ceasefire Archives - The Automatic Earth

Such a powerful interview of PM Modi. It gives you amazing insights into how President Trump is viewed by world leaders. pic.twitter.com/BNnLkvjzEh

— Michelle Maxwell (@MichelleMaxwell) March 23, 2025

Elon
https://twitter.com/Girlpatriot1974/status/1903543762783277072

Lutnick

Reporter: Investors are on edge over the possibility of a recession after the Atlanta Fed predicted a 2.4% contraction this quarter

Lutnick: What? Say that again? 2.4% contraction?! Right here right now — that is ridiculous.

Reporter: Have you spoken to the Atlanta Fed… pic.twitter.com/zfINRTjI6z

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) March 22, 2025

Rescission

Sen. Rand Paul Says He Pitched to Elon Musk a Plan to Claw Back $500 Billion in Federal Spending

“It's called rescission. I did mention this to @elonmusk. He seemed enthusiastic. It can be done. No Democrats will cut one penny from any spending anywhere. But can we get all the… pic.twitter.com/GU7AmWvvW6

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) March 23, 2025

“He dragged us into court on a Saturday without any notice. And then he’s continuing these hearings. He’s trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to.”

• Pam Bondi Destroys Judge Boasberg for Meddling in Immigration Policy (Margolis)

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi unleashed a scathing attack on U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg during a Sunday morning interview on Fox News, accusing him of overstepping his authority and attempting to control U.S. foreign policy from the bench. “This is an out-of-control judge, a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy, and he cannot do it,” Bondi told host Maria Bartiromo. “He dragged us into court on a Saturday without any notice. And then he’s continuing these hearings. He’s trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to.” The case revolves around the Obama-appointed judge’s attempt to block the Trump administration’s deportation of illegal alien Tren de Aragua gang members, an effort Bondi made clear would not stand.

“We are appealing. We will be in court Monday. Again. We will win. We will prevail,” she stated, showing no hesitation in taking the fight back to court. Boasberg previously ordered a deportation flight for these illegal alien gang members to turn around back to the United States; however, since the ruling was made while the plane was over international waters, he had no jurisdiction, and the deportations continued as planned. According to New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, Boasberg has been “demanding DOJ lawyers provide minute details of the flights—potentially to hold members of the administration in contempt and serve as the basis for a future impeachment of Trump.” Bondi highlighted the administration’s success in swiftly deporting dangerous criminals, arguing that their efforts are already making the country safer.

“There are 261 reasons why Americans are safer today. And that’s because those people are now in an El Salvador prison,” she explained. “We are going to follow the law and we are going to protect Americans.” Slamming the left’s failed border policies, Bondi noted the overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s handling of immigration, which led to President Trump’s decisive victory in 2024. “There’s a reason why Biden’s approval rating was plummeting because of the border. There is a reason why the current Democrats’ approval rating is at 29%,” she said. She made it clear that the Trump administration’s approach is rooted in basic public safety—something the American people overwhelmingly support. “People want to be safe. This is President Trump’s agenda to keep Americans safe,” she said. “It’s basic public safety. Get these people out of our country as fast as we can.”

Bondi also rejected the left’s attempts to blur the distinction between legal immigration and illegal entry by dangerous criminals. “They’re not immigrants. They’re illegal aliens who are committing the most violent crimes you can imagine on Americans—murder, rapes,” she said. “Ask the parents of all of these young women who have been violently strangled, raped, and murdered.” The Biden administration’s lax immigration policies fueled a surge in crime, making border security a top issue in the 2024 election. Under Trump, Bondi emphasized, those days are over. “We are going to continue to make America safe again because that’s President Trump’s agenda,” she declared.

Despite judicial activism from the left, Bondi reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to upholding immigration laws, deporting violent criminals, and keeping Americans safe. “We are going to follow the law, and we are going to protect Americans,” she reiterated. With the Trump administration refusing to back down and the American people firmly behind stronger border enforcement, it’s clear that Bondi and the White House will not allow activist judges like Boasberg to undermine national security.

1000%
pic.twitter.com/2SQHsWDjMT

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 23, 2025

.@AGPamBondi on Judge Boasberg: "This is an out-of-control judge… trying to control our entire foreign policy, and he cannot do it… There are 261 reasons why Americans are safer today, and that's because those people are now in an El Salvador prison… we are going to follow… pic.twitter.com/yWj5pBvxvD

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 23, 2025

Schlichter gets it exactly right. Roberts wants things to go “as they should”. Where a court case slowly winds its way up the chain. But there is no time left for that. Moreover, he and the SCOTUS judges also know that Schumer boasts he has 235 judges in his pocket. If they don’t deal with this, soon, Trump will simply ignore them like he ignored Boasberg. Basically, is foreign policy set by the administration or by a dictrict judge?

• The Agony of John Roberts (Kurt Schlichter)

Pity poor John Roberts. No, he’s not corrupt or compromised. He is simply a man who has found himself at a pivotal time and place in a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited. He’s not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man – Hugh Hewitt knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no doubt it’s true. I know many smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering the institution he wants to preserve because he does not understand human nature or the times he finds himself in. Frankly, I’ll take wisdom over raw intellect any day of the week.

If he had the capacity to lead that he so manifestly lacks, John Roberts could save his institution with decisive and bold action. But that’s not who he is. Understand what John Roberts wants. He is an institutionalist who has always wanted to protect the judiciary branch. He wants it to be a fully co-equal branch that is respected by all. But the very actions he has chosen to take – or not to take – in response to the current crisis of out-of-control subordinate courts are guaranteeing that it will fall. Article III of our Constitution provides for the judicial branch, but it does not expressly provide the judiciary with any powers other than those it earns in the eyes of the other two branches. It cannot self-enforce its decrees.

