful, tolerant, and democratic. The exact opposite resulted.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo)
Washington’s foreign policy elite used U.S. military power to bring down a brutal autocracy, only to see barbarism follow. Iraq became a land of looting, torture, and beheadings. A sectarian civil war drove out the majority of Iraq’s Christians and sorted Baghdad into a checkerboard of segregated neighborhoods. The Islamic State group sprung up in the chaos. ISIS—not democracy — spread to Iraq’s neighbors. American troops are still cleaning up the mess in Iraq 15 years later. Shaping history had failed. The regime change experiment’s cost was too high and accumulates to this day.
Those now calling for regime change in Iran insist they do not want a repeat of Iraq. That incorrectly assumes the invasion of Iraq was a tactical rather than a strategic failure. They seem to believe overthrowing the mullahs will not only be easier but also lead to even better outcomes — we are asked to suspend reality and ignore the results from Washington’s post-9/11 foreign policy decisions.
It took hundreds of thousands of American troops to remove Saddam Hussein. Iran regime change proponents suggest economic sanctions, a little covert action, and a few mean tweets can do in Ali Khamenei. Even better, democracy is sure to follow, since it is the next stage in Iranian history’s arc.
(U.S. Army photo)
And that’s possible. Iran is home to a great people with a terrible government. Things can get much better. However, as the regime changers learned the hard way in Iraq, they can also get much worse. Deeper pressure on Iran could strengthen the regime. Sanctions on Saddam’s Iraq did exactly that. As Peter Beinart observed, “sanctions shift the balance of power in a society in the regime’s favor. As sanctions make resources harder to find, authoritarian regimes hoard them. They make the population more dependent on their largesse and withhold resources from those who might threaten their rule.”
In Iran, the hardline Revolutionary Guards have the inside track on those resources. The last round of sanctions let them buy up struggling businesses and run smuggling rings. New pressure could leave the Guards with an even bigger slice of an even smaller pie.
And if new unrest leads to the clerics’ fall, the Guards have the money and the guns. A military dictatorship may be more likely than a democracy. At a minimum, the military would have a veto over the new government. Revolutions can end up in unexpected places. We need to look no further than Iran’s 1979 uprising for evidence. Few realized Khomeini would be more than a figurehead. Intellectuals and left-wing groups that backed Iran’s revolution faced serious persecution after it. Women’s rights supporters held a massive demonstration against mandatory hijab just weeks after the revolution’s success, chanting “We did not make a revolution to go backwards.”
Even if we do provoke an uprising in Iran, uprisings often fail. As Takeyh and Gerecht note, they failed in Iran in 1999, 2009, and late 2017.
History is full of thwarted revolts and broken rebellions: Tiananmen Square in China, the Prague Spring, the Fronde, the Vendee Rebellion, the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, the 1953 East German protests, the March 1st Movement in Korea, the 2.28 Incident in Taiwan, the 1956 Hungarian revolution, the 1848 Hungarian revolution, the Basmachi revolt against the Soviet Union, the Constitutionalist Revolution in Brazil, and many more. The regimes that led the crackdowns on these uprisings lasted for many more years — and they were often more brutal than before.
Americans should reject calls for new regime change plans abroad. But that does not mean ignoring dictators, abandoning our values, or espousing moral relativism.
Instead, we should embrace the tradition of humility in foreign policy exemplified by our Founders. They, too, witnessed repression abroad. They, too, loved our system of government and hoped for its spread. They wanted America to be, in John Quincy Adams’ words, “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” But they prudently worried that getting involved in other nations’ internal politics would entangle America in new conflicts it could barely understand, let alone solve. (Iraq showed the price of ignoring their wisdom.)
Freedom is not something to be given away or imposed. It emerges organically, and often slowly, in a people. Its success is difficult to predict. This is why the Monroe Doctrine emphasized America would recognize new states that “maintain” their freedom, not those who merely declare it, and why Adams warned that backing revolts abroad “involve [America], beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”
They were heirs to the complicated, uncertain, centuries-long rise of the rights of Englishmen. The Magna Carta was in its sixth century when the Constitution was written. They were also heirs to the classical tradition and thus knew that the establishment of the Republic in Rome or democracy in Greek city-states had not brought about an end to history. They put checks and balances in the Constitution because they knew their project was uncertain. The same uncertainty helped foster their disinterest in using American power to boost foreign revolutions. Lasting republics take time, and they aren’t inevitable.
