People have long assumed that autocrats and dictators have an advantage in waging war. Today, as the novel coronavirus sweeps across the globe, there is some speculation that autocracies have an edge in fighting that war, too. Autocrats can potentially enforce shelter-in-place orders more effectively and use their surveillance abilities to better engage in contact tracing.
These concerns are without foundation. Contrary to popular beliefs, democracies are more effective in responding to various crises. Political science research found that democracies are more likely than autocracies to win their wars. From 1816 to 1987, democracies won about 76 percent of their wars, while nondemocracies won about 46 percent of their wars. Even more striking, democracies rarely lose when they start wars, winning 93 percent of the time.
What is true of wars against armies is also true of a campaign against disease. Past studies have found that citizens in democracies are healthier than citizens living under tyranny and that democracies suffer lower mortality rates than dictatorships in epidemics. Analyses of responses to the current pandemic have already found that once the tenth coronavirus case was reported, democracies were faster than dictatorships to close schools. There is good reason to think that the attributes that make democracies perform better in wars—especially accountable leaders and superior information flows—make them more effective in fighting the coronavirus as well.
WINNING THE BATTLE
According to  our team's research, we found that democracies win wars in part because of the reelection anxiety of their leaders. Democratically elected leaders are motivated to avoid waging losing wars because they know that unpopular policies often lead to their removal from office: U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, for example, both took steps to limit troop involvement in Syria for this reason. True, sometimes elected leaders start or escalate wars that turn out poorly, as did President Lyndon B. Johnson in Vietnam and President George W. Bush in Iraq. But the eventual decline of these leaders’ political fortunes serves as an enduring recommendation for caution to their successors.
As a result, elected leaders start ill-conceived wars less often than other leaders. Dictators do not have such reelection anxieties, and they are more confident that they can repress popular opposition in order to stay in office. They are thus more likely to start risky wars they might not win. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, for instance, was able to crush domestic opposition after his disastrous 1980 invasion of Iran and 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Elected leaders start ill-conceived wars less often than other leaders.
Superior information flows also help democracies win wars. Democratic leaders make better choices about wars because independent news media facilitate open debate, exposing bad ideas and promoting good ones. This environment of open debate also increases the likelihood that democratic leaders will inherit and choose qualified advisers and military officers—even sometimes rivals—who in turn provide better advice. Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, for example, prudently deferred attacking Pakistan in 1971 until she had a very promising (and ultimately successful) military plan and the weather was favorable. And U.S. President George H. W. Bush held extensive debates among his advisers in 1990 planning for war against Iraq, which produced one of the
most decisive victories in military history.
Dictators are more opposed to open discussion because they fear internal political threats. They are more likely to appoint and promote yes men, who are unmotivated to provide their leaders with the unvarnished truth and/or unqualified to provide insightful advice. Arab attacks by Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq on Israel in 1948, 1969, and 1973 all ended in defeat. The poorly conceived
Soviet attack on Finland in 1939 is a perfect example of a pyrrhic victory, leaving more than 100,000 Soviet dead and only a few scraps of Finnish tundra to show for it. And although Americans bemoan the long war in Afghanistan, the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan turned out far worse for Moscow, with perhaps 15,000 dead and absolutely no gains.
WAR ON DISEASE
The same characteristics that help democracies win wars can help them tackle challenges such as the pandemic. Democratic leaders who mishandle a pandemic can expect to be at greater risk of being tossed out of office and are thus more likely to take effective action.
Dictators are more likely to survive botched crisis responses and therefore do not face pressure to reform their strategies. This can have a devastating effect during health crises. In the current outbreak, Iran has suffered an estimated 900,000 cases of the virus because the Iranian government has made such poor policy choices. But the government’s botched coronavirus response will not threaten the regime because Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has substantial tools at his disposal to repress threats to his power. Similarly, should the coronavirus crisis stimulate unrest in China, President Xi Jinping will tighten his control even further.