Article I creates the Congress, and the legislative branch has both the power of the purse and the power to impeach to check the judiciary. Article II establishes the presidency, but the Constitution does not specify its checks and balances over the court. That power is implied, and the implied power is for the executive – who runs the machinery of the federal government, including the cogs and gears that carry guns – to simply say “No” to an out-of-control judiciary. This implied power of defiance is as much a check and balance as any enumerated one, and without it, you would have an unchecked judiciary with hundreds of district court judges presuming to micromanage the legitimate actions of the executive branch. You know, kind of like what’s happening now.

Judge Roberts’s problem is that he wants to return to something like regular order in the judiciary. What we have is highly irregular order. You non-lawyers need to understand that all these temporary restraining orders and injunctions and so forth are insane. This is not how law is done, either procedurally or substantively. I did litigation for 30 years, including in federal courts (up to arguing in front of the Ninth Circuit), and never saw anything remotely like these antics. So, realize that this is abnormal. Abnormal times call for abnormal responses, but that’s not how John Roberts or his ilk work. Remember, he’s a Bushie, the kind of soft Republican who sees his job less as fixing our broken government than managing its gentlemanly decline. We’ve largely booted them out of elective office, but Roberts has his seat for life. His advocation is protecting his institution. He wants the judiciary to be held in respect and obeyed, but he doesn’t want to do the hard, stern work of disciplining his underlings that makes that possible.

John Roberts wants the normal appellate procedures to apply. He’s hoping that if he shuts his eyes and pretends that everything is normal, he’ll open them and it will all be normal again. This was the main takeaway from his unbelievably tone-deaf response to Trump’s, Musk’s, and others’ frustration-driven talk about impeachment. Now, Roberts was right in theory about what he said, but what we’re facing is not theory but practice. Put aside the practical reality that we’re not going to be able to impeach anybody, and don’t fall for the Internet amateur ambulance chasers who think there’s one neat trick where we can somehow get rid of judges by a majority vote because of “bad behavior.” That is a reason to get rid of them, not a means. The means is impeachment, and that takes 67 senators. That’s never going to happen so we should stop talking about it. They would wear a failed impeachment like Tim Walz would have worn his war medals if he had shown up to earn any. Haven’t we learned not to engage in failure theater?

In normal times, the response to a judge over one dumb decision is the appellate process. But these are not normal times. These are not one dumb decision. These are dozens of dumb decisions. And the answer here is not the appellate process because the appellate process is long, drawn out, and deliberate. The goal of this campaign is to use that delay to effectively strip Donald Trump of the ability to govern. To that end, they have sought to wrap him up in a web of orders and injunctions that will prevent him from doing the things he was elected to do. If it was one case or ten cases, you could wait months and months for the appellate process to grind through. Eventually, Trump administration will win most of these cases through the appellate process because they’re procedurally and substantively ridiculous.

But the purpose of these judicial antics is not to fulfill the letter of the law, but to create friction that improperly prevents political actions that the executive has the right to take. In other words, Donald Trump may live in the White House, but he can’t actually be President, thereby disenfranchising the people who elected him. So, we have a system that is not being used normally and that is not being used for a normal purpose. But Chief Justice Roberts, in his lack of wisdom, refuses to see that abnormal actions sometimes require abnormal responses. As I have said before, he will never be able to normal the abnormal back to normality. He thinks he can force normality back onto the judiciary by simply pretending the abnormality doesn’t exist and that everything is hunky-dory. He can’t. He must force normality back on the judiciary by addressing the abnormality directly.

That means he has to take abnormal actions in response. Procedurally, he needs to lead the charge to stop the imposition and use of these bizarre nationwide orders and injunctions by giving the circuit courts of appeal clear guidance to end this nonsense. Substantively, he needs to direct the circuit courts to issue stays on district court orders that far exceed the scope of the judiciary’s proper powers. And if the circuit courts of appeal refuse to do that, then the Supreme Court needs to issue the orders to enforce its will, even if that means issuing dozens and dozens of orders. The Supreme Court only takes 50 or so cases a year. With over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration as part of this lawfare campaign, that workload no longer works.

What John Roberts is risking by refusing to put an end to these abuses is the Trump administration putting an end to these abuses by exercising its implied power under the Constitution to check an out-of-control judiciary. If an order issues and no one enforces it, is it really an order?

“Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

• Trump Goes Nuclear Against Activist Lawyers Undermining His Presidency (Margolis)

The radical Left’s latest scheme to derail President Trump’s America First agenda has reached a fever pitch, with over 100 frivolous lawsuits filed against his administration since January. But Trump isn’t taking their lawfare lying down. In a bold move that should have Democrats and their army of activist attorneys panicking, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate anti-Trump lawyers and law firms attempting to hamstring his presidency through baseless litigation. The timing couldn’t be more critical, with an unprecedented 15 injunctions slapped against presidential actions just last month—far more than Obama or Biden ever faced. The Left’s desperation is palpable. After losing the Oval Office, the House, and the Senate in November, they’re resorting to their favorite tactic: shopping for activist judges to block crucial executive actions.

We’ve seen this circus play out with injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and his use of wartime powers to deport Venezuelan gang members terrorizing American communities. “Lawyers and law firms that engage in actions that violate the laws of the United States or rules governing attorney conduct must be efficiently and effectively held accountable,” Trump declared in a memorandum released Saturday. “Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.” Trump also named names. Recent examples of grossly unethical misconduct are far too common. For instance, in 2016, Marc Elias, founder and chair of Elias Law Group LLP, was deeply involved in the creation of a false “dossier” by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election. Elias also intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier.

Many immigration lawyers, including those from major law firms, are undermining Trump’s power to enforce our nation’s immigration laws. The memorandum notes that these activist lawyers actively coach clients to lie or hide their past to manipulate the asylum process, bypass national security measures, and deceive immigration authorities. The federal government faces a heavy burden in combating this widespread fraud, which not only erodes the rule of law but also fuels mass illegal immigration—leading to tragic crimes against innocent Americans and straining taxpayer-funded resources meant for citizens. Now, Attorney General Bondi has been specifically tasked with recommending additional countermeasures against these frivolous lawsuits, which the administration correctly views as a violation of separation of powers.

