Pablo Picasso Massacre in Korea 1951
"Now Julian is free, we have all come to Rome to express our family’s gratitude for the Pope’s support during Julian’s persecution. Our children and I had the honor of meeting Pope Francis in June 2023 to discuss how to free Julian from Belmarsh prison. Francis wrote to Julian in… pic.twitter.com/1B4iNp31Is
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 26, 2025
Not a Suicide
Virginia Giuffre publicly declared that she is not suicidal and warned that if anything happens to her, the people should ensure those responsible are held accountable and never forget their actions.
"Too many evil people want to see me quieted." pic.twitter.com/rJZIHRIByP
— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) April 26, 2025
Using AI to scam government money is increasingly common https://t.co/ethd2BeflV
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 27, 2025
https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1916366530222428178
PAL€STINIAN AMBASSADOR GIVES PIERS MORGAN A HISTORY LESSON. pic.twitter.com/gEJ4ZeNm6m
— The Resonance (@Partisan_12) April 27, 2025
When I first saw the picture(s) yesterday, I just found the setting very strange: Someone sure went through a lot of trouble to make that look spontaneous. Why did they need to sit in a huge space, well-lit, to say something important? It looked, still does, like a photo-op, exclusively. That the photos, at least the ones I’ve seen, come from Zelensky’s own press service, only makes it stranger.
‘sundance’ had some more thoughts.
• The Awakening – Look Carefully at This Picture (CTH)
From the outset of the Ukraine -vs- Russia conflict I have been saying this is “world war Reddit”. CTH awakens today to this photo, blasting across the geopolitical landscape. I want you to look carefully at this picture; think about it and elevate yourself to understand exactly what this picture represents in the biggest framework of our ongoing discussion. The image origin: “Photographs released by the Ukrainian presidency showed the two leaders huddled in close discussion without aides in the ornate surroundings of St. Peter’s Basilica.”This scene is purposefully staged. This scene is staged by the control agents who control the Ukraine conflict, the intelligence community.
President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump attended the funeral of Pope Francis to pay their respects on the international stage. Let me be clear. The people around President Trump do not and did not align with this photo-op, it’s genuinely in poor taste and bad form given the nature of the background event, the funeral for Pope Francis. However, fearless President Trump knows exactly what this represents just as businessman Donald Trump knows how the seating is arranged in high stakes business negotiations; the sun at the back of the person wanting to be in the power position. Again, we should stay elevated and see the bigger picture here because it is incredibly important. When it comes from CNN, it’s coming from the PR firm of the State Dept., and who controls the State Dept, the CIA.
CNN: How the pope’s funeral format allowed for Trump-Zelensky talk. “The meeting occurred just outside the Baptistry Chapel, which is inside St. Peter’s Basilica near its entrance, and the talk hadn’t been telegraphed in advance. Ahead of the president’s brief visit to Rome, officials had downplayed the prospect he would meet with Zelensky or any other world leaders, pointing to the truncated time frame for the trip and its solemn purpose of memorializing the late pope. Trump had originally selected Saudi Arabia for his first stop abroad of his new term and will visit there next month.
But when Francis died those plans changed, and instead Trump made his first foreign stop in Europe, a continent he’s railed against frequently. The seating chart and crush of fellow leaders made brief interactions possible, including with leaders Trump had seemingly been avoiding since taking office. He engaged briefly with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, with whom he hadn’t spoken at all since returning to office amid trade and defense disputes with the European Union.”
President Trump, a man of respectful honor, indeed would expect to engage in polite and quiet conversation with Zelenskyy, Macron, Starmer et al, at the funeral. Yes, he would quietly have a conversation in a private room with the principals to quickly discuss political affairs. That’s his style. That’s the way he operates, retaining focus and respect toward the purpose of the gathering, holding quick conversation in private and retaining emphasis on the purpose. THIS IS NOT THAT. This is a stage set for the optics of a geopolitical conflict that involves Ukraine and Russia, and this stage is set up by the same controlling agents who have been in control of the events since the outset. This stage is why CTH instinctively knew the conflict was World War Reddit. What are we seeing?
The intelligence communities’ control western government. The government does not control the intelligence communities. This reality is the core of the great awakening that reconciles every facet of the conflict present and visible. When things do not make sense; when things are unnatural and fraught with irreconcilable datapoints stemming from traditional perspectives that no longer align with what is visible; that’s because the intelligence apparatus is in control of it. Every example you can cite returns to this basic truth. All of the western government systems, the “new democracy” as it is called, stem from a radically different construct. The intelligence services control the government; the government does not control the intelligence services. The conflict in Ukraine exists because western intelligence services are controlling it.
The reality is this “war” is not the Russian government -vs- the governments of various western nations in support of Ukraine. The true conflict is the western intelligence community vs the Russian government. Vladimir Putin does not hate Americans. The Russian President hates the CIA. When envoy Steve Witkoff is representing President Trump in his discussions with Vladimir Putin, Witkoff and Trump represent the government. However, the government is not the real control agent and Putin together with Trump/Witkoff know this. Vladimir Putin and Donald J Trump are mutually aligned entities in a fight against western intelligence services. That’s the core understanding that must be at the forefront of any review or intellectually honest analysis of what is taking place.
The vulnerability within the position of the Western Intel Services, is that they must hide this reality. The IC must retain the illusion that government is in control of geopolitical events, because if that control mask is dropped everything changes. And I do mean EVERYTHING. Everything that was irreconcilable suddenly starts to make sense when you accept that government is not in control, the government does not have the power. The intelligence services control government and the intel agencies are currently the source of geopolitical power. The politicians are the illusion of representative democracy that must be retained. That’s what this image should represent to everyone!
….”Once you see the strings on the marionettes you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.”….
UKRAINE: Zelensky wanted Macron to join his talk with Trump so the Vatican setup three chairs. When Trump realized he told Macron that he would talk to Zelensky one-on-one. Total power move. Hopefully it helped get Zelensky closer to accepting a ceasefire. pic.twitter.com/FriYqU8Zjy
— @amuse (@amuse) April 26, 2025
It’s Zelensky who has the preconditions.
• Putin Reaffirms Readiness For Unconditional Talks With Ukraine (RT)
Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow’s readiness for unconditional talks with Ukraine during a recent meeting with US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has revealed. Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Peskov confirmed that the topic was brought up during the meeting between the Russian president and the US special envoy at the Kremlin on Friday. “During yesterday’s conversation with Trump’s envoy Witkoff, Vladimir Putin reiterated that the Russian side is ready to resume the negotiation process with Ukraine without any preconditions,” Peskov stated. The spokesperson stressed that the Russian president has repeatedly spoken about Moscow’s readiness for talks.
