"We will have to spend much more money on common European defense initiatives," Schäuble told BILD am Sonntag. The foreign and security policies of the EU member states should become interconnected step by step, Schäuble stated. He argued that the EU needs one united army instead of 28 separate ones in order to resolve domestic and foreign security problems more efficiently.

Following Schaeuble' statement, head of the foreign-affairs committee in the Moscow State Duma Alexei Pushkov stated that Europe needs a new army because NATO — which is expected to play the role of European armed forces — has only one goal: to deal with the imaginary Russian "threat" and help the US.

"In Berlin, they stated: The EU should create 'a common European army'. And what is NATO for? To fight with a virtual Russian threat and help the United States", the politician posted on his Twitter.

“Since 2011, an unprecedented terrorist war has been waged against the Syrian Arab Republic by armed terrorist groups, the members of which come from more than 100 countries,” Ja'afari, Syria’s permanent representative to the UN, wrote in his letter to the world body, TASS reported. “Those groups are being provided with funding, weapons, materiel and logistical support by states and regimes from the region and beyond.”

While mentioning other players allegedly involved in the spread of Islamist terrorism, Ja'afari accused Turkey and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of playing the most active role. “During the crisis, Turkish interference in Syria's internal affairs took many forms, including direct involvement of the regime of Erdogan, the Turkish armed forces in offensive military operations in support of terrorists,” Ja'afari wrote to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN Security Council, as cited by RIA Novosti.

Although Calico formed two years before Alphabet, it had many of the markers Google’s co-founders outlined as their rationale for the holding company. A startup staring down a moonshot issue? Check. A problem with a very long time horizon? Check. Google’s tech savvy applied to a market well outside its domain? Check. A venerated founder at its helm? Calico chief Arthur Levinson — former CEO and board chair of biotech firm Genentech, board chair of Apple — may be the biggest heavy-hitter among Alphabet’s execs.

Levinson did not speak to Time for its story. And he has said basically zilch publicly about his company since. Yet some of the hyperbole accompanying Calico (Google wants to disrupt death!) is just that. It is evident that Levinson’s secretive company is focused on medical solutions that fend off the illnesses that come with old age; it’s not trying to give us immortality.

The three hires, it is hoped, will help avert the artificial intelligence (AI) catastrophe that many believe could be the biggest threat to the human race. The search is a timely one. Those who have warned of the dangers of AI include Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and Elon Musk. Musk, the inventor-cum-business magnate behind enterprises from Tesla Motors’ electric cars to SpaceX’s reusable rockets, is among the FHI’s recent donors.

Their thinking is that once artificial intelligences are cleverer than humans - which is 80 per cent likely to happen in the next 100 years, according to FHI estimations – we could face a future in which the interests of a machine do not include human well-being.

The same cover story was used for all three assassinations. This is why I entitled the article, Will Trump Be Assassinated by a Man With a Diary? The implication of the previous article was made crystal clear. If the establishment murdered three prominent political opponents using the same MO, why wouldn’t they do it for a fourth time?

Well, recently, it has come to my attention that leading consultants and strategists for the GOP are openly advocating for the assassination of Donald Trump. With the fact that the authors of the two threats are still walking in public as free men, tells me that these threats being made against a viable Presidential candidate are going unopposed by this current administration makes me wonder if the following threats are not only being tolerated by this nation’s leadership, but encouraged by their inaction.

Please note that I have performed my due diligence and I have filed a complaint with the Secret Service about the following events. The safety of Donald Trump, is no longer a theoretical concern, Trump’s safety has just become a very serious concern.

Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center told the Jerusalem Post that “the sight of a member of the Ukrainian parliament singing a song praising Hitler underscores the extremely deep problem in today’s Ukrainian democracy …to rewrite the narrative of World War II and the Holocaust.” “The fact that the Ukrainian authorities honor groups which actively participated in the murder of Jews during the Holocaust and glorify their leaders sends a message that delegitimizes the accurate historical narrative, and paves the way for disgusting scenes like this one,” he added.

The controversial video was released just days after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko spoke before the Knesset, apologizing for the role Ukrainian collaborators played in the Holocaust. ”We must remember the negative events in history, when collaborators helped the Nazis seek the Final Solution,” Poroshenko said last Wednesday. “Following its establishment, Ukraine asked for forgiveness, and I am doing it now at the Israeli Knesset in front of the children and grandchildren of victims of the Holocaust, who experienced that horror first hand. I am doing this in front of all the citizens of Israel.”