“I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement of their respective regulations governing attorney conduct and discipline,” Trump wrote. “I further direct the Attorney General to take all appropriate action to refer for disciplinary action any attorney whose conduct in Federal court or before any component of the Federal Government appears to violate professional conduct rules, including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions, and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity.”

Trump also directed the attorney general to hold law firms accountable for ethical misconduct, including making senior partners responsible for junior attorneys’ unethical actions when appropriate. If an attorney or firm engaged in litigation against the federal government is found to warrant sanctions or disciplinary action, the attorney general must recommend further steps to the president, such as revoking security clearances or terminating federal contracts. Additionally, the attorney general is ordered to review attorney conduct in cases against the government over the past eight years and, if misconduct is found—such as frivolous lawsuits or fraud—to propose further action, including contract termination or other penalties. It’s about time someone stood up to these legal mercenaries who abuse our court system.

Good talker – and thinker.

• “The Most Intuitive Man Who Ever Lived” (CTH)

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appears for an extensive discussion with the All In podcast. Secretary Lutnick has been a 30-year friend of President Trump and is currently one of the most critical members of the MAGAnomic team who are executing Trump’s agenda to Make America Great Again. Secretary Lutnick outlines the background of what makes President Trump so effective in his position, and within the discussion Lutnick notes at the core of Donald Trump is “the most intuitive person he has ever known.” This is a casual discussion about President Trump and how Lutnick came into the administration.

“The government rules by martial law, has failed in its key policies, is reportedly highly corrupt, and lacks public support.”

• Zelensky Regime Likely to Collapse Soon – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)

The government of the Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky will probably be replaced soon as it does not have enough public support and is corrupt, renowned American economist and Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs told RIA Novosti. “The Zelenskyy government will likely be out of power sometime soon. The government rules by martial law, has failed in its key policies, is reportedly highly corrupt, and lacks public support. These conditions suggest the likelihood of political change,” Sachs said when asked how did he view the future of Zelensky. The professor noted that his viewpoint was “strongly against regime-change operations” and that the UN doctrine of non-intervention in internal affairs should prevail.

Earlier in March, media reported that senior allies of US President Donald Trump have held talks with possible opponents of Volodymyr Zelensky to assess whether Ukraine could hold a quick presidential election. In February, Trump criticized Zelensky for his unwillingness to hold elections, called him a “dictator,” and also suggested that the Ukrainian leader wanted to keep the “gravy train” going amid the grinding conflict with Russia. Trump also said that Zelensky talked the US into spending $350 billion “to go into a war that couldn’t be won.” Zelensky’s presidential term expired on May 20, 2024. The presidential election in Ukraine was canceled due to martial law and general mobilization

4 weeks.

• US Sets Easter Target For Ukraine Ceasefire Deal (RT)

Washington is still hoping to broker a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict by Easter, Bloomberg wrote on Sunday, citing sources. US President Donald Trump has vowed to bring a swift end to the hostilities in Ukraine, and has moved to restart diplomatic relations with Russia, which were frozen during the term of his predecessor, Joe Biden. Russian and US delegations are set to meet in Riyadh on Monday for the second round of high-level talks since the apparent thaw. Following Tuesday’s phone conversation between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow agreed to a mutual temporary halt on strikes against energy infrastructure, which it says Kiev immediately violated.

The White House aims to have Russia and Ukraine agree to a full ceasefire by Easter Sunday – April 20 – but realizes that the timeline could be delayed due to significant differences between the sides, Bloomberg wrote, citing anonymous sources familiar with the discussions. Prior to talks with Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in Moscow last week, Putin stated that while he is open to a 30-day ceasefire, all military supplies to Kiev as well as the Ukrainian draft campaign need to stop to avoid strengthening Ukraine during the pause. Washington, which briefly stopped intelligence sharing and military aid to Kiev earlier this month, has not agreed to any of the demands, US officials told Bloomberg. According to the newspaper’s US sources, Trump wants any potential deal to be acceptable to Kiev, and isn’t prepared to concede too much.

Despite agreeing to the terms of the US-brokered partial truce, Ukraine struck an oil depot in southern Russia the day after the agreement, and blew up a gas metering station in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday. The violations show that Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is not trustworthy, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview on Sunday. “The Kiev regime’s words and Zelensky’s word are not worth much,” he said. Ukrainian claims that Russia shelled its own gas metering station in Sudzha are “absurd,” he added. Earlier this week, Putin stressed that Russia needs to hear a concrete plan on how a full ceasefire would be enforced and regulated before Moscow agrees.

“I don’t think there’s anybody in the world that [is] going to stop [Putin], except me, and I think I’m going to be able to stop him..”

• Trump Hails ‘Rational’ Putin Conversations (RT)

US President Donald Trump has praised his work relationship with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, describing their conversations as “very rational” and reiterating a desire to end the Ukraine conflict. In an interview aboard Air Force One with the outlet OutKick on Saturday, Trump reflected on his history with Putin and the Ukraine conflict, describing himself as the only person capable of “stopping” the Russian leader. “I don’t think there’s anybody in the world that [is] going to stop [Putin], except me, and I think I’m going to be able to stop him”, he said. “We’ve had some very rational discussions, and I just want to see the people stop getting killed.”

He warned that failure to mediate the conflict could lead to World War III, but noted that “it’s somewhat under control.” “I have a good relationship with President Putin and, actually, a good relationship with President Zelensky too. It’d be a great thing to be able to stop it. And I will say this, nobody else would have been able to.” After his inauguration, Trump actively sought to restore relations with Russia, which were at an all-time low, and to mediate a settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The Russian and US leaders have held at least two phone calls on the matter, while delegations from the two countries have held several rounds of direct talks. During the last phone conversation on Tuesday, which lasted two and a half hours, Putin and Trump discussed the US president’s idea of a 30-day ceasefire.