Unlike today’s regime changers, America’s founding generations realized that history is not predictable.
Six sailors from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s largest and most powerful aircraft carrier, were reportedly arrested and taken into custody over drunk and disorderly behavior in Jacksonville, Florida, in September 2018.
The sailors, who were on shore leave, were arrested after locals found them fighting and and urinating in public, the BBC reported.
Three of them were also charged with resisting arrest. One pushed and pulled an officer, one was actively fighting and refused to stop, and another refused to put his hands behind his back and was ultimately stunned by a Taser, according to WJAX-TV.
The group were held overnight before being released back onboard the warship on Sept. 7, 2018, The Sun reported.
HMS Queen Elizabetharrived in the US in September 2018 after leaving the UK on Aug. 18, 2018. It is on its way to carry out F-35 trials at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland with US and British pilots late September 2018.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth passes by the Florida coast, where it is stopping to refuel before sailing north to Maryland. Sept. 5, 2018.
(WJXT News / Youtube)
The British navy acknowledged the incident but declined to provide further comment.
A spokesperson for the Royal Navy told Business Insider in a statement:
“We can confirm that a number of naval personnel are assisting US police with their enquiries — it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
“The Naval Service places great importance on maintaining the highest possible standards of behaviour from its personnel at all times.”
Sergeant Larry Smith of the Jacksonville Beach Police Department also confirmed that all the arrests were related to alcohol, but that they were “a case of good people making bad decisions.”
Smith told the Sun:
“Our officers went down to the ship to speak to their commanders, and while they were still out on the town on Thursday night, there were no more problems from the sailors.
“It was a case of good people making bad decisions, they got drunk and they fought among themselves.
“It happens. They seem to beat the mess out of each other and knock their teeth out, but once they pick up their teeth off the ground they hug and then are best friends again.”
So, check out six things officers love but enlisted troops can’t stand:
6. Taking orders from an officer we don’t trust
Yes, we understand we swore an oath to obey the orders of those appointed over us — but holy sh*t have we taken some lousy orders from officers.
5. Officer-led PT
It’s no secret that when a commanding officer wants to lead morning PT, morale lowers until the session is over. In a grunt platoon, we like to sh*t talk one another as motivation to gain that extra push-up or pull-up.
But, once the “brass” is on deck, the verbiage changes and the enlisted just want to finish up the mandatory run so they can go eat chow and play Call of Duty in their barracks.
4. When a boot officer wants to be included in every single detail
Newbie officers typically want to learn every aspect of their job — which is a good thing. But, something this means they want to be involved in every meeting and a double check everyone’s work.
3. Army-Navy games
Active duty enlisted troops don’t truly want to cheer for a cadet or a midshipman who they could have to potentially have to answer to one day.
2. Having their sh*t pre-staged for them
At times, enlisted troops become personnel assistants even though it’s not in their job description. When grunts head out to the field, some officers require their tents and other amenities be set up prior to their arrival — and guess who is called upon to set that sh*t up?
With soldiers increasingly being asked to shoulder heavier workloads, the Army hopes to compensate them for their efforts with a 3.1 percent pay raise.
The Army’s $182.3 billion budget proposal for fiscal year 2020 includes the highest pay increase for soldiers in a decade. Additionally, the service plans to raise basic housing allowances by 3.2 percent and basic subsistence allowances by 2.4 percent.
After launching a new recruiting initiative this year, the Army is aiming for a modest end-strength target next year, hoping to have 480,000 active-duty soldiers, 336,000 National Guard members and 189,500 reservists by 2020.
While much of the Army’s fiscal year 2020 budget focus has centered on modernization efforts, Under Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy and Lt. Gen. Thomas Horlander, the military deputy for Financial Management and Comptroller, discussed the importance of readiness and quality of life during a budget briefing at the Pentagon March 12, 2019.
“Readiness will continue to be the number-one priority for the Army,” McCarthy said.
McCarthy said two-thirds of the Army’s brigade combat teams are at their “highest state of readiness.” Army leaders have asked for steady and consistent funding to supplement its readiness efforts, which helped support 32 combat training center rotations this year.