The strict controls dictatorships have over information flows have also impeded their response to the pandemic. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has censored information about the virus, even arresting or intimidating individuals who speak out about it: Russian police assaulted and arrested
one doctor who posted videos describing authorities concealing the severity of the pandemic. China, the first country to confront COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, squelched information about the source and characteristics of the virus: the regime arrested doctors in Wuhan in late December for sounding the alarm, allowed a banquet of 40,000 families in Wuhan to occur in early February, refused help from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, hampered distribution of data on how the virus spreads among those infected who show no symptoms, and underreported the number of cases by a factor of four. Although the Chinese government reports success in combating the virus, doubts about China’s progress persist, given the country’s lack of transparency. These patterns are not new; China’s heavy clampdown on information
substantially interfered with its efforts to battle the SARS outbreak in 2002–3.
Open societies have generated a flood of important information about the virus.
Open information flows in democracies, by comparison, have helped fight the outbreak. Democracies such as the United States and Germany have created policy laboratories that have helped to explore innovative approaches. But more important, open societies have generated a flood of important information about the virus, advancing public understanding and helping policymakers and citizens develop and distribute protective measures. And open channels of information have identified and exposed fake news, conspiracy theories, and quack cures, limiting their domination of public discourse on the coronavirus.
Unlike wars, however, information sharing during a pandemic is not limited to the individual liberal societies coming up with winning policy ideas. Rather, scientists, doctors, policymakers, and journalists around the globe have embraced the liberal norm of sharing ideas and information, creating an open and expansive community of knowledge. Chinese scientists substantially advanced progress toward testing, vaccine, and cure development after publishing the complete
genome sequence of the coronavirus in January (although their Shanghai lab was subsequently shut down by Chinese government authorities). Meanwhile, hundreds if not thousands of other research labs around the world are racing to perfect tests, vaccines, and cures, rapidly publishing and sharing scientific papers. The health company Kinsa publishes data from its Web-linked home thermometers to forecast novel coronavirus clusters accurately and rapidly. And Google helps distribute information on social distancing, possible new symptoms, and other important developments.
Several democracies have made substantial progress in avoiding or containing outbreaks, including South Korea, Taiwan, Germany,
Australia and New Zealand , Denmark, and Israel. The United States’ response to the coronavirus, however, has seemingly challenged the notion that democracies are better at fighting pandemics. President Trump has come under severe criticism for his handling of the crisis, downplaying early warnings of potential death tolls and moving slowly to initiate widespread testing. Despite his early performance, however, Trump’s response to the virus illustrates how democracies excel in containing disease: recognizing that the outcomes of the November elections will turn on his handling of the pandemic, Trump has begun to take the crisis more seriously, imposing travel restrictions, supporting massive economic relief, and using the Defense Production Act to boost the manufacture of testing materials. Unlike dictators, who can squelch opposition, democratically elected leaders such as Trump are pressured to respond to criticism, which ultimately can yield more effective containment measures.
KILL THE VIRUS, NOT DEMOCRACY
No one can predict with certainty the course of this pandemic. But our research on democracy and war suggests that there are critical actions both policymakers and individuals should take to fight the virus. Voters should continue to hold their elected leaders’ feet to the fire to motivate them to fight the virus as effectively as possible and to respond flexibly to changing conditions. Democracies should nurture information flows inside and outside of government to spur open debate about the best path forward.
As in wartime, the looming challenge for democracies will be expanding the power of the state without undermining democracy itself. South Korea, for instance, stifled the coronavirus by collecting widespread personal information about patients and informing individuals who came into contact with victims. The U.S. government may need to direct mass production of critical goods such as ventilators and control prices to prevent gouging. This can be a difficult balance—witness, for example, Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s power grab in Hungary or the Israeli government’s concerning expansion of data collection powers. But democracies have managed this balance before, winning wars without destroying freedom, and it can do the same in fighting the novel coronavirus. As in wars, democracy will be a source of strength in fighting the virus, not a source of weakness.