Putin generally spoke favorably of the initiative but mentioned several major obstacles, including the need to establish a monitoring mechanism and prevent forced mobilization and rearmament in Ukraine during the ceasefire. At the same time, Putin supported the idea of Moscow and Kiev halting strikes on each other’s energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days. Following the talks, Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, suggested that a complete ceasefire in the conflict could be implemented within “a couple of weeks.” He later noted that Kiev had seemingly agreed to stay out of NATO – one of Moscow’s key demands – adding that the key item on the agenda was now the fate of Crimea and the four other former Ukrainian territories that voted to become part of Russia.

The Black Sea becomes more important.

• Waltz Reveals Topics Of Russia-US Talks in Riyadh (RT)

A Black Sea maritime truce will be one of the top issues on the agenda of the upcoming US-Russia meeting in Riyadh, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz told CBS on Sunday. If reached, the ceasefire deal would allow both Moscow and Kiev to “move grain, fuel, and start conducting trade” in the sea again, according to the official.Waltz hailed the US-mediated peace efforts, saying: “we’re closer to peace than we ever have been.” His comments come ahead of a new round of negotiations between Russian and US officials scheduled for Monday.

He described the upcoming event as “proximity talks.” Apart from the Black Sea ceasefire, the sides are also expected to explore options for a wider truce, according to the national security adviser. “We’ll talk the line of control… details of verification mechanisms, peace keeping, you know, freezing the lines where they are.” The issue of a “broader and permanent peace” and “security guarantees” for Kiev will also be on the table, Waltz added. On Wednesday, Waltz said he had a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, in which they discussed the details of the upcoming meeting.

Ushakov confirmed that “a conversation did take place,” and said the meeting, which is scheduled to take place in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, will focus on the “safety of navigation in the Black Sea.” The issue of a maritime ceasefire was raised by US President Donald Trump during a phone call with Putin on Tuesday. The Russian president supported the idea and agreed to initiate talks on the details of a potential arrangement.

Includes a great story about human trust,

• Trump Is The First Leader Who Is Looking To Rebuild Trust With Putin (Proud)

Western politicians and journalists constantly tell us that President Putin cannot be trusted, and that, under no circumstances should anyone strike a deal with him. But in response to that rhetorical question, I always ask, ‘do you think that he trusts us?’ Trust is a two way thing and it must be built on small gestures and mutual respect. And it is so much more complicated building trust with people of different cultures, languages and worldviews etc. Right back in 2014, a colleague and friend in the Russian Presidential Administration told me that it would take at least a decade to rebuild the trust lost over the Maidan and Yanukovych’s ouster. It will take much longer now, after three years of devastating war. Zelensky, European politicians and the mainstream media scream at us constantly that Putin can’t be trusted. They claim, with no basis in evidence, that Putin has broken 25 (pick any number that you like) ceasefires in Ukraine since 2014.

Yet I wonder when we’ve really trusted Putin to stick to a deal and trusted in ourselves to hold to our end of the bargain? One thing’s for sure; everyone in the Russian state apparatus would say that western leaders have broken every promise that they made in the past, including on NATO expansion, and have acted in shockingly bad faith in other ways, including in orchestrating a coup in Kyiv and in setting up the Minsk 2 agreement to fail. The problem with refusing to talk to President Putin since the war started, and minimising all diplomatic contact with Russia since 2014, is that you reduce opportunities to rebuild trust to almost nought. How do you trust someone you dislike and then refuse ever to talk to again? It’s like schoolkids falling out epically, with 6000 nuclear missiles thrown into the mix. You focus obsessively on owning the media narrative of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’, as if you are a ten year old using X for the first time in the playground.

You tell all your closest friends and family members about how awful the other person is, and they nod and say, ‘oh, I know’ like Sybil Fawlty. I don’t believe for a minute that Russia can’t ever be trusted or that decision makers in the west are purer than the driven snow. Trust is about making a deal and sticking to it. I often recall taking my family on holiday to Dubai to escape the Moscow winter in early 2015. With the kids still very young, we loaded up the minibus taxi with luggage, pushchairs and car seats etc. and made our way to Sheremetyevo through the morning snow. At the airport, I discovered that I only had a 5000 rouble note for the 2500 rouble fare and the driver, having unloaded our stuff, was clearly in a hurry to get back in his warm cab and drive home. He took one look at the crisp note and said he didn’t have change.

I had absolutely no intention of dashing into the terminal, finding somewhere to break the note, while navigating very young kids, luggage trolleys and a diminutive wife whose saintly patience would only stretch so far. So I looked at the cab driver and he looked at me, wondering how we’d break the deadlock. I could have tried not to pay, but that would have caused an argument and, in any case, that’s not the sort of move I’d ever pull anyway. I could have asked him to check whether, in fact, he did have change, being that he was a taxi driver. But then he may well have been offended, because he’d clearly told me that he didn’t have change, and why shouldn’t I believe him? In the end, I decided that, as it was before 7 in the morning, he probably didn’t have change, and that, as it was minus ten degrees outside on the frosty kerbside, I’d have to trust him. So I said, ‘look, take the 5000 rouble note. Our flight gets back on this date at this time, and if you can come and pick us up and we’ll be even.’

He nodded, shook my hand without much of a smile and disappeared. I had his phone number, but there was practically nothing I could have done had he simply disappeared and left us stranded at the airport upon our return two weeks later. So it was with a certain trepidation that we passed through the diplomatic lane at passport control and I wondered whether he’d be in arrivals. As it happens, he was, just as we’d agreed. I smiled at him, he offered a smile back, we loaded up the minibus, clicked the kids into their car seats, and headed back into the centre of Moscow. Trust is a two-way exchange. Now and then, you have to take a chance on trusting someone, when your instincts raise questions.

Zelensky clearly doesn’t trust Putin, but he also has no interest in peace, from my observation. When he made it illegal to talk to Putin or any Russian official, he was, in my opinion, investing in a continuance of the war, hoping the west would back him come what may. And despite the rapid shift in U.S. policy over the past two months, many decision makers in Europe still do want to back Zelensky come what may, which is a worrying thing.