In October of 2022, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky issued a decree explicitly banning all talks with Russia for as long as Putin is in charge. Since then, Kiev has somewhat softened its position, with Zelensky claiming later on that the provision applied to everyone in the country besides himself. As of late, Kiev has been demanding an unconditional ceasefire to be implemented before any talks could happen. The Putin-Witkoff meeting on Friday was the latest in a series of contacts between Moscow and Washington in recent months. The US special envoy, seen as a key figure behind kickstarting negotiations on the Ukraine conflict, has held multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including at least three meetings with the Russian president.
Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, and presidential investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev also took part in the meeting. Ushakov described the three-hour conversation as “constructive and very useful in nature.” “The conversation allowed us to further align the Russian and US positions not only on Ukraine, but also on a number of other international issues,” he said on Friday, confirming that the possibility of resuming direct talks between Moscow and Kiev was discussed during the meeting.
“The moment the war ends, so too ends this era of personal glory. The messy realities of rebuilding a bankrupt, fractured, and corrupted state would quickly erode his myth..”
• Russia Wants Immediate Peace Talks. Zelensky Wants Perpetual War (Romanenko)
The tragedy of Ukraine today is not merely the physical devastation of its cities or the displacement of its people. It is the political paralysis at its core, embodied in the figure of Vladimir Zelensky – a man who, under the guise of defending sovereignty, has turned the prospects of real peace into a distant mirage. Once again, we see Zelensky putting forward a laundry list of preconditions before he will even consider sitting down for direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A full ceasefire, complete withdrawal from what he calls “occupied” territories, international security guarantees, and a tribunal for alleged war crimes – the list grows longer by the week. In essence, he demands that Russia first capitulate to all of Ukraine’s strategic objectives, nullify its military leverage, and admit guilt, before any negotiation even begins. One might ask: What exactly would be left to negotiate then?
Negotiations, by their very nature, are predicated on compromise, not on issuing ultimatums. In a genuine dialogue, both sides bring their grievances, demands, and visions to the table, without first requiring the other to surrender all their positions. But Zelensky’s approach ensures that talks can never begin, because his ‘preconditions’ pre-decide the outcome in Kiev’s favor. It is an unserious, irresponsible stance that can only prolong the suffering of his people. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly reaffirmed his readiness to engage in talks without preconditions. This openness should not be dismissed lightly. Russia holds all the cards on the battlefield. After the sweeping victories in the Kursk region and steady advances in the new Russian territories, it is Russia – not Ukraine – that is dictating the military realities. Yet despite being in this position of strength, Moscow shows a willingness to negotiate. A responsible leadership would seize this opportunity to end the bloodshed. Zelensky instead chooses to throw it away.
One might argue that Russia’s ‘preconditions’ are baked into the military situation. And rightly so. In negotiations, power dynamics matter. Russia’s achievements on the ground create a natural incentive structure for talks: Kiev comes to the table recognizing its diminished position, while Moscow can be expected to negotiate from a position of strength. This is the normal course of conflict resolution throughout history. But Zelensky’s precondition that Ukraine must regain all lost territories first is absurd – it demands the total reversal of the battlefield situation without acknowledging the military realities. In effect, he asks for a fantasy. This raises an uncomfortable question: Does Zelensky truly want peace?
Every day the war drags on is a day Zelensky remains in power without facing democratic accountability. Under martial law, elections are indefinitely postponed. Criticism is muted, political opponents are sidelined or silenced, and dissent is framed as ‘pro-Russian treason.’ Furthermore, the endless war provides a convenient channel for billions of dollars of Western aid to flow into Ukraine – money that too often disappears into a black hole of corruption, never reaching the soldiers or citizens who need it most.
On the international stage, Zelensky continues to enjoy the lionization of Western media as the brave David facing the Russian Goliath. His celebrity status ensures endless speaking tours and photo ops. The moment the war ends, so too ends this era of personal glory. The messy realities of rebuilding a bankrupt, fractured, and corrupted state would quickly erode his myth. It is no wonder, then, that Zelensky clings to absurd preconditions. They offer a fig leaf of righteousness while ensuring that talks will never happen. They buy him time, money, power, and prestige – at the cost of Ukrainian lives. Meanwhile, the suffering grows. Ukraine’s best and brightest are sent to the frontlines to defend indefensible positions. Entire towns are depopulated. Infrastructure collapses. A generation is sacrificed, not in pursuit of peace, but in service to a leader who sees in perpetual war the means of his own political survival.
The world must recognize this grim reality. Genuine peace will require dialogue, compromise, and a recognition of the facts on the ground – not wishful thinking or political theatrics. Zelensky’s insistence on preconditions is not the mark of a statesman. It is the strategy of a man desperate to postpone the inevitable reckoning with his failures. If he truly cared about his people, he would sit down with Putin today. Not when every demand has been met. Not when he has a script that guarantees Ukraine’s total victory. But now – when the price of delay is measured in blood. Peace is not built by ultimatums. It is built by the courage to face hard truths and make painful compromises. Zelensky has shown neither.
“it is not only reasonable but necessary to push back on some elements of the US proposal, as it gives Ukraine practically very, very little. And Russia a lot..”
• Kiev’s Backers Pushing Zelensky Toward Land Concessions – WaPo
European officials are pressing Ukraine to accept the likelihood that it will be forced to agree to certain territorial concessions to Russia as part of a peace agreement, the Washington Post reported on Friday, citing sources. The issue was reportedly discussed during talks in London involving European and Ukrainian officials, which were, however, downgraded after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he would not attend. Despite this, one official told the WaPo that the talks “made progress” in terms of convincing Kiev that concessions may be unavoidable. Western negotiators are said to have a sense that Ukraine “may be willing to endure effective Russian control of Crimea,” provided Kiev is not required to legally recognize this reality. The peninsula overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed coup in Kiev.
Many Ukrainians, however, are reluctant to renounce future claims to Crimea, viewing any territorial compromise as setting a “dangerous precedent” for potential formal recognition of Moscow’s control over four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022. This comes as the US has clashed with European nations and Kiev over their vision for a Ukraine peace arrangement, with the sides presenting different proposals on the terms for ending the conflict, according to a Reuters report, which was confirmed by the WaPo.
In particular, US envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly proposed that Washington recognize Crimea as Russian and accept Moscow’s de facto control over large parts of the other four regions. Meanwhile, Ukraine and its European supporters, however, reportedly continue to resist any mention of territorial recognition in the proposed agreements. Their version of a peace framework postpones territorial issues until after a ceasefire and emphasizes the necessity of strong security guarantees for Kiev.
For Europe and Ukraine, “it is not only reasonable but necessary to push back on some elements of the US proposal, as it gives Ukraine practically very, very little. And Russia a lot,” a Western official told the WaPo. The report also noted that Europe is trying to “edge Washington toward a more reasonable agreement,” including the recognition that a ceasefire must be an essential first step. The WaPo report comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks on Friday with Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday. Presidential adviser Yury Ushakov described the meeting as “constructive and very useful” in nature,” adding that the talks included the idea of possibly resuming direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev. Trump, commenting on the state of the negotiations, said Ukraine and Russia “should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off.’ Most of the major points are agreed to.”