Earlier this year, Pavel Sozinov, general designer at the Russian defence concern Almaz-Antey, touted the S-500 as a missile system that is capable of intercepting targets located hundreds of kilometres above the Earth.
The Russian Armed Forces may get the first advanced S-500 missile systems next year, the country’s Deputy Defence Minister Alexei Krivoruchko has said in an interview with the magazine Natsionalnaya Oborona (National Defence).
According to him, the conclusion of a state contract for S-500s is scheduled for 2021, with wide-scale deliveries expected in subsequent years.
Krivoruchko also referred to a stage of the S-500-related preliminary tests, with "the material part currently at the training ground”.
The statement echoes that of Vladimir Dolbenkov, director-general of the Design Bureau for Special Machine-Building (part of Almaz-Antey), who said in late March that tests for certain elements of “the next-generation Triumfator-M mobile air defence system S-500”, including its launcher, “[…] were being completed”.

RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY
Russian S-400 Triumph missile system
This followed Almaz-Antey general designer Pavel Sozinov touting the S-500 as an air defence system that will be able to intercept targets “in the upper atmosphere”, hundreds of kilometres above the Earth.
He stressed that according to its specifications, the S-500 exceeds all similar missile systems that have been created or are being designed in developed countries.
Sozinov said that the Russian missile system comprises a large number of various target detection and interception tools as well as ground-to-air guided missiles. "This is a system that accomplishes a wide range of tasks for both air defence and missile defence purposes”, he emphasised.
The S-500 Prometey, also known as 55R6M "Triumfator-M", is a Russian surface-to-air missile/anti-ballistic missile system designed to replace the S-400.
With the S-500's specifications still officially classified, media reports have claimed that the system is capable of destroying targets up to 600 kilometres (372 miles) away.
It reportedly can track and simultaneously strike up to 10 ballistic targets moving at speeds of up to 7 kilometres (4 miles) per second (about Mach 20). The system is also capable of hitting various aerodynamic targets, including aircraft and helicopters, as well as cruise missiles.

Europe’s largest private hospital operator, Fresenius, has become a victim of a ransomware attack, which affected its operations

Snake ransomware, aka Ekans, was discovered in 2019.
Hospitals and healthcare providers are already suffering due to Coronavirus pandemic but cybercriminals especially ransomware operators are playing their role to make things worse.
Cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs reported on his blog KrebsOnSecurity that Europe’s largest private hospital operator, Fresenius, has become a victim of a ransomware attack, which affected its operations.
It is worth noting that Fresenius is the leading provider of dialysis products with a 40% share in the US market for dialysis, and has a range of hospitals and inpatient and outpatient care services.
Fresenius confirmed that its technology systems have been attacked with a computer virus. The attack did limit its operations to some extent but the patient care service is not disrupted.
Matt Kuhn, Fresenius’ spokesperson
told Krebs that,
Brian Krebs was informed by a relative working for one of Fresenius’ businesses in the United States that its computers have been attacked with Snake ransomware, aka Ekans. This ransomware was discovered in 2019 and so far it has been used in attacks targeting the industrial sector.
Snake ransomware mainly attacks Windows-based systems and encrypts files/data with a five-character file extension that is selected randomly. Then it displays a note on the screen and sends the victim a ransom note via email. The attacker usually demands payment in cryptocurrency.
Snake ransomware ransom note.
Security researchers claim that Snake is unique ransomware because it looks for IT processes linked with enterprise management tools and larger ICS (industrial control systems) including manufacturing and production networks.
The recent attack on Fresenius isn’t too surprising as there were reports since January that Snake ransomware operators have launched a global campaign to infect businesses and enterprise networks. After staying low for a while, Snake operators resurfaced with a big blow to a wide range of organizations around the world from 4th May.
This isn’t the only high-profile data breach that a ransomware operators have carried out as previously they have targeted IT giant Cognizant , drug testing service Hammersmith Medicines Research LTD, and cyber insurance service Chubb in a similar manner.
Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the United States and the Czech Republic’s second-largest hospital in Brno also suffered cyberattacks. The hospital was forced to shut down its operation due to the attack.
See: Hackers set up fake NHS website
Moreover, ID Ransomware, ransomware detecting service, reported a huge rise in ransomware attacks over the last few months and apart from the German healthcare firm Fresenius, a France-based architectural firm and a prepaid debit card company have also been attacked with Snake ransomware recently.

Fake Zoom installers infect PCs with RevCode WebMonitor RAT and this is a reason why South African Parliament fell a prey

The corona virus lockdown has forced people to work from homes. Remote working involves using a variety of video-conferencing and communication mediums like Zoom. This compulsion has provided cybercriminals the perfect opportunity to carry out their malicious activities more passionately.

That’s why Zoom is being actively targeted by hackers in the past few weeks. These attacks involve zoomboming or spreading malware hidden fake zoom apps. And now, Trend Micro has identified yet another attack campaign targeting Zooming presentations and conferences.According to Trend Micro cybersecurity researchers, cybercriminals are using malicious Zoom installers to distribute RevCode WebMonitor RAT (remote access Trojan). However, researchers have confirmed that these installers, although authentic, doesn’t come from official sources such as Google Play, Apple App Store, or Zoom’s official download center.

The infected Zoom installers are available at third-party websites and victims are sent malicious links via phishing emails. This campaign is somewhat similar to another campaign that was discovered in April. In that campaign, legit Zoom installers were used to infect devices with a cryptocurrency miner.