But peace in Ukraine will only be possible once the grown-ups start talking again. Maybe that’s the difference that Donald Trump is bringing to the war; taking small steps through initial deals towards bridging the vast gulf in trust between Russia and the west and, eventually, ending the death and destruction.In one month, Donald Trump has spoken to Vladimir Putin for four hours, which is probably four times more time that Biden spent in engagement in the preceding four years. There are stark parallels with Reagan and Gorbachev in the Eighties, breaking down barriers to focus on the longer-term good. Right now, Trump and Putin are the only grown ups in the conversation. Let’s hope the small steps towards trust they are taking right now, develop into something lasting. The world needs it. Though I remain sceptical that European leaders are ready to follow Trump’s lead.

“Peskov also noted that the meeting between the two presidents must be carefully prepared and requires difficult technical negotiations first. “On Monday, our negotiators will travel to Riyadh to begin this difficult process,” Peskov said.”

• Putin and Trump Could Have Other Contacts Alongside With Official Ones (TASS)

Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not rule out that Russian and US Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump could have other contacts in recent months in addition to those officially announced. “We are informing you about the conversations that we know about, but we cannot rule out everything else,” Peskov said in an interview with VGTRK journalist Pavel Zarubin. The journalist noted that if you listen to Trump’s statements, you can conclude that there were more contacts between the presidents than was officially announced. Talking to the journalist Peskov also noted that the meeting between the two presidents must be carefully prepared and requires difficult technical negotiations first. “On Monday, our negotiators will travel to Riyadh to begin this difficult process,” Peskov said.

“This rampant militarist policy of Europe – there is no other way to describe it – is hard to comprehend..”

• Europe’s Policy On Ukraine Conflict ‘Paradoxical’ – Kremlin (RT)

The approach taken by European powers to the Ukraine conflict makes no sense because instead of seeking peace they have decided to engage in reckless militarization, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. In an interview with Russia 1 TV journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday, Peskov also remarked that rather than addressing the root causes of the conflict, European powers “are talking about placing NATO contingents on Ukrainian territory”. “This rampant militarist policy of Europe – there is no other way to describe it – is hard to comprehend,” he added.

At the same time, the Kremlin spokesman acknowledged that the EU has found itself in a tight spot after the return to the White House of US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the bloc pay more for its own defense. “There’s a new sheriff in town… So they are forced to leave their comfort zone — and they’re doing it in an aggressive, militarist way. We hear [French President Emmanuel] Macron talking about a nuclear umbrella for Europe, and that also sounds very dangerous.”

Peskov’s comments come after the UK and France said they are open to sending Western peacekeepers to Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Moscow has rejected the idea, saying it does not matter under what disguise NATO troops arrive in the neighboring country. Earlier this month, Macron also signaled that France would discuss the possibility of using its nuclear arsenal to protect its allies in Europe, and urged the EU to ramp up military spending while labelling Russia a “threat.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed speculation that Moscow could attack NATO as “nonsense,” arguing it has no interest whatsoever in doing so.

All based on the narrative that Putin plans to overrun Europe. For which there is zero evidence.

• EU Afraid Trump Will Cut Off Weapons Support – WaPo (RT)

Officials from EU member states are worried that the Trump administration could stop supporting US-made weapons systems used by its NATO allies in Europe, the Washington Post reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter. The US has provided nearly two-thirds of Europe’s arms imports in recent years. Many of the systems are maintained and operated by American personnel. Equipment containing US components could also face restrictions if support is withdrawn. According to the Post, officials are afraid that reliance on American missile defense, surveillance aircraft, drones, and fighter jets could become a major vulnerability, given President Donald Trump’s strained relations with the EU. Some are reportedly concerned that US-made platforms could be rendered inoperable if access to parts, software, or data is blocked.

“It’s not as if President Trump could just push a button and all aircraft would fall from the sky,” an EU official told the Post. “But there is an issue of dependency,” particularly in intelligence and communications, the official added. Several member states are reviewing their arsenals to assess how exposed they would be in the event of a support cutoff. French President Emmanuel Macron recently urged the bloc to stop buying American weapons, arguing that European rearmament is pointless if member states remain dependent on US suppliers. German Chancellor-designate Friedrich Merz proposed extending France’s nuclear deterrent to cover its EU neighbors, a move that Macron said could be discussed.

Rasmus Jarlov, the chair of Denmark’s defense committee, said he regrets that Copenhagen purchased US-made F-35 fighter planes. He called them “a security risk that we cannot run,” and warned that the US could deactivate the systems if Denmark refuses its demands, such as handing over Greenland. Portugal has scrapped plans to purchase F-35s, citing the current “geopolitical context.” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has backed the push for military autonomy, saying Trump “may have a point” about Europe needing to spend more on its own defense.

There is a lot of blood thirst in Europe.

• The Führer of Germany – Friedrich Merz – In A War And Spending Frenzy (Hanseler)

After more than 80 years, Germany once again has a Führer who is in no way inferior to the old one in terms of mendacity and megalomania while spending sums that are unimaginable for most people. We do the math while our optimism withers.
Peter Hanseler

Introduction
Yesterday I read the following lines on the Internet – unfortunately without an author’s reference: This has never happened before: a man who has not even been elected chancellor yet negotiates the biggest borrowing in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany with parties that lost the election, in a Bundestag that has long since been dissolved. If you had described Friedrich Merz’s current behavior to a German 10 years ago, you would have been declared insane and put in a clinic without raising a fuss. Friedrich Merz, who refuses to form a coalition with the AFD because he accuses them of right-wing extremism, is preparing Germany for war against Russia. The AFD wants peace with Russia, Russia seeks peace, the Americans want peace and Merz opposes all those who seek peace. This week the Handelsblatt reported that up to 1.7 trillion could be spent. This article will prove that this plan is madness, simply by putting this astronomical figure into perspective for regular people.