“..shortly after a brief meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in the Vatican..”
• Trump Threatens Russia With More Sanctions (RT)
US President Donald Trump has accused his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin of launching attacks on Ukrainian “civilian areas” for “no reason” and not wanting to “stop the war,” and threatened Moscow with new sanctions. The statement comes just as Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow’s readiness for unconditional talks with Kiev during a recent meeting with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. Trump issued the threat in a post on Truth Social on Saturday, shortly after a brief meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in the Vatican. The US president sharply criticized Russia’s continuing long-range strikes against Ukraine, accusing Moscow of desiring to prolong the hostilities. “
There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days. It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through ‘Banking’ or ‘Secondary Sanctions?’ Too many people are dying!!!” Trump claimed. Following a brief lull in fighting during the Easter ceasefire announced by Moscow last weekend, the Russian military staged multiple long-range strikes against Ukrainian military and industrial facilities over the week. Moscow has long maintained it strikes only targets used by the Ukrainian military. “We only strike military targets or civilian sites used by the military,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told CBS News earlier this week.
Apart from threatening Russia with sanctions, Trump also reiterated his longstanding claim the Ukraine conflict would have never happened if he had been in office, blaming the crisis on his predecessors. He also lashed out at the New York Times and, in particular, its reporter Peter Baker, over a recent piece on the negotiations to bring the Ukrainian conflict to its end. “No matter what deal I make with respect to Russia/Ukraine, no matter how good it is, even if it’s the greatest deal ever made, The Failing New York Times will speak BADLY of it. Liddle’ Peter Baker, the very biased and untalented writer for The Times, followed his Editor’s demands and wrote that Ukraine should get back territory, including, I suppose, Crimea, and other ridiculous requests,” Trump wrote.
Hard to deny he’s being played.
• Trump Demands Kiev Sign Minerals Deal ‘Immediately’ (RT)
Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is “three weeks late” in signing a minerals deal with the US, President Donald Trump has said. In a post on Truth Social on Friday, he demanded the agreement be signed “immediately.” Washington and Kiev have been negotiating a deal for weeks that would grant the US access to Ukraine’s natural resources, including rare-earth minerals that are vital for high-tech industries. Ukraine hopes the deal will secure the US as a lasting security partner, a commitment that the Trump administration has so far declined to make. Washington insists the deal should compensate America for past aid in the conflict with Russia. Kiev, however, claims the assistance was provided unconditionally. A preliminary Memorandum of Intent was signed last week, according to Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Sviridenko.
Trump, however, has complained that the process is dragging on too long. “Ukraine, headed by Vladimir Zelensky, has not signed the final papers on the very important Rare Earths Deal with the United States. It is at least three weeks late. Hopefully, it will be signed IMMEDIATELY,” he wrote. The deal was expected to be signed in February during a visit by Zelensky visit to the White House. The event, however, devolved into a heated spat between the leaders, with Trump accusing Zelensky of disrespecting America and showing ingratitude for US aid, while being reluctant to seek peace with Russia and “gambling with World War III.” Trump later said Zelensky was “trying to back out” of the deal, warning that he faces “big, big problems” if he does.
Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said White House officials were “still working on the details” of when and where the signing would take place, but expected that negotiations would be completed by April 26. The Memorandum of Intent also outlines this timeline. In his post on Friday, Trump also commented on Ukraine peace efforts, saying “work on the overall Peace Deal between Russia and Ukraine is going smoothly” and that “success seems to be in the future.” In another post, he indicated plans to meet with Russian and Ukrainian representatives on Saturday in Rome, where he is attending Pope Francis’ funeral, which Zelensky also plans to attend.
“They are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to finish it off. Most of the major points are agreed to,” Trump wrote. While the details have not been officially disclosed, the agreement proposed by Washington reportedly includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, a “freezing” of the conflict along the current front lines, acknowledgment of Moscow’s control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia, and formal opposition to Ukraine’s NATO bid.
First time I see Russia admit to North Korean troops.
• Russia Says North Korean Troops Helped Liberate Kursk Region (RT)
Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov has praised the contribution made by North Korean servicemen in helping liberate Kursk Region from Ukrainian forces. He cited their “resilience and heroism” during the operation, which Moscow has hailed as a major success in its campaign against Kiev’s forces. “The DPRK military, acting shoulder to shoulder with the Russian military in Kursk Region, showed resilience and heroism,” Gerasimov said during a report to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday. The Russian military has now completely liberated the border region from Ukrainian forces, Putin announced. According to Gerasimov, Ukraine’s forces suffered more than 76,000 casualties, including both killed and wounded, during their incursion into Kursk Region, which was launched in August of last year.
Russian troops are currently conducting operations to locate any Ukrainian forces hiding in the liberated areas, the military official added. Moscow’s forces are also working to establish a security zone in the neighboring Ukrainian Sumy Region, where they control four settlements and more than 90 square kilometers of territory. Meanwhile, 19 settlements in Kursk Region have been cleared of mines, according to the chief of the General Staff. Putin thanked Russian service members “who took part in defeating the neo-Nazi groups” that invaded the region last summer.
Gerasimov said North Korean troops were taking part in the liberation of Russia’s Kursk Region under the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between Moscow and Pyongyang, which came into force last December. The treaty provides for mutual military assistance in the event of an attack, pledging immediate support “by all means available” under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The agreement’s implementation followed claims by the US and other Kiev backers that Pyongyang had sent some 12,000 troops to Russia for training and potential deployment in the Ukraine conflict. At the time, Moscow and Pyongyang neither confirmed nor denied the reports. Putin said it was up to the two nations to determine how they fulfill their obligations under the pact. Commenting on Gerasimov’s praise of North Korea’s involvement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Telegram that Russia “will never forget our friends.”
“Even during the Cold War, after the mid-1950s, the USSR had no intention of attacking Western Europe.”
• The Cold War Never Ended — But Washington’s Priorities Just Did (Bordachev)
Recent statements from senior American officials have raised eyebrows. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington is beginning to better understand Russia’s position as Ukraine negotiations proceed. Simultaneously, Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth declared the era of the US serving as Europe’s sole security guarantor is over. Is this a diplomatic victory for Russia? Not yet. There is still a long road ahead. But these signals from Washington should not be dismissed as mere tactical maneuvers. Rather, they suggest the growing possibility of a strategic compromise – the very goal Russia sought with its European security initiatives in December 2021. Tragically, many lives have been lost to bring the international system to this point, a grim reminder that significant change in global affairs rarely comes peacefully.