In the new campaign, cybercriminals have repackaged authentic Zoom installers with WebMonitor RAT. When someone downloads ZoomInstaller[.]exe, which contains an uninfected Zoom installer version 4.6 and the malicious RevCode WebMonitor RAT, the device gets infected with the RAT.Upon infection, it allows the attacker to gain remote control of the device and the user via webcam streaming, keylogging, and screen capturing.

RevCode WebMonitor RAT’s website where hackers sell the software

Amidst rising concerns over the use of Zoom for remote working, Zoom has updated its OS to version 5.0, which is touted to be far superior to the older versions in terms of privacy and security.

If you use Zoom, make sure it’s updated to the latest version only use legitimate distribution channels like Google Play to download Zoom. Moreover, install and scan your device withauthentic antivirus software.

what you have to know about the Wuhan laboratory that is behind all the conspiracy on COVID19

While scientists' attention is focused on a vaccine for the new coronavirus, politicians have begun raising questions as to where the virus came from. As the blame game goes international, a high-security lab at the epicentre of the pandemic in China has risen from obscurity.

As is often the case with the ever-changing viruses, SARS-CoV-19, the invisible newsmaker of the past four months, still remains a tough nut to crack.

With its genome fully sequenced, little is known about the origins of the virus, which has infected over 3,680,000 people worldwide and killed over 257,000. The World Health Organisation believes that it has natural origin and was not produced in a laboratory.

But US President Donald Trump, an outspoken fan of conspiracy theories,he claimed,he saw trustworthy evidence that the virus had been unleashed from a lab in the central Chinese city of Wuhan. He has not clarified whether he was referring to a deliberate or accidental release of SARS-CoV-19 and has yet to present evidence to back his claim.

The narrative clashes with the wide scientific consensus that the virus had originated in animals, possibly in bats, and then infected humans, whether directly or through a yet-unknown intermediate host (pangolins, for example).

China has pushed back on the lab leak accusations, but a growing chorus of voices in the West are calling for an independent probe into the origins of the new coronavirus. The US-China spat marked a big break for the Wuhan lab, yet for an unwanted reason. Here's what we know about it.

• The lab was established in 2015 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and cost 300 million yuan, or approximately $42 million.
• The institute was founded in 1956, seven years after the Chinese Communist Revolution, by the national Academy of Sciences. It is home to the China Centre for Virus Culture Collection, the largest virus bank in Asia which stores more than 1,500 strains of viruses.
• The lab became the first one in mainland China to achieve the fourth, highest level of biocontainment, which allows it to study the most dangerous pathogens in the world, such as the Ebola and Marburg viruses (work on SARS-CoV-2 requires the third level or higher).
• It was built to withstand a magnitude-7 earthquake, despite the province of Hubei having no history of such strong tremors.
• The lab's main building is reported to be equipped with sewage and life support systems on the ground floor. Core laboratories along with filter and pipeline systems are located on the second and third floors, while the top level houses an air conditioning system.
• The safety protocol is so rigorous that people who contact with bats or their waste are considered to be at a higher risk of contracting the virus than staff at the lab.
• Perhaps the most famous Wuhan virologist is the institute's deputy director Shi Zhengli, dubbed "bat woman" in Western media. In 2017, her team presented research that found a link between a single population of bats in southwest China and the 2003 SARS coronavirus pandemic. When global attention started turning to Wuhan, the city where the outbreak was first detected, Shi flatly rejected that the lab had anything to do with it.
• Diplomatic cables recently obtained by The Washington Post showed that US officials had raised the alarm about possible safety breaches at the lab after a visit from a US diplomat in 2018.
• Notably, they noted that the lab has a "serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory". They also warned that the lab's work on contagious viruses and potential transmission to humans could case a new SARS-like pandemic. The State Department declined to comment, and no screenshots of the cables have been provided.
• American and French scientists helped train staff for the Wuhan lab as part of the PREDICT pandemic early warning programme, shut down by the Trump administration last year.
• Jonna Mazet, a prominent epidemiologist who led the programme, has recounted that Wuhan workers had developed a "very stringent" safety protocol, which includes "extreme personal protective equipment", and work only with samples that have deactivated beforehand. Vials with the “active” virus are kept in a special area.

just in History:How USSR's 'Death to Spies' Spooks Paralyzed Third Reich Intelligence