How much is a trillion seconds? I maintain that very few people are able to categorize the size of this number. Let’s give it a try: How much time elapses in one million seconds? – Correct, 11.57 days. How much time elapses in a trillion seconds? – You will be wrong if you say a few years. It is exactly 31,709 years. That is indeed a long time ago. The earth was populated by sabre-toothed tigers and woolly mammoths, the last ice age took place. Rome was only founded a good 28,000 years afterwards. I assume that all readers are somewhat overwhelmed that a trillion is as much as it is. 1.7 trillion in money. Germany’s current debt at federal level. As at June 30, Germany’s federal debt amounted to 1.621 trillion – or 1,621 billion euros. This corresponds to a national debt to GDP ratio of 62.4%.

1.7 trillion is a hundred times more than all DAX companies together earned in 2023. Friedrich Merz will double this debt. This would lead to a debt ratio of 125% – which would put the country in the neighborhood of Greece (158%). The additional interest burden for the 1.7 trillion euros will amount to 47.6 billion euros per year if the current interest rate of the 10-year German government bond of 2.8% is used for the calculation. The cumulative profit of Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW amounted to 29.2 billion euros in 2024. The German automotive giants would therefore not even be able to pay the interest on this madness if they were to send all their profits to Berlin. In 2024, Germany collected income taxes amounting to 181.95 billion euros at federal level. This means that for nearly 10 years, 100% of total income taxes would have to be spent on the repayment of 1,700 billion euros.

Conclusion Without even mentioning that Friedrich Merz’s actions are more than legally questionable, it is already clear from the figure of 1.7 trillion euros that he has lost his mind. This debt bonanza will drive the former world export champion and the former jewel of industry to the wall financially. For many years, the German political elite has been railing against Russia, the country to which it owed the cheap energy that allowed Germany to become the industrial jewel of the world in the first place. Russia forgave the Germans, who had 27 million Russians on their conscience; the Russians have not forgotten these atrocities, but the Germans, or rather the German leadership, have, because what the German people think, choose or want is once again a thing of the past in Germania. Germany then turned imperiously against China, the current industrial jewel that, unlike the Germans, has not slept through the major trends.

Last but not least, the German leadership is salivating against the US, the colonial master of the Germans, which has made a political U-turn and is now seeking peace with Russia. It is therefore by no means inappropriate to describe Friedrich Merz’s behavior as megalomania. Ms. Baerbock, who made Germany a laughing stock on the international stage during her time as foreign minister, is cuddling up to the new Syrian government, which is made up of terrorists. For about two weeks now, civilians have been slaughtered in Syria, women and children have had their heads cut off, obviously a necessity on the road to democracy. Ms. Baerbock seems to agree with this. Incidentally, I do not recommend our readers to watch videos of these goings-on, thousands of which are posted on social media; they are nightmares that will deprive you of sleep.

Ms. Baerbock is transferring 300 million euros to these very gentlemen. Ms. Baerbock, who will soon no longer have a job, seems to have special talents. She is to become the new President of the UN General Assembly. As a geopolitical analyst, you should always remain an optimist at heart, otherwise you will burn out completely. However, I find it increasingly difficult to carry a spark of hope for Germany: legally, geopolitically, in terms of freedom and emotionally.

“There is one way to achieve this: if we get Europe to support the president of the United States in his peace efforts, instead of embarking on war adventures, and then there will be peace.”

• Hungary’s Orban Continues Blocking EU’s ‘Pro-War’ Stance On Ukraine (ZH)

Hungary continued this past week being a lone EU voice blocking the European Union’s collective efforts to ramp up more financial and military aid to Ukraine, at a moment Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has a powerful backer in Washington – the Trump administration. Hungary in a Thursday European Council summit vote refused to endorse a statement reaffirming the bloc’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Orbán government slammed the ‘pro-war’ stance of the EU, despite 26 out of 27 EU nations signing off on it. While the statement had only largely symbolic significance, saying Europe backs the “continued and unwavering support for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity” – Orban described that this only prolongs the war and brings the conflict no closer to peaceful resolution.

“Once again, they wanted to adopt a common position in which we want to give Ukraine even more money and even more weapons, and we are committed to the war,” the Hungarian leader explained after the veto. “Over the past three years, Hungarian families have lost around 2.5 million forints (approximately €6,268) per household as a result of the war. I must stop this, and we must not allow Hungarian families to continue to pay the economic consequences,” Orbán stated. He urged European capitals to get in Trump’s corner, who is seeking a diplomatic solution. But here’s how The Associated Press and other outlets characterized Hungary’s stubborn refusal to go along with Brussels:

“At the same time, Orbán is also emboldened by U.S. President Donald Trump, who is pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Trump has blamed Ukraine for Russia’s unprovoked invasion, all while accusing Kyiv of unnecessarily prolonging the biggest land war in Europe since World War II.” Orban described further in an interview with regional media… “There is one way to achieve this: if we get Europe to support the president of the United States in his peace efforts, instead of embarking on war adventures, and then there will be peace. This debate took place, but we were unable to convince each other.” He continued, “I vetoed the common position, and therefore the European Union has no common position. What will be made public here today is nothing more than the private position of 26 member states, not the common position of the European Union, because without Hungary such a position cannot be accepted.”

“The president of Ukraine is confused about his role, he is behaving as if he were in the European Union and therefore could afford to take a sharper tone when he cannot do so. He is an applicant who wants to join the European Union, about which opinions are divided,” Orbán remarked. Parrel to all of this, NATO is seeking to ‘Trump-proof’ the alliance for the long-term, which reports of closed-door discussions on how to replace United States leadership in the alliance some five to ten years down the road, amid fears that Washington will retreat from leadership, and its majority financial and weapons support to NATO.