For 80 years, the European security order has been biased against Russia. Even when the USSR or Russia formally participated, it was merely a mechanism for limiting Russian influence. The entire postwar ‘legitimacy’ of the international order, as the late Henry Kissinger observed, rested on containing Russia. After 1945, Western countries prioritized Russia’s containment above even their own autonomy. To abandon this principle would acknowledge the collapse of the old order and the necessity of constructing a new one. Today’s political upheavals in the US make this shift conceivable, although certainty remains distant. Washington’s erratic policy toward Ukraine is merely a symptom of deeper changes in Europe’s political architecture. It would be naive to believe that earlier American hostility toward Russian interests stemmed from ignorance. Americans have often been stereotyped as crude ‘nouveaux riches’, but the truth is that states act based on calculations of power and interest, not emotions or misunderstandings.
For all its peculiarities, America remains a sovereign power. And now, its relative decline forces a reassessment of priorities. Washington no longer has the luxury of fulfilling endless foreign obligations. Its voters – who ultimately foot the bill – demand that their leaders focus on domestic concerns. In such circumstances, the need to freeze the conflict with Russia becomes paramount. Faced with a rising China and diminishing global influence, Washington sees little value in clinging to outdated commitments. Support for European satellites or the Kiev regime has become an unaffordable luxury. In reality, American ‘guarantees’ to Europe were always more myth than substance. Their primary purpose was psychological – to convince Russia that the West is invincible, thereby deterring challenges without having to justify the US military presence in Europe. Even during the Cold War, after the mid-1950s, the USSR had no intention of attacking Western Europe.
After 1991, all Russia sought from Europe was commerce and leisure. There was never any real need for an external ‘protector’ on the continent. Moreover, American politicians prioritize their own people. No US government would sacrifice the lives of its citizens to fulfill formal pledges to foreign nations. Even during the past three years, the greatest danger of escalation between the US and Russia stemmed not from a hypothetical defense of Europe, but from direct security risks involving American interests. Western Europeans, of course, have long understood that US security guarantees are a convenient fiction. Even the most Russophobic regimes in the Baltics know this. But for decades, the EU states relied on this myth to justify hostile policies toward Russia while avoiding the burden of real defense expenditures. It became the ideological glue holding the European project together. Without it, they are at a loss: They have no alternative vision for a common order that isn’t based on enmity toward Russia.
The likely retreat of American leadership from Europe does not mean Russia should rush forward aggressively. On the contrary, it should proceed with cold-blooded calculation. War has never been the preferred tool of Russian foreign policy. Throughout history, Russia has favored diplomacy, even when progress was slow and interrupted by conflict. Patience has been its great strength. Thus, Russia’s response to American disengagement will be measured and cautious. We are even prepared to assist our American colleagues in ‘explaining’ their evolving position to their allies. After all, a sudden epiphany regarding Russian interests requires careful handling. In the emerging world, change will not be defined by grand declarations, but by the steady reassertion of sovereignty and the quiet death of the illusions that once governed international relations.
The loser bans the liberator.
• Berlin To Ban Russian Flags On Victory Day (RT)
Russian symbols will be banned at key Soviet memorials in Berlin during Victory Day commemorations on May 8 and 9, Berliner Morgenpost reported, citing the authorities. Berlin officials told the newspaper that a general decree is being prepared to block the display of Russian banners and commemorative items at the Treptow, Mitte, and Pankow memorials. The anniversary of victory over Nazism and the end of World War II in Europe is celebrated on May 9 in Russia and many post-Soviet states. In Western countries, the event is observed on May 8, known as Victory in Europe Day, Liberation Day, or Victory Day. “The police in Berlin will again issue a general order prohibiting the display of Russian flags and banners on Victory Day,” the report stated. The move is aimed at preventing “violence and the associated propaganda,” according to a police spokesperson quoted by Berliner Morgenpost.
The decree mirrors last year’s restrictions. In 2024, Berlin banned the flags of the Soviet Union, Belarus, and Russia, as well as wartime songs. The list of prohibited items extended to “any flags linked to Russia” and elements of military uniforms, even if altered. The St. George’s ribbon, a revered symbol of remembrance in Russia and several former Soviet republics, was also banned. At the time, the Russian Embassy denounced the measures as “discriminatory” and accused Berlin of undermining “historical reconciliation,” demanding that “all the relevant bans be lifted.” In 2023, activists challenged a similar ban in court. Although a German court initially sided with the plaintiffs and partially lifted the restrictions, police overturned the ruling, reinstating the prohibition.
Earlier this week, Bild reported that officials in Brandenburg plan to expel Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergey Nechayev from a ceremony marking the defeat of Nazi Germany. Despite the threats, Nechayev vowed to honor fallen Soviet soldiers. According to the tabloid, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Brandenburg’s minister-president, Dietmar Woidke, intend to prevent such appearances. The Federal Foreign Office had earlier advised organizers against inviting Russian and Belarusian representatives to WWII commemorations. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova condemned the move, saying it revealed the organizers’ “deep-rooted Russophobia.” Zina Schonbrunn, a member of Brandenburg’s regional parliament, called the exclusion of Russian participation in the 80th-anniversary Victory Day events “absurd.” On Wednesday, Nechayev and diplomats from several former Soviet republics laid wreaths at a Soviet cemetery in Potsdam without interference. Nechayev said many German citizens still honor the Red Army’s heroic role in liberation.
The German capital Berlin will ban the display of Russian or Soviet flags on May 8 and May 9
The flags of collaborators Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland will be legal.
The flag of the country that crushed the Nazis is now deemed as "Offensive" pic.twitter.com/iTs3sxfgJ4
— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) April 25, 2025
I think he wants control of the canal.
• Trump Demands Free Passage Via Suez Canal (RT)
President Donald Trump has claimed that neither the Panama Canal nor the Suez Canal would “exist” without the United States, and demanded that American commercial and military vessels be allowed to pass through the crucial waterways free of charge. Trump has repeatedly expressed his intention to “take back” control of the Panama Canal, using economic or military means if necessary. On Saturday, the US president’s desire to protect American “national security” interests from Chinese competition extended to another strategic waterway – Egypt’s Suez Canal, which connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. “American ships, both military and commercial, should be allowed to travel, free of charge, through the Panama and Suez Canals! Those canals would not exist without the United States of America,” the president said in a Truth Social post.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was already instructed “to immediately take care of, and memorialize [sic], this situation,” Trump added. While the Suez Canal was conceived, financed and built in the 1850s by the British and French, Egypt has received more than $87bn in foreign aid from Washington since 1946, according to Al Jazeera, making the country one of the highest recipients in the Middle East after Israel. The United States and the Soviet Union played key roles in pressuring Britain, France, and Israel to withdraw troops from Egypt during the 1956-1957 Suez Crisis, thereby helping to restore Egyptian control over the canal.Later, after Israel had invaded and occupied the Sinai Peninsula in 1967 and shut down the canal, the US brokered a peace deal which restored full control to Egypt in 1982.
The US not only constructed the Panama Canal, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, in the early 20th century, but was also instrumental in securing Panamanian independence from neighboring Colombia. Full control of the canal was transferred to Panama in 1999 under the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which stipulated that it would remain neutral and open to all nations. Trump and US officials have argued that China’s economic activities – including infrastructure projects and port operations – may violate the 1977 Panama Canal Neutrality Treaty, which grants the US the right to “defend” the waterway.