Nazi intelligence and the Kriegsmarine mastered the art of spreading radio disinformation among the Allies after the occupation of France and the campaign for the Atlantic. However, by 1944, the NKVD and SMERSH (Red Army counterintelligence), set up similar operations, disrupting Wehrmacht intelligence-gathering until the very end of the war.The ‘funkspiel’ (German for ‘radio play’) carried out by Soviet intelligence officers during the Second World War helped cripple German intelligence-gathering operations on the Eastern Front, and made a major contribution to victory, saving tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives, Vladimir Makarov, a Russian intelligence services historian who has written extensively on the subject, says. Makarov explained that although the idea of radio play disinformation was not a novelty of the Second World War, it was an area that the Soviets quickly took an interest in after the start of the war on the Eastern Front in June 1941. “The first radio play to misinform the enemy was carried out by the Special Department of the North-Western Front in September 1941,” the historian recalled.
But it would not be until the spring of 1942, when German special forces began dropping parachutists armed with mobile radio stations behind Soviet lines in large numbers, that funkspiel would become a major tool for Soviet counterintelligence efforts.
On April 25, 1942, People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs Lavrenty Beria presented Joseph Stalin with a report on German agents detained with radio equipment. “The NKVD believes that the captured German radio equipment can be used in the interests of Red Army high command to misinform the enemy with regard to the deployment and regrouping of Red Army units,” the report indicated. Stalin approved the proposal, and from then on, German high command began receiving reports about strange goings-on on the Eastern Front.