“Very few people know that there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide,”

• Musk Slams South Africa Over ‘White Genocide’ (RT)

Elon Musk has once again lashed out at his country of birth, South Africa, over what he claimed was “active promotion” of “white genocide.” In a post on X on Sunday, the tech billionaire wrote that his Starlink satellite internet service cannot operate in the African country because he is “not black.”Musk’s remarks came amid tensions between Pretoria and Washington over a controversial land expropriation law signed in January that allows land seizures without compensation and aims to address longstanding disparities between black South Africans and the Afrikaner minority, who own nearly 75% of the country’s freehold farmland. US President Donald Trump condemned the law as an “egregious action” that unfairly targets white South Africans and signed an executive order directing federal agencies to cut aid to the country in a bid to pressure Pretoria to repeal the policy.

Musk, a close advisor to Trump who was born in Pretoria, has also been vocal in his criticism of the law. In his post on Sunday, he lashed out after sharing footage of a rally led by Julius Malema, head of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) opposition party. The video showed demonstrators chanting an apartheid-era slogan Musk interpreted as calling for the killing of white South Africans. “A whole arena chanting about killing white people,” Musk wrote. “Where is the outrage? Why is there no coverage by the legacy media?” “Very few people know that there is a major political party in South Africa that is actively promoting white genocide,” Musk continued, apparently referring to the EFF. He then alleged for the second time in two weeks that Starlink had been refused a license to operate in the country “simply because I’m not black.”

The rally Musk referred to was held to commemorate the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, where police killed 69 black South African protesters during what is considered the first and most violent demonstration against apartheid in the country. The old chant – “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer” – has been a longstanding point of controversy in South Africa. Malema, whose party advocates for eliminating racial and economic disparities, has been known to sing it at rallies and considers it part of the country’s heritage, despite being found guilty of hate speech over it by the ruling African National Congress (ANC).

Despite criticism from Washington, Pretoria has maintained that its land policy is aimed at correcting historical injustice and does not discriminate against any racial group. South African officials have also called for dialogue with Washington to address what they say is “misinformation” about the new land policy. Foreign Ministry spokesman Clayson Monyela rejected Musk’s claim that Starlink was barred due to his race, saying the entire situation had “nothing to do” with skin color, and that the service could operate in South Africa provided it complied with local laws.

“Reagan was considered an outsider, and he was “dangerous” because the Republican establishment could lose its grip on the party to a populist whose basis was in the people and not in the organized interest groups.”

• My Time in the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts)

Paul Craig Roberts, who played a crucial role in enacting the tax cuts of the 1980s and in forging the political emergence of supply-side economics, reflects on his experience in Washington. He emphasizes that intra-party power struggles, not economics, are the main influence on policy. — Editor, The Independent Review. Paul Craig Roberts is chairman of the Institute for Political Economy. He had academic careers as senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University; journalism careers as associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week; government careers as a member of the U.S. congressional staff and as assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration; and business careers as a director of industrial and financial companies.

*****
When I was an economics professor, I often wondered if what my faculty colleagues and I were teaching students about economic policy had any validity. I left Stanford University, went to Washington, D.C., and joined the congressional staff in order to experience how policy is made. In the House, I helped Rep. Jack Kemp introduce supply-side economics to his colleagues. I became chief economist of the House Budget Committee on the Republican side, and then staff associate for Senator Orrin Hatch on the Joint Economic Committee. My success in explaining to Congress that there was an alternative to Keynesian demand management, which had no solution for stagflation, led to President Reagan appointing me assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy.

Having learned how policy is made (and unmade), I now had the assignment to implement a new one. The story of my experience is useful to economists. As one of my graduate professors, Ronald Coase, used to tell his class, “It would help economists to occasionally look outside the window of the box they keep themselves in.” The conflict between merit and redistribution that is characteristic of the American political system and the influence of established explanations are not the only problems confronting a policymaker, especially if he is introducing a new approach. As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, “There is nothing more difficult, more perilous or more uncertain of success than to take the lead in introducing a new order of things.”

One of the many problems a policymaker faces is that policies affect different interest groups in different ways. Some benefit, some don’t, and I don’t mean just in a material or economic way. Most of the things that influence economic policy have nothing to do with economics. They have to do with power. The party establishments that control the parties intend to stay in control. The organized interest groups that control the party establishments intend to continue in control. Few Americans understand that the main political fight is not between the two parties but within the administration of the party in power. Within the parties the fight is over who controls the party. When the fight is between the establishment and a populist rival like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump, it can get very nasty.

During the first year of the Reagan administration, much of the battle was between President Reagan and his Treasury allies (primarily me and Secretary Don Regan) on one side and Reagan’s chief of staff, Jim Baker, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Murray Weidenbaum, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director David Stockman on the other. The fight within the Reagan administration had its origin in Reagan taking the Republican nomination for president away from the establishment’s candidate, George H. W. Bush, former CIA director. Reagan was considered an outsider, and he was “dangerous” because the Republican establishment could lose its grip on the party to a populist whose basis was in the people and not in the organized interest groups.

Reagan was advised that he must take the defeated George H. W. Bush Republican establishment into his administration or suffer the fate of Barry Goldwater, who rejected Nelson Rockefeller after he defeated him in the Republican presidential nomination. Consequently, the Republican establishment helped the Democrats defeat Goldwater, the Republican populist candidate. Nancy Reagan judged by appearances, and Bush’s man, Jim Baker, a polished dresser, presented to Nancy a better image than Reagan’s laidback California crew to be standing by her husband. Baker was appointed chief of staff. So, from the start Reagan and his supporters in the administration were handicapped by an establishment operative being chief of staff of the Reagan Revolution. Only Reagan had offered a solution to the problem of “stagflation.” It was called supply-side economics. Lacking a solution to offer during the campaign for the nomination, Bush termed Reagan’s policy “voodoo economics.” This, of course, played into the hands of the Democrat opposition and the liberal media determined to undermine President Reagan as a Grade B movie actor who believed in fairy tales about tax cuts paying for themselves.