Panamanian officials have previously rejected Trump’s assertions and threats, while the Panama Canal Authority maintains that the canal is operated solely by Panamanians, with no evidence supporting claims of Chinese control. President Jose Raul Mulino has stated that the canal is part of Panama’s “inalienable patrimony” and stressed that the country maintains full control over its operations. However, after Rubio personally delivered Trump’s ultimatum to Panama in February, Mulino made a concession to Washington by refusing to renew the country’s 2017 agreements with China under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that multiple US Navy vessels, Coast Guard assets, and aircraft have been deployed in and around Panama as part of “bold first steps to revive our defense and security ties between our countries.”
“G4S secures US embassies around the world, guards airports, government agencies, and military installations for both Washington and London, and even monitors sections of the US border.”
• British Mercenaries Now Run America’s Front Lines (RT)
The British-American private military company Group 4 Securitas (G4S) has evolved far beyond its original mission of providing security for Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. Today, it resembles a quasi-state, complete with its own armed forces, prison systems, and global reach. G4S secures US embassies around the world, guards airports, government agencies, and military installations for both Washington and London, and even monitors sections of the US border.
It also manages prisons notorious for abuse, torture, and killings. British-American firms now dominate roughly 90% of the global PMC market, and experts say that outsourcing warfare to private contractors has become the preferred tool of foreign policy. It’s easier – and more politically palatable – to fight through intermediaries. G4S earns the lion’s share of its revenue from contracts with multinational corporations and government agencies in the US and UK. Its former CEO, Ashley Martin Almanza, previously served as CFO of the British energy giant BG Group, a major supplier of liquefied natural gas to China. In 2016, BG merged with Royal Dutch Shell – another UK-based energy titan and the world’s largest oil and gas company.
Since 2016, G4S has been protecting employees and assets of the Barash Gas Company in Iraq – a joint venture between the Iraqi government and Shell, which owns a 44% stake. This is one of the largest gas infrastructure projects in the country. Over the past three years alone, G4S has raked in more than $100 million from contracts securing US embassies worldwide. Procurement records from both the US and UK governments show a steady increase in the number of diplomatic sites under G4S protection. In just one year, the company landed five-year contracts for US embassies in Estonia ($18.8 million), Hong Kong ($35 million), Luxembourg ($29 million), and Côte d’Ivoire ($12.6 million).
The US Bureau of Diplomatic Security counts on G4S to safeguard American facilities in South Africa through 2025. The company protects not just the embassy in Pretoria but also consulates and offices in Johannesburg, Durban, and Cape Town. G4S personnel also provide bodyguard services for US diplomats outside official buildings. The bodyguard contract alone is worth $9.5 million. The total value of security services in South Africa exceeds that tenfold. Notably, some contract obligations – amounting to $3 million – were paid for but never fulfilled by G4S, according to oversight reports. G4S also protects American embassies in the UK, France, India, Madagascar, Morocco, Botswana, Denmark, and Qatar, as well as across South America, including Peru and Paraguay. The company also operates in Canada.
One of its more recent assignments involves the US Embassy in Lusaka, Zambia, where G4S was hired for $8.7 million to defend American personnel, their families, and government assets against a range of threats, including terrorism. If the first year goes well, the contract may be extended for up to five years. Following the targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Iranian investigators accused G4S of providing intel to the Pentagon regarding his location prior to the drone strike. At the time, G4S was contracted to protect Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport.
According to global arms expert Darko Todorovski, Western PMCs are deeply embedded within their countries’ military and foreign policy frameworks. These companies operate under intelligence agency oversight and are awarded government contracts via institutions like the US State Department or the UK’s Foreign Office. Todorovski points out several advantages of relying on PMCs: they can be deployed quickly, typically boast higher professionalism than traditional forces in volatile regions, and aren’t beholden to local elites or religious factions. Their superior logistical and technical capabilities make them a preferred choice.
“She had a PAC or some kind of nonprofit, it had a hundred dollars in it. Then suddenly, when Biden’s on his way out of office, almost $2 billion go under her direction.”
• No One Is Above the Law. Not Even The Rogue Prosecutors (Victor Davis Hanson)
I think you’re all aware—you who are religious or maybe secular—you’re all aware of a force in the universe that what comes around goes around. Or in classical mythology and Greek and Roman studies, there was the goddess Nemesis that pays back hubris or arrogance. I think in Eastern philosophy and religion the term is “karma.” And in the New Testament it is: ”Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.” But there is something innate to the human condition that you should not go in one direction in excess because there’s a force in the universe that corrects us and brings us back to the middle, what we call in classical terms the golden mean. Nothing too much. Know yourself. But we have watched for the last five years a corruption of the American judicial system by four prosecutors:
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia, who is trying to magnify a phone call that President Donald Trump made to the registrars into some type of RICO corruptive act. And it was not. And that case has been dropped. We saw District Attorney Alvin Bragg in Manhattan try to bootstrap a federal offense—that the federal prosecutors did not want to prosecute—on a nondisclosure form and claim it was a campaign donation. We saw former special counsel Jack Smith with the records. And that was asymmetrical because at the same time they were investigating former President Joe Biden for essentially the same crime and let him off. And then we had New York Attorney General Letitia James on the real estate deal where she created, kind of, new laws that had never existed before on minor details about forms on real estate applications, about a loan to the Deutsche Bank that didn’t—they were happy.
But my point is this: They have exceeded what the Greeks called “hubris.” They were arrogant. They were overweening. They were self-righteous. They kept bragging, in the case of James or Willis, as political animals, “We’re going to do this. We’re going to get Trump.” And then these forces in the universe said, “This is wrong and we’re going to correct it.” And what do we find out now? Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor, before he left his tenure, he went to the Covington law firm. That’s former Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm, by the way. And he asked and received $140,000 of free legal services. Did he pay taxes on that? That’s above the gift tax. I don’t know. But if any of you decide that you’re going to get a gift of either services or materials or cash for $140,000 and you don’t pay taxes, you’re in big trouble.
Fani Willis, well, she was removed from the case, as you know, with her paramour—that she did not disclose—Nathan Wade, whom she made her lead prosecutor. They went on junkets. They didn’t record their expenses. Half of them, perhaps, came from Nathan Wade’s wages that were inflated by Fani Willis. She wouldn’t turn over subpoenaed records. The court forced her to pay a fine of $54,000. They took her, as I said, off the case. Now she’s facing an investigative inquiry by the Georgia legislator. She’s in big trouble.