According to Makarov, there is an important distinction to be made between Soviet and Nazi German funkspiel efforts. “Unlike the radio play carried out by the Germans, ours were centralized, and featured the participation of the general staff. There, a separate group worked on the creation of misinformation materials. Furthermore, the best staffers were assigned to this work.” This, the historian noted, meant that each misinformation operation was carefully prepared for maximal effect.
What’s more, Makarov said, the bulk of German intelligence officers who were captured agreed to work for the Soviet side, with careful checks made to test how sincere these new double agents were. This included looking out for any secret signals these agents might be ordered to send in the event of capture. The NKVD issued strict, detailed instructions on the use of these double agents by late 1942, distributing them to territorial and army counterintelligence units.
“In the event that a successful radio play operation was carried out, agents were not only spared prosecution, but often even rewarded,” the historian explained.
The Soviet doctrine of maskirovka (lit. ‘disguise’), or military deception, i.e. the use of measures ranging from camouflage and concealment to decoy and dummy mockups and engaging in false maneuvers, would become a key Red Army tactic during the Second World War, and was used again during the Cold War and even in Russia’s post-Cold War military doctrine.
In funkspiel too, Makarov stressed, the famous concept came into play. “In order for our misinformation to be considered real, and to minimize the likelihood of a particular radio play operation from failing, maskirova measures were taken.” This meant, for example, that when a packet of misinformation was sent out, Red Army or supply units would engage in pretend activities which would allow any other possible German agents in Soviet rear areas to be able to observe and confirm the ‘validity’ of the misinformation.
For example, knowing that the Germans had a large number of agents concentrated in Moscow, the country’s main rail hub, Soviet high command would dispatch equipment and ammunition along the ring road, indicating preparations for (fake) offensives. Furthermore, fake depots were constructed to hold fake equipment. Similarly, knowing that Nazi intelligence was tracking the movement of senior Red Army commanders, funkspiel operations would include reports on generals being sent in one direction when in reality, they would be deployed somewhere else.
Funkspiel operations even assisted in the defence of Moscow in June 1942, with a planned Luftwaffe bomber raid called off due to false radio intelligence reports that several fighter regiments, anti-aircraft artillery, searchlights and blimps has been transferred to the capital to shore up defences.
Similarly, radio play was used to provide the German high command with false information on the state of Soviet military industry, with tank factories, for example, either overstating or downplaying their true production output.
Soviet funkspiel was even used to thwart Nazi efforts to rile up nationalist sentiments in various regions of the USSR, and to stop potential sabotage operations against railways. “For example, it was very important to protect the railway connection between the Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions, where the equipment supplied by the Allies to the USSR under Lend-Lease came from,” Makarov said.
Another trick played by Soviet intelligence was to conduct special funkspiel missions deliberately designed to show a lack of professionalism by Soviet agents to give Nazi intelligence a false sense of superiority. In these operations, crude, clumsy work by Soviet security organs would be shown, with coded messages deliberately allowed to be cracked for maximal effect.
From Defence to Offense
By 1944, after the Red Army completed the liberation of the majority of Soviet territory and began moving into Eastern Europe toward Germany, funkspiel operations took on a new complexity and importance, covering for Soviet offensive operations.
“For example,” Makarov recalled, “during the Budapest offensive operation in Hungary in early 1945, troops from the 3rd Ukrainian Front were used in the attack. To smash a Wehrmacht group which was sent to break through to the city to help the Nazi forces surrounded in the capital, the 3rd Ukrainian Front’s SMERSH directorate staged a radio play operation dubbed ‘Signalers’. The Germans believed the disinformation which was transmitted, and removed significant forces from the main direction of the attack, allowing our troops to liquidate the Nazi breakthrough.”
According to the historian, toward the end of the war, Soviet funkspiel operations became so complex that they were able to mislead German high command not only about the deployment of individual battalions or regiments, but entire armies. This, he said, effectively deprived German intelligence from providing the Wehrmacht with reliable information about Red Army plans.
“The Germans also failed to disrupt the work of the Soviet rear areas. Our security agencies neutralized thousands of saboteurs, with tens of thousands of weapons, explosives and ammunition prevented from going off or exploding in the Soviet hinterland,” he added, noting that this included stopping assassination attempts against Soviet leaders.
“It can be said that the Soviet special services unconditionally defeated the enemy. In essence, the work of the massive German intelligence machine was for nothing. Therefore, the organizers and participants of these radio play actions made a huge contribution to victory,” he stressed.
Operation Berezino
Possibly the most famous Soviet funkspiel mission was Operation Berezino, a deception operation that kicked off in August 1944 and would see native German antifascist fighters take to the airwaves to spread disinformation about a major (non-existent) pocket of German resistance behind Soviet lines in the forests of Belarus. The operation made use of Lt. Col. Heinrich Scherhorn, a real, decorated World War I and World War II officer who was captured in battles outside Minsk, and who agreed to cooperate with Soviet intelligence to take part in the charade about this ghost German army unit.
Scherhorn’s ghost army of 2,000 troops was used to lure Nazi intelligence units and army forces into traps by attempting to make contact with his forces and provide them with supplies. The operation proved successful, so much so that the German high command continued to make contact with him and believed his force was real until the very end of the war, even awarding him the Knight's Cross and the Iron Cross in March 1945.
Heinrich Scherhorn
Specially-trained Soviet units impersonating Wehrmacht troops were formed to meet arriving Nazi paratroopers. These units, under the command of Otto Skorzeny, the legendary commando, saboteur and spy, were sent on an operation to verify the existence of the ‘Sherhorn units’, but got neutralized along the way.
“Soviet intelligence officers ‘crossed swords’ with Skorzeny and his men several times during the war, and always successfully,” Makarov noted. “Judging by his recollections, Skozeny himself remained blissfully unaware that the ‘campaign’ by Sherhorn and his units in the Soviet rear was actually a brilliantly executed operation by the Soviet special services.”
Ultimately, the NKVD and SMERSH managed to keep the German high command in the dark about the Sherhorn deception until the closing days of the war. On May 1, 1945, the German side informed Sherhorn about Adolf Hitler’s suicide, helping to confirm separate reports about the Fuhrer’s demise.
On May 5, German intelligence sent Sherhorn its final telegram, which read: “The superiority of the enemy’s forces have defeated Germany…With a heavy heart, we are forced to stop providing you with assistance.” Three days later, on the night of May 8, 1945, Germany unconditionally surrendered to the Allies.

US defence contractor Lockheed Martin in a statement announced that a joint venture team completed the first production run of a new Javelin anti-tank missile.

"The Javelin Joint Venture team, a partnership of Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a business of Raytheon Technologies, and Lockheed Martin completed the first production Javelin F-Model (FGM-148F) missile," the release said on Wednesday.
The F-Model, the statement added, has an advanced, multipurpose warhead that can defeat current and future armor, and adds a fragmenting steel case to take out soft targets and light armored vehicles.
The production of the F-Model represents the latest in a series of upgrades to the weapon since it was first deployed in 1996, the release said.
Javelin has been used extensively in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. and coalition forces have used the Javelin in more than 5,000 engagements since its deployment in 1996, the release said.