Under Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy.
“Because of the consistent funding that we’ve gotten at a higher level here over the last couple of years, [it] has really allowed us to make some readiness gains,” Horlander said.
To meet its readiness goals, the Army proposes to increase its operations and maintenance budget to .6 billion. The plan covers an increase to infantry one-station unit training from 14 to 22 weeks. It will also provide funding to train 58 brigade combat teams, six security force assistance brigades and 11 combat aviation brigades. The service additionally plans to increase spending for flight crew hours for both active-duty and National Guard members.
The operations budget funds multi-lateral exercises in the Pacific region and in Europe to help bolster partnerships with allies, a crucial element identified in the National Defense Strategy.
“There are a lot of efforts to strengthen the partnerships with our allies,” Horlander said.
The service has prioritized improving housing standards, as senior leaders have visited post housing at different installations in recent months. The Army is asking for an additional 0 million for the restoration and modernization of soldiers’ barracks and installation facilities. Some funding will go toward three new housing projects, Horlander said.
The Army is seeking billion for its research, development and acquisition funding that will go toward newer weapons systems.
Capt. Bryson McElyea fires the M16 rifle.
(U.S. Army photo by Visual Information Specialist Gertrud Zach)
The Army will cut funding from certain weapons platforms and legacy systems will be cut to funnel more funding toward the Army’s modernization efforts. McCarthy said that 93 programs were eliminated and an additional 93 will be reduced or delayed beginning in fiscal year 2020 to fiscal 2024.
“These choices were complex and difficult. At times people will focus in on … winners and losers,” McCarthy said. “But what we look at is the choices we had to make from a modernization standpoint to be the Army that we need by 2028.
While the Army will shift its focus from legacy programs, McCarthy said that some of the platforms will still be needed. Those programs will be gradually enhanced to bridge the gap between newer and older weapons systems.
The Army’s FY20 budget request now awaits approval from Congress.
China’s first homegrown aircraft carrier and the first of the country’s new missile destroyers set sail for sea trials recently, sparking speculation that a new carrier battle group may be in the making.
The first of China’s advanced Type 055-class guided-missile destroyers — apparently the Nanchang — set sail Aug. 24, 2018, from the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai, according to the China Daily. The Type 001 aircraft carrier, China’s first indigenously produced carrier and the country’s second after the Liaoning, followed suit Aug. 27, 2018.
The focus of the carrier trials, the second in 2018, will be the ship’s propulsion systems, but Chinese analysts believe these trials could also look at command, communication, and management systems, as well as the ship’s navigation and weapons systems, the Global Times reported.
The Type 055 destroyer displaces 10,000 tons and is considered to be the largest and one of the most advanced noncarrier warships in Asia. The ship is expected to play a role similar to that of America’s Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and serve as a key escort for China’s aircraft carrier battle groups, according to the South China Morning Post.
The powerful Chinese destroyers, which are closer in size to cruisers, feature X-band radar and 112 vertical launch cells set up to fire HHQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missiles, YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missiles, CJ-10 land-attack cruise missiles, and missile-launched submarine torpedoes. The ships are also armed with 130 mm dual-purpose naval guns and carry two anti-submarine helicopters.
The Type 055 destroyer’s primary rival is said to be the US Navy’s Zumwalt-class destroyer, which boasts a wide range of advanced capabilities superior to anything China possesses.
The Type 001A aircraft carrier, while similar to its refitted Soviet-era predecessor, is “improved in some places,” Matthew Funaiole, a fellow with the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, recently told Business Insider. “It has a newer radar, it’s a little bit bigger, the flight deck is a little bit bigger, the island is a bit smaller, so they have more space. It definitely has some upgrades on it.”
More advanced carrier capabilities are unlikely, though, until the unveiling of China’s third carrier, which is commonly referred to as the Type 002.
The two ships, the Type 001A and the Type 055 destroyer, are expected to be delivered to the People’s Liberation Army Navy within the next year or so, according to Chinese military experts. The Type 055 destroyer would most likely serve as an escort ship for the Type 001A carrier, creating a new carrier battle group with advanced combat capabilities.
The development of such platforms allows China to gain greater experience with carrier operations as it seeks to project power at greater distances beyond its shores.