And then we get to Letitia James. She was the most confident and kept giving us soapbox lectures about, “No one is above the law.” It turns out that for years she was fudging on her real estate investments in an illegal fashion. But because Nemesis always deals in irony, some of the forms that she exaggerated on or lied about were the same things that she alleged that Donald Trump had done on his forms. But clearly, Donald Trump had a much better case, so far, that he didn’t do that. She said an apartment unit had fewer rooms than it did. She said that her principal residence was in Virginia when, in fact, she was the New York district attorney, by statute she must live in New York those five years. The house that she purchased she’s not living in now. She listed her father as her husband. What am I getting at? She’s committing the same type of fraud that she’s alleging Donald Trump did.
I’ll just finish with, remember Stacey Abrams? She was the one that denied she lost the 2018 gubernatorial race. She lost by 50,000 votes. She lost it again to Brian Kemp in 2022 by even more, a greater margin. She had a PAC or some kind of nonprofit, it had a hundred dollars in it. Then suddenly, when Biden’s on his way out of office, almost $2 billion go under her direction. And now we’re learning that she was giving millions of dollars away, bought a beautiful home, and suddenly went from bankruptcy and owing the IRS and not paying her taxes in 2016—she’s a millionaire. That’s going to be investigated. Bottom line: Be very careful. Tread softly. Listen to the sages of the ages. Listen to your secular and your Scripture. And no one is above the law. And all of these people felt that they were above the law. And that invisible hand of Nemesis, or God, or karma struck them down. And it’s a good lesson for all of us.
“Dhillon, meanwhile, said the changes were no different than what happens anytime there’s a change in administration, along with a quest for efficiency.”
• Trump Admin Takes Wrecking Ball To DOJ’s Woke Civil Rights Division (ZH)
Harmeet Dhillon – Trump’s hand-picked choice to lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, has been taking a wrecking ball to the woke government entity – forcing out ‘a majority of career managers and implementing new priorities’ that have radically altered its mandate, NBC News’ swamp scribe Ken Dilanian reports. “It’s been a complete bloodbath,” one senior DOJ lawyer told Dilanian. Other sources said that over a dozen senior lawyers – “many with decades of experience working under presidents of both parties,” have been reassigned, while others have resigned in frustration after they were shuffled around. Dhillon kicked the hornet’s nest last week – issuing a series of memos outlining the shifting priorities, which include (gasp!) “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports,” and “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.” “This is a 180 shift from the division’s traditional mission,” one former senior official said – declining to be named “in fear of retaliation.”
“These documents appear to have been created in a vacuum completely divorced from reality,” the former official continued. “The division can only enforce statutes that have been passed by Congress, and these orders seem to contemplate division attorneys’ executing on work that fundamentally departs from the division’s long-standing mission.” Dhillon, meanwhile, said the changes were no different than what happens anytime there’s a change in administration, along with a quest for efficiency. “Each new administration has its own priorities, and allocates resources accordingly,” said Dhillon. “The Trump administration is no different. When I assumed my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I learned that certain sections in Civil Rights had substantial existing caseloads and backlogs, and that formed the basis of temporary details to assist those sections in getting, and staying, caught up.”
10 ‘current and former officials’ in the Civil Rights Division told NBC News that several division chiefs have been transferred to roles unrelated to their legal backgrounds, including handling complaints, as well as the office that handles public requests (lol). So, customer service. “Every presidential administration has its own policy priorities,” said former employee Stacey Young, who spent 18 years in the division before resigning in January, “but I don’t think there’s any precedent for an administration almost completely refocusing the civil rights division’s enforcement priorities the way this one has.” So sad.
“We discovered the scam way back in our OMB days while jousting with the Treasury Department over the sacred cows in its budget. But nothing is different 40-years later..”
• Why And How To Fire 42,000 IRS Agents… (David Stockman)
The true scandal of current American fiscal governance needs be commented on. Or, better still, hammered upon good and hard. To wit, the American electorate apparently doesn’t give a shit about runaway government spending because as a practical matter the overwhelming share of voters don’t pay the taxes to fund it. Aside from social insurance taxes, which most payroll taxpayers still believe to be a premium for a government-sponsored retirement annuity, the bottom 90% of households fund only a tiny fraction of Federal spending. That’s right. The bottom 145 million US income tax filers (out of 161 million total filers) currently pay just $500 billion in Federal income taxes. That’s barely $3,500 per return and even then approximately 50 million of these returns owe zero taxes or actually get tax credit refunds for taxes they haven’t paid!
In the grand scheme of things, therefore, direct tax payments by the bottom 90% of income tax filers amounted to only 12% of Federal spending in FY 2024 outside of social insurance trust funds. To wit, Federal spending ex-social insurance was $4.82 trillion in FY 2024 and upwards of $4.3 trillion of this was paid for by the top 10% of income tax payers, corporations, minor excise and import duty payers and borrowing—of which there was $1.8 trillion of the latter in FY 2024. Needless to say, the top 10% got soaked good and hard, paying $1.538 trillion of Federal income taxes and as a practical matter nearly the entirety of the $530 billion corporate income tax, which in today’s globally competitive world gets mainly pushed back to shareholders. In effect, $2.1 trillion or 43% of Federal spending outside of social insurance is paid for by the top 10%.
Needless to say, that’s just plain unfair and economically counter-productive, too. The current marginal rate for top bracket taxpayers is 40.8% when you include the Medicare surcharge and the so-called NIIT (net investment income tax). That’s already extortionate because in a free society there is no way that the government should grab 40% of anyone’s income—especially since that’s only the Federal take, which can easily grow to 50% after state and local income and property taxes. Moreover, when the TCJA act of 2017 expires at year-end 2025, the top marginal rate will jump to truly confiscatory rate of 43.4%, and well beyond 50% in most states after state and local levies are layered on. In short, America desperately needs to raise more revenues to fund even a downsized government after the DOGE treatment. But the income tax is more than tapped out, and 90% of the public is getting a hall pass on the latter.
Accordingly, what needs to happen is a sweeping reform, which would shift the Federal revenue base overwhelmingly to consumption and sales tax levies. That would ensure that the economic damage is limited and that 100% of the voting public would have skin in the game and feel the pain of spending via commensurate tax extractions. Then they might well demand fiscal sanity from their elected representatives in a manner that rarely occurs under the current defective fiscal regime. We will elaborate more on the needed sweeping tax base reform in Part 2, but suffice it here to say that not only is the current Federal income tax grossly unfair to the productive classes and tapped out as a practical matter of revenue generation, but it is also unadministratable. Accordingly, more than half of the massive 100,000 man IRS bureaucracy could be eliminated even without a sales/consumption tax replacement, while upwards of 90% could be eliminated if the income tax were mainly substituted by a sales tax.