The world is slowly being eaten up by covid19 as cases get close to a total of 4 million

In the whole world now....
Confirmed cases: 3766680
Recoveries: 1249049
Deaths: 263956


,........
Here is Africa now...
Confirmed coronavirus cases in Africa: 51,697
Recovered: 17,660; Confirmed coronavirus deaths: 2,009

Cases that were reported last night from:
Africa: 51 677 cases; the five countries reporting most cases are South Africa (7 808), Egypt (7 588), Morocco (5 408), Algeria (4 997) and Nigeria (3 145).
Asia: 597 979 cases; the five countries reporting most cases are Turkey (131 744), Iran (101 650), China (83 970), India (52 952) and Saudi Arabia (31 938).
America : 1 595 437 cases; the five countries reporting most cases are United States (1 228 603), Brazil (125 218), Canada (63 496), Peru (54 817) and Ecuador (29 420).
Europe : 1 459 723 cases; the five countries reporting most cases are Spain (220 325), Italy (214 457), United Kingdom (201 201), Germany (166 091) and Russia (165 929).
Oceania: 8 284 cases; the five countries reporting most cases are Australia (6 875), New Zealand (1 139), Guam (151), French Polynesia (60) and Fiji (18).
Other: 696 cases have been reported from an international conveyance in Japan.
Deaths have been reported from:
Africa: 2 011 deaths; the five countries reporting most deaths are Algeria (476), Egypt (469), Morocco (183), South Africa (153) and Cameroon (108).
Asia: 20 730 deaths; the five countries reporting most deaths are Iran (6 418), China (4 637), Turkey (3 584), India (1 783) and Indonesia (895).
America : 94 122 deaths; the five countries reporting most deaths are United States (73 431), Brazil (8 536), Canada (4 232), Mexico (2 704) and Ecuador (1 618).
Europe : 146 293 deaths; the five countries reporting most deaths are United Kingdom (30 076), Italy (29 684), Spain (25 857), France (25 809) and Belgium (8 339).
Oceania: 125 deaths; the 4 countries reporting deaths are Australia (97), New Zealand (21), Guam (5) and Northern Mariana Islands (2).

Other: 7 deaths have been reported from an international conveyance in Japan.

Hope for peace in North Kivu as two rebel group leaders announced dropping down weapons

Two rebel group leaders have announced that they want to follow a call for peace by President Félix Tshisekedi. But the victims are worried about seeing them eventually join the Congolese army.

The two rebel groups have been operating so far in northern North Kivu province, in the and Lubero territories. Kakule Sikuli and Kakule Masibi, from the group " Union of Congolese Patriots for Peace " (UPCP) and the " Mai-Mai Charles " group, dropped the weapons on Monday (04.05.2020).
Two leaders of a well-known militia active in North Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo went to the security forces, said the authorities on Tuesday.
Lafontaine Sikuli, Commander of the Armed Group Union of Congolese Patriots for Peace (UPCP), and Iloveyou Kakule, another leader, visited on Monday, said North Kivu governor Carly Nzanzu Kasivita to journalists after a meeting with the committee security of the province in the capital Goma.
" We welcome the decision of these leaders of an armed group to put an end to the violence. We hope they will help us convince other compatriots who are still committed to armed activities in North Kivu province to drop the weapons. The government's policy for North Kivu is to put an end to decades of insecurity ", said Mr. Kasivita.
surrender comes after the militia has been weak by the government forces (FARDC) following an offensive launched last October, according to analysts.
" Lafontaine Sikuli is one of the veterans of the Mai-Mai Chiefs of the region. But he doesn't have much influence after losing many of his fighters. He is under pressure and had to take an olive branch offered by the current Kinshasa government to surrender ", said to the agency Eugene Eugene Kabange, a security analyst based in Goma.
Sikuli, whose militia was active in the city of Lubero in North Kivu, also said he was ready to join in the process of peace restoration in the region.
"I listened to President Felix Tshisekedi's call [ to peace ] after seeing that he had committed to bring peace to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, especially in the east", Mr. said. Sikuli to the journalists.
The Union of Congolese Patriots for Peace was based in Bunyatenge, south of Lubero.
More than five years ago, the group formed an alliance with a Rwandan rebel group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), according to a North Kivu human rights group called GADHOP.
But the FDLR-UPCP coalition split after the emergence of divisions in the management in 2015.They were presented to the press and members of the region's Security Committee. Some of these repented rebels have decided to join the Congolese army while others have chosen to reintegrate into social life.
Call launched by President Félix Tshisekedi
Kakule Sikuli Lafontaine, one of the rebel leaders says
that this surrender is supported by an appeal made by the head of state who wants the pacification of the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). " Since 1999, we've been in the bush. We did not drop weapons following operations against armed groups, but we decided to drop the weapons so that together, together with the Congolese government, we can find solutions to the security challenges in our region ", explains the ex - rebel leader.
Convinced of his decision, he invites "all those who remain in the bush, that the time has come for the peace promoted by number one of the Republic and the governor of North Kivu to materialize".
People between hope and trust
The inhabitants of one of the of territories in which these rebels were committing abuse greet their decision to drop weapons and invite other armed groups to drop weapons.
On the other hand, they are opposed to the possible integration of these ex-rebels into the Congolese army. They think they have committed too many crimes and have no legitimacy to defend the population they once massacred.
Thus, for James Havugimana, capita, these rebels " are people who raped and killed our mothers. They scared us for a long time, we think they are not worthy to serve in the army ".
Forgive and reconcile
In the face of this distrust of the people, the authorities are disseminating messages of appeasement.
For Carly Nzanzu Kasivita, governor of North Kivu province, these former rebels " have agreed to drop the weapons and we ask all patriots to support efforts in the search for peace in our province. We continue to raise awareness of the culture of peace and we thank these armed groups who have accepted this call by wanting to give our province a chance ".
North Kivu province continues to face serious security challenges with the presence of several armed groups preventing the economic development of this eastern DRC, border with Rwanda.
For Martin Fayulu, he had this to say as he mainly indicated the active rolevof one of DRC's neighbour in accelerating rebel groups;an "open and honest dialogue must be engaged with our neighbours on their destabilizing role"
Martin Fayulu Madidi, president of the political party commitment to Citizenship and Development, (ECIDé), spoke on May 1, 2020 on the security situation in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo during an interview given to the Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR), an American non-supporter think to analyse US foreign policy and the global political situation.