Featured image: Artist’s impression of type 055 destroyer.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
A U.S. Army sniper takes aim while wearing a ghillie suit (U.S. Army photo/Released)
The two men crawl stealthily through the Panamanian jungle. Their faces are painted with hues of black, brown and green. Their bodies are covered by the burlap strands and interwoven foliage of their ghillie suits. The sniper and his spotter reach a vantage point overlooking the village and search for their target, a Panamanian rebel leader. Camouflaged against the jungle by their ghillie suits, the two men spot their target. As the rebel leader bites into his apple, a single shot pierces the stillness of the jungle and a 7.62x51mm NATO round pierces his heart.
One shot, one kill.
Alerted to the threat, the rebels frantically spray the jungle with automatic fire. Unable to see their enemy, they fire their weapons haphazardly and pray not to be the sniper’s next victim. Invisible to the rebels, the sniper ejects the spent cartridge from his M40A1 rifle and hands it to his spotter. As civilians in the village take cover, the rebels continue to pour gunfire into the jungle with no specific target. When no shots return from the trees, they cease fire. Still unseen, the sniper and his spotter melt back into the jungle and disappear. The only evidence of them having been there is the dead body of the rebel leader, a single hole through his heart.
Sniper and spotter take up an overwatch position (Credit TriStar Pictures)
The 1993 film Sniper, starring Tom Berenger as the titular and aforementioned sniper, introduced many viewers to the ghillie suit. An integral part of a sniper’s kit, the ghillie suit allows the sniper to blend in with their surroundings and evade detection. This is key to accomplishing their mission since a sniper’s primary functions on the battlefield are conducting covert reconnaissance and delivering precision fires.
A ghillie suit is typically made of a net or cloth garment and covered in burlap strips, cloth, or twine. It has an irregular shape which breaks up a sniper’s outline and makes them more difficult to spot. Additionally, snipers can weave local flora into their ghillie suit in order to better blend with their surroundings. If done properly, this additional camouflage will even sway in the wind to match the environment it is replicating. Today, ghillie suits are used by snipers all around the world in foliage, sand, and even snow. Their origin, however, can be traced back to the game attendants and folklore of the Scottish Highlands.
Scottish ghillies in Highland Perthshire. (Photo from tour-scotland-photographs.blogspot.com)
Derived from the Scottish Gaelic word “gille,” meaning lad or servant, a ghillie (the English misspelling) is a man or boy who serves as a game attendant and specializes in fishing, stalking, and hunting. In Scottish folklore, the Gille Dubh was a timid but wild male fairy who roamed the Highlands. Like the suit that bears his name, the Gille Dubh was clothed in leaves and other vegetation which allowed him to camouflage in the Highlands and evade capture.
Lovat Scouts wear two variations of the ghillie suit. (Photo from the Imperial War Museum)
Scottish ghillies created the ghillie suit in the turn of the 20th century as a wearable hunting blind that would allow them to more stealthily stalk and hunt their game on the Highlands. These first ghillie suits were made primarily of burlap which were irregularly torn and cut to break up the ghillie’s silhouette. Almost immediately, the ghillie suit saw military application with the British Army during the Second Boer War (1899-1902). The Lovat Scouts, the British Army’s first sniper unit, were initially recruited from Scottish Highland estate workers. This included the ghillies who brought their burlap camouflage suits with them.
Two British snipers during a demonstration for Their Majesties in May 1944. (Photo from captainstevens.com)
The ghillie suit went to war again in WWI where other nations took notice of its effectiveness and adopted it for themselves. As a concept, the ghillie suit has remained largely unchanged since its inception. One notable upgrade came in June 2003 when the U.S. Army introduced a new ghillie suit made of a lightweight, fire-resistant, and self-extinguishing fabric instead of the heavier and flammable burlap.
A U.S. Army sniper wears the Flame Resistant Ghillie System. (U.S. Army photo/Released)
Today, snipers around the world continue to carefully craft their ghillie suits in order to camouflage themselves and evade detection by the enemy. Meanwhile, in the Scottish Highlands, professional ghillies continue to preserve their legacy as gamekeepers. They cull game herds and lead hunting expeditions, sometimes with the added camouflage of their iconic burlap suit.