However, not everyone in the Ukrainian Parliament supported such a stance. Oleg Lyashko, the leader of the Radical Party that Vitko belongs to, lashed out at the Ukrainian president for his apologies before Israel, saying that “this kind of humiliation of Ukrainians has not been recorded in our history yet.”

In advance of the British referendum on membership, which must be held by the end of 2017, the Prime Minister has asked for only the most modest package of reforms. Yet the unbending EU leaders have refused to concede any ground. Even a minor change in migrants’ rights to claim welfare has been rejected. Such a defiant stance could be seen as supreme confidence in the European project. British calls for change are dismissed out of hand because nothing is allowed to challenge the drive towards “ever closer union.”

In the dogmatic mindset of the EU’s ruling elite, the ultimate triumph of the federal superstate is inevitability. But this mood of self-assurance is grossly misplaced. The edifice of federalism is crumbling, broken by its own ruinous contradictions and spectacular failures. The creators of the European Union promised to bring peace and prosperity. But through their grandiose folly, they have fuelled only debt, despair and disintegration.

The EU lacks any kind of democratic legitimacy, which means that the end could come sooner than the politicians imagine. After all, the apartheid regime in South Africa collapsed with dramatic suddenness in the early 1990s, as did the Communist governments of Russia and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s.

2016 could be the year that the EU falls apart, making the British referendum an irrelevance. Economics are certain to play a central part in any process of collapse. Despite endless optimistic propaganda from Brussels and ever greater fiscal control from the centre, the euro’s difficulties have not disappeared. Growth remains anaemic, just 0.3 per cent in the third quarter of the year, while dole queues are as long as ever. Unemployment in Spain, sometimes held up to as a eurozone “miracle”, stands at 23 per cent. In Greece, the figure is above 25 per cent.

But the EU cannot resolve this relentless economic crisis because it is a part of the problem. The single currency was never a really an economic initiative. On the contrary, it was a political instrument to further the federalist agenda. Forcing together economies as disparate as Germany and Greece was always doomed to result in debt and paralysis.

The impending clash on economic policy will be compounded by the continuing migration disaster, which is threatening to tear apart the social fabric of Europe. Instead of defending European civilisation, the EU has been a vehicle for destruction of our heritage and identity through its obsession with open borders and cultural diversity. Just before Christmas, it was reported that more than one million migrants have reached Europe through irregular means in 2015, nearly all of them from across the eastern Mediterranean. Already unsustainable, that influx will continue to grow during 2016.

But anger could turn to open rebellion in 2016 if the migrant crisis leads to a series of Islamist terror attacks. Isil have openly boasted about sending jihadists into Europe through the EU porous borders, while the Lebanese minister has claimed that 1 in every 50 Syrian refugees could be an Isil extremist.

This kind of globalised anxiety is unusual. For the past 30 years and more, there has been at least one world power that was bullishly optimistic. In the late 1980s the Japanese were still enjoying a decades-long boom — and confidently buying up assets all over the world. In the 1990s America basked in victory in the cold war and a long economic expansion. In the early 2000s the EU was in a buoyant mood, launching a single currency and nearly doubling its membership. And for most of the past decade, the growing political and economic power of China has inspired respect all over the world.

The global gloom makes the international political system feel like a patient that is still struggling to recover from a severe illness which began with the financial crisis of 2008. If there are no further bad shocks, recovery should proceed gradually and the worst political symptoms may fade. The patient is vulnerable, however. Another severe shock, such as a major terrorist attack or a serious economic downturn, could spell real trouble.

"We will have to spend a lot more funds for joint European defence initiatives," Wolfgang Schäuble, federal finance minister and vocal conservative politician, told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. “In the end, our goal must be a common European Army,” he said, arguing that national military spending across 28 countries in the EU “could be employed in a far better way together.”

"For Germany, this means that we will have to support our foreign and security policies more strongly than we would perhaps like," he said, mentioning the Middle East and Africa as geographical pivots for Berlin’s prospective engagements. Stronger European engagement is needed to stabilize these regions, he added.

Chinese officials say their country faces a growing threat from militants and separatists, especially in its unruly Western region of Xinjiang, where hundreds have died in violence in the past few years. The law has attracted deep concern in Western capitals, not only because of worries it could violate human rights such as freedom of speech, but because of the cyber provisions. US President Barack Obama has said that he had raised concerns about the law directly with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Speaking after China's largely rubber-stamp parliament passed the law, Li Shouwei, deputy head of the parliament's criminal law division under the legislative affairs committee, said China was simply doing what other Western nations already do in asking technology firms to help fight terror. "This rule accords with the actual work need of fighting terrorism and is basically the same as what other major countries in the world do," Li told reporters.