For this member of the Presidium of lamuka, the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) must be reorganized as they are at the highest levels of command.
" When we talk about security in the DRC, it's important to look at the origins of recent instability in the country: the invasion of our country in 1996 by external forces, sponsored directly or indirectly by some of our eastern neighbours. The series of events that took place has left us an army that is a mosaic of various rebel groups and is, by essence, infiltrated at its highest levels of command by forces against a free and democratic Congo ", a - he let it be known.
According to the former presidential candidate of December 2018, until this situation is discussed in order to remedy it, progress on the security front is utopian.
Martin Fayulu also mentioned the need for an "honest dialogue" between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbours as one of the pre-entry of peace to the east of the country.
" In addition, an open and honest dialogue needs to be engaged with our neighbours about their destabilizing role. There can be no peace without truth and justice. To this extent, I have repeatedly supported the efforts of the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. Denis Mukwege, to extract from graves the findings of the United Nations mapping report that clearly identifies the root causes of our security problems ", he added.
With regard to peace-keeping efforts, Martin Fayulu believes that the UN's mandate needs to be reviewed to adapt it to the realities on the ground and make it more effective.
"The combination of a truly sovereign army and a more adequate UN mandate will greatly contribute to reducing conflicts in the East", said the President.
According to the latest report of the Security Barometer of Kivu, December 2019 has been the most deadly for civilians ever recorded by this structure since its creation in June 2017. 117 people have been killed in attacks mainly to the Islamist rebels of the Democratic Forces Forces (ADF).

PPSh-41,The legendary Russian machine gun that eased the winning of WW II

A Soviet submachine gun designed by Georgy Shpagin, the PPSh-41, became one of the main infantry weapons of the Soviet Armed Forces during World War II.
The PPSh-41 was often called "Papasha" ("Daddy") by Russian soldiers as its three-letter acronym sounds similar.
The gun fires the standard Soviet pistol and submachine gun cartridge, the 7.62×25mm (Tokarev). While weighing approximately 12 pounds (5.45 kg) with a loaded 71-round drum and 9.5 pounds (4.32 kg) with a loaded 35-round box magazine, the PPSh-41 can shoot about 1,000 rounds per minute, a very high rate of fire compared to most other military submachine guns during World War II . It is a durable, low-maintenance weapon made from low-cost, easily obtained components, primarily stamped sheet metal and wood.
With this gun, Soviet soldiers defended Moscow and Odessa as well as fought in the Battles of Kursk and Stalingrad. With the PPSh-41, Soviet soldiers crossed half the world and celebrated their victory by firing up into the sky above Berlin in May 1945.