Needless to say, we are not talking about just bureaucratic nannies and meddlers in the case of the current 83,000 IRS employees—-a figure which is heading for 102,000 by the end of the decade under the still unrepealed Biden revenue grab. In the ranks of what amounts to a small city’s worth of Federal bureaucrats are also a goodly phalanx of tax cops, gumshoes, enforcement lawyers and tax filing proctologists. So the question recurs: What has generated this massive bureaucracy in the first place, and what fundamental policy shifts are needed to cut the IRS headcount by 50% (42,00 jobs) and upwards of $5 billion of compensation and other operating costs? The answer starts with calling the IRS’ bluff. When you look at the actual tax filing data it is damn evident that the Deep State bureaucrats are faking mightily when it comes to their massive staffing demands. We discovered the scam way back in our OMB days while jousting with the Treasury Department over the sacred cows in its budget. But nothing is different 40-years later—so here’s the smoking gun that points the way.
“I bought this car before I knew that Elon was crazy..”
• The Thankless Life of Elon Musk (Jeffrey Tucker)
There’s a Tesla in my neighborhood with a bumper sticker that seems to be begging people not to key the car. “I bought this car before I knew that Elon was crazy,” it says. Fascinating message there. Is it a protest, plea, or both? The car is brilliant, obviously and the guy loves it. But these days, driving a Tesla comes with implied messaging, due entirely to Musk’s political actions. Elite liberals were buying this car for years as a status symbol of their love of the planet. Then everything changed. Now they are experiencing something like an existential crisis. That’s because a movement has emerged among elites who have turned against it. Then began a campaign of violence against property. Marauding gangs have attacked dealerships and vigilantes have vandalized cars and trucks all over the country. It’s revealed a point about the political left that has heretofore been only suspected: it harbors a violent streak that is alarming, even terrifying.
This idea that we are what we buy—that our purchases are not just about the products but a judgment for or against the companies that make them—seems rather new as a mass phenomenon. We saw it in the mass consumer boycott of Bud Light. These violent actions, however, go far beyond a buyers’ boycott. No one in a free enterprise system objects to declining to buy. It’s another matter to lash out at others for their decisions. The political actions of the CEO dragged the company into a difficult relationship with the main customers of the product. There seems to be no question that this is the reason for the dramatic fall in both sales and the company’s stock price. EV sales otherwise seem to be on the rise, while Tesla has experienced disproportionate losses at the tail end of a very contentious election followed by the CEO’s actions that have attempted to gut the civil service.
The fall has been so stinging that Elon is stepping back from politics to focus again on bolstering his company and reputation. Certainly he seems to have become less outspoken than he was a few months back. The markets seem to have humbled him into going back to business and staying out of the political muck. His project called DOGE will live on, and I suspect that he will ultimately be vindicated. For now, however, he is taking it on the chin. His early estimate of saving $2 trillion with cuts kept being pared back given court judgements and impossible bureaucracy. It now stands at $150 billion, much of which will be lost in litigation fees. It’s a terrible realization: if Musk could not do it, even with the full confidence of the U.S. president, can it even be done? Ever since Musk distinguished himself as the most prominent corporate voice against lockdowns, I’ve paid careful attention to his political migration.
He was a conventional corporate liberal not too long ago, say 10 years ago. His experience during COVID changed him. This was when governments around the country and the world said they and they alone would decide which companies would open and which would close. Understandably, he came to believe that civilization was under attack and swore he would do something about it. He promised to keep his factories open even as the rest of the world was shutting down. He moved his company out of California and his corporate registrations out of Delaware in protest against what was happening. The sudden dawning of his political enlightenment mutated into a serious attack on a range of government and corporate policies that mitigate against merit in hiring and promotion. He turned on “woke”—also in part due to private family struggles that hurt him deeply.
Elon eventually put his money where his mouth was. He decided to buy a heavily censored and deeply propagandistic Twitter and turn it into the much freer X that drove forward public narratives which contributed mightily to Trump’s victory in 2024. In so doing, he fired 4 out of 5 employees in the wildly bloated staff and dramatically changed the platform to become the world’s most popular news and social media application. Those actions earned him a great deal of influence over policy in the new administration. He was tasked with doing to the government what he had done at Twitter: clean it up, refresh it to become more effective and efficient, and bring some degree of transparency to government finance. Musk had some success. That said, changing government is much harder than changing a private company over which you are CEO.
He has had wide influence within the Trump administration, but not as much as perhaps he had hoped. He wanted budget cuts and worked within established parameters to get them, even fully gutting several terrible sources of corruption like USAID. My judgment on his role is that Musk’s activities here have been absolutely heroic. He helped restore free speech. He has cleaned up some waste and fraud. He has streamlined some processes of government. He has set a new standard for accounting, personnel, and accounting. DOGE will go on without him. Also, it is not generally understood how xAI or Grok broke an emergent monopoly in artificial intelligence, shattering OpenAI’s hopes for a monopoly once it let go of its non profit status. Grok made that impossible.
Even now, Musk’s Grok AI engine ranks very high in all side-to-side comparisons of AI tools, and certainly excels in its user interface. Musk is very easily the leader in autonomous driving, which could revolutionize transportation on many fronts. And he does it all with open-source technology. I’m not a Tesla owner and I’ve written many articles with grave doubts about EVs in general. That said, I’m for consumer choice. If you think he makes a better car, great. Buy it and drive it. He has been very clear, too, that he is against all mandates, subsidies, and even patent protections, which is quite remarkable. In general, I would say that he has behaved throughout with notable scrupulosity. Further, he threw himself into politics with the best of motives.
He wanted to end censorship. He wanted to stop the corruption. He wanted to fix government finances. He has been sincere throughout and performed extraordinary deeds. He was not only not paid for his service; he has been punished financially for what he has done. This entire episode prompts a kind of reflection on the role of public life, courage, and doing what is right. Musk truly attempted to make a difference. He was courageous. He took on huge financial risks in buying Twitter that seem to have paid off. He risked the status of all of his companies when he threw in with Trump’s campaign. He could have played it safe but chose a different path. Why did he risk it all? Because he strongly believed it was the right thing to do. This is a beautiful thing to see in our cynical times. There is an element of tragedy in how his sacrifices have not been rewarded but rather punished.
X post.
“There is no board of directors or management team who will ever again feel comfortable relying on China for a major portion of their supply chain.”
• Time Is The Friend of The US And The Enemy of China’s (Bill Ackman)
Some have suggested that because China takes a very long-term view, China can ‘win’ a trade war with the U.S. which, according to the conventional view, is a much shorter-term player than China. The problem with this assessment is that the longer the tariffs persist, the more rapidly every company that has a supply chain based in China relocates it to India, Vietnam, Mexico, the U.S. or some other country. China has to understand this dynamic, which is why it should be highly incentivized to make a trade deal as quickly as possible. Unless it is clear that a company can continue to source from China on economically viable terms, it must leave the country. The longer high tariffs persist, the greater the likelihood that no company can be confident it can rely on China for sourcing or production over the long term. This is true for US and non-US companies. As a long-term player, China must understand this dynamic.
The China tariffs are very damaging in the short term to companies that rely on China for a large percentage of their goods or for parts to make their products. This is particularly true for small companies who don’t have the wherewithal to weather the storm. If the tariffs were to persist, our government could provide loans to help companies manage their transitions out of China, but I don’t think this will be necessary. The tariffs are similarly damaging for medium-size and large businesses, but their greater financial resources allow them to better manage the tariff burden until they can relocate production outside of China. In light of the above, both China and the U.S. are highly incentivized to take the tariffs down to more reasonable levels — say 10% to 20% — as quickly as possible. The only thing stopping the reduction in tariffs to a more sensible level is the fear on the part of both countries’ leadership of looking weak.
A pause, however, would not be a sign of weakness because it requires both countries to take down their tariffs. It is just common sense. Both countries know that the 145% tariffs have to come down now. They are just trying to manage the diplomacy in such a manner to make clear that it is a mutual decision as opposed to one country ‘going first’. So let’s imagine the U.S. and China agree to a 180-day pause to allow for negotiations to take place. Once the pause is announced, China would be highly incentivized to make a deal as quickly as possible, whereas we have time on our side. This is true because the longer the tariffs persist, the greater the reputational damage to China as a reliable country in which to do business, and therefore the higher the probability that US and non-US companies will leave.
A lower level of tariffs in the short term will enable companies to better manage the transition out of China. It is a near certainty they will leave unless and until a new and highly favorable deal is made with China. Even then, no company will be confident it can rely on China for a major portion of its supply chain. That cake is already baked. There is no board of directors or management team who will ever again feel comfortable relying on China for a major portion of their supply chain. The damage has been done.
The only hope for China as a place to do business is for China to immediately come to the table and make a deal which provides permanent commitments addressing IP theft, forced technology transfer, market access restrictions, tariffs, and other barriers to doing business in China. If instead China stubbornly decides to hold out and not negotiate due to pride or other emotional issues, China will suffer that much more severe and permanent economic consequences. In China holds out, I expect we will launch a loan program to enable US companies to better manage the exit from China. Time is the friend of the US and the enemy of China’s in this negotiation. A pause and negotiations should therefore begin soon. Tell me why I am wrong.
The consequences will take time to seep through.
• The Death of Globalization (Jim Rickards)
With so much attention focused on U.S. stock markets, it seems timely to pivot away from stocks for the moment and consider the global perspective. Globalization may be dying in terms of trade and supply chains, but financial markets are inextricably linked in ways that relatively few understand. The dollar still dominates the global financial system despite the cracks in the foundation and the valid criticisms. If there’s a dollar problem in Eurodollar banks, it’s sure to echo from Tokyo to Shanghai and New York. And problems in those locales affect everything else. I’ve just returned from separate visits to India, Japan and Jekyll Island, Georgia. India has the largest population in the world, has the fifth largest economy, is a nuclear power and a key member of BRICS. Japan is the fourth largest economy in the world and is a key geopolitical ally of the United States in its faceoff with China. Jekyll Island is a lovely ocean resort but is best known as the site of a secret meeting in 1910 where the Morgan, Rockefeller and Warburg interests dreamed up the Federal Reserve System.
I continually urge people to get away from their desks, stop staring at screens and go out and talk to real people. There’s no substitute for walking the streets around the world (including the poorest areas) if you really want to know what’s going on. While India, Japan and Jekyll Island could hardly be more diverse and geographically scattered, they share a common thread. It’s their economic linkage through the U.S. dollar. The following are some impressions I gathered during these visits that reflect the volatile situation facing markets today. India and Japan had the most reasoned response to Trump’s new tariff policies. Trump quickly backed off his high “reciprocal” tariffs (27% for India and 24% for Japan) and reverted to his blanket 10% tariff on all imports for every country in the world except China.
Responses varied from retaliation tariffs (proposed by Canada, China and the EU) to a much more reasonable approach of simply asking the White House for a meeting to sit down and discuss the issue amicably with a view to lowering tariffs in both directions. Japan and India fell into this latter category and are being rewarded by being included among the first countries that will actually have that opportunity. (Mexico has also taken the moderate route by engaging in discussions rather than retaliation). There will be some give and take. Some U.S. tariffs on certain items are likely to remain in place. But the optimal solution is not to cut down on U.S. purchases from those countries but for them to buy more from the U.S. That trims the U.S. trade deficit without reducing world trade and so constitutes a win-win resolution with both India and Japan. India will likely buy more military hardware and semiconductors from the U.S. Japan will likely buy more agricultural goods including soybeans and beef. The result will be higher growth in the U.S.
Bilateral deals like this have losers. Taiwan may miss out on some semiconductor sales (although they are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to build semiconductors in the U.S.). Russia may miss out on military sales to India although they will remain a major energy supplier. Still, the U.S. is done being the “consumer of last resort” to the world and wants to increase its profile as a seller. Trump’s policies move the U.S. in that direction. There is little question that the new U.S. tariff policy will hurt some countries around the world. Not to sound harsh, but that’s their problem. Trump’s job is to make America great again. President Xi’s job is to make China great again. Chancellor-in-waiting Merz’s job is to make Germany great again. The U.S. cannot carry the world on its back. If other countries (rich or poor) took Trump’s growth-oriented approach instead of free riding on America, the entire world would be better off. That’s certainly the view from the White House and is a good guide to U.S. policy going forward.
Defenders of China point to the fact that Chinese exports are not a particularly large percentage of their total GDP. (Germany is the worst offender by that metric). The problem with that data point does not come from the Chinese export number; I’m sure that’s roughly correct. The distortion comes from the GDP denominator. Chinese GDP is overstated by 100% (at least) perhaps more, and China may already be in a recession. The reason is that China shows about 45% of its GDP as investment, mostly in the form of government backed construction. I’ve been to the ghost cities in China and seen more on the horizon. I got mud on my boots on the construction sites (except I was wearing Italian loafers). There is real steel, glass and copper in the buildings and it takes real labor to build them. That all counts as GDP.
But they’re all empty. If you used GAAP or international accounting principles, you would write that investment down to zero immediately. You can’t put a ghost city into inventory. Buildings age rapidly and take enormous amounts to maintain. I saw this in the Congo in the early 1980s. They had a commodity boom in the 1970s and wasted much of the money on skyscrapers and other showcase projects. By the time I arrived there, the windows were falling out and rust stains ran down the sides of their showcases. The same thing will happen in China. Once you make that accounting adjustment for wasted investment, GDP shrinks, and the Chinese export/GDP ratio goes up exponentially. China is much more dependent on exports for any real growth than most analysts realize. Trump and Scott Bessent have this right.
Frizzle
Can everybody just Please look at these Frizzle Polish chickens pic.twitter.com/TYQHqAquAW
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) April 25, 2025
Emperor
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1915998021193527578
Rogan
Take a little break from all the criminal judge gaslighting that’s flooding your feed. Wow pic.twitter.com/D5DVj1mRNS
— savage daughter (@DonnaPrissyrn1) April 26, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
Home › Forums › Debt Rattle April 27 2025