Self harm

Tucker Carlson does not speak on behalf of America, but I have the impression that more and more Americans view the weakness and submissiveness of the Europeans with contempt pic.twitter.com/O2GMdgAInN

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) March 23, 2025

Tucker Carlson destroys @piersmorgan’s idea of Freedom in the funniest way possible. pic.twitter.com/SNBckPHXy1

— BATMAN (@BATMAN_SPOTTED) March 23, 2025

Job loss
https://twitter.com/its_The_Dr/status/1903631330321052141

Hand
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1903821746605609121

Moose

Extremely polite moose bull gently reminds a tourist that wildlife should be respected pic.twitter.com/cyZ3tAcKhF

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) March 21, 2025

Plank

Mother Sloth plank sleeping with her baby sleeping on her belly. pic.twitter.com/rutPEOILOx

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) March 23, 2025

Dogsbabies

Dogs love babies pic.twitter.com/dGYdYTrKLZ

— Enezator (@Enezator) March 23, 2025

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 16 2025

Mar 162025

March 16, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:22 am Finance Tagged with: autopen, ceasefire, judge, Kellogg, Merkel, Minsk, Musk, Orban, Putinversteher, Soros, surrender, Trump 20 Responses »

Peter Paul Rubens Daniel in the lions’ den c1615

• Everybody Believes Ukraine Won – Zelensky (RT)

• Time Runs Out For Ukraine Forces In Kursk Region To Surrender – Kremlin (RT)

• Russia ‘Must’ Accept Ceasefire Deal – Macron (RT)

• Russia Needs Permanent End to Ukraine Crisis, Not Minsk 3.0-Style Pause (Sp.)

• Merkel Slams ‘Putinversteher’ Witch Hunts (RT)

• Trump Clarifies Ukraine Envoy’s Duties (RT)

• Putin Aide Compares EU Leaders To ‘Affectionate Puppies’ (RT)

• Viktor Orban vs. the Modern-Day Habsburgs in Brussels (Sp.)

• With Starlink, Musk Has Similar Effect On Europe As He Does In US (JTN)

• Moscow Invites Musk To Collaborate On Mars Exploration (RT)

• Trump’s Overtures Toward Greenland Are Paying Off (DS)

• The 4th Circuit Reverses Nationwide Injunction on Ending DEI Funding (Turley)

• Trump Has Something To Say About the Biden Autopen Scandal (Margolis)

• Trump Orders Cutbacks At State-Run Media (RT)

• The Swamp Can Scream But DOGE Is on a Lawful Path to Success (DS)

• Federal Judge Tells Trump He Can’t Use the Law to Deport Illegals (Margolis)

• Federal Judge Appoints Himself President (BBee)

https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/1900681542353236349

When someone asks me, what’s your favorite letter: pic.twitter.com/5LSV0lDUvg

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) March 15, 2025

https://twitter.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1900669533935071519

Candace
https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1900646060827062695

O’Leary

Kevin O’Leary dismisses Mark Carney as “Trudeau 2.0”, argues that a new trade deal won’t be negotiated until after the Canadian election and suggests President Trump wants to combine the U.S. and Canadian economies. pic.twitter.com/YyHkBtfZds

— Juno News (@junonewscom) March 14, 2025

Macgregor
https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1900960935638167986

I got nothing.

• Everybody Believes Ukraine Won – Zelensky (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that Kiev has received widespread applause from its Western backers over its handling of the recent talks with the US in Saudi Arabia. The diplomatic success, he stated, puts Russia in a difficult situation that could be hard to “wiggle out of.” During a meeting in Jeddah on Tuesday, the Ukrainian delegation agreed to a US-proposed 30-day ceasefire. “Everyone congratulated Ukraine on a real victory in Jeddah, the victory of diplomacy,” Zelensky stated on Saturday, without specifying who exactly reached out to Kiev. “Everyone believes that this is a serious progress,” he claimed. At the time of the meeting, the Ukrainian military was facing a sustained Russian offensive along the entire front line, while Kiev’s troops suffered a major defeat in Russia’s Kursk Region.

A surprise attack allowed the Russian military to reclaim hundreds of square kilometers of territory within days and liberate Sudzha, the largest town in the area previously occupied by Ukrainian forces. The head of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov, reported on Wednesday that the Ukrainian troops in the area were largely “isolated” or “encircled.” On Friday, US President Donald Trump called on Moscow to spare the lives of the “thousands” of Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the area. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin has guaranteed merciful treatment to the surrounded fighters if they surrender. The Ukrainian General Staff swiftly branded all the reports about an encirclement a “manipulation” by Russia. Talking to journalists on Saturday, Zelensky denied that the Ukrainian troops had been surrounded in the Kursk Region.

The Ukrainian leader also demanded “unconditional” agreement from Moscow to the US-backed ceasefire proposal. “If Ukraine takes such a step, it has to be unconditional,” he stated. Putin welcomed the US ceasefire initiative by calling it “the right idea” and one that Moscow “certainly supports.” However, he maintained that certain issues, including the fate of the Ukrainian troops in Kursk Region, as well as mechanisms for monitoring the ceasefire, need to be addressed before any agreement could be reached. France and the UK have also demanded that Russia agree to an unconditional temporary truce, which prompted a sharp rebuke from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who said the UK can stick such ideas back where they came from.

“If they lay down their arms and surrender, we will guarantee them their lives and dignified treatment..”

• Time Runs Out For Ukraine Forces In Kursk Region To Surrender – Kremlin (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to Ukrainian forces in Kursk Region to surrender is still valid, but time is running out, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. “It is still in effect,” he stated on Saturday in response to a question from TASS news agency. “Their time is shrinking like the Shagreen skin,” he added, in reference to Honoré de Balzac’s novel ‘The Magic Skin’. On Friday, Putin guaranteed merciful treatment to Ukrainian fighters encircled in Kursk Region if they surrender. “If they lay down their arms and surrender, we will guarantee them their lives and dignified treatment in accordance with international law and Russian legal norms,” the president said. He indicated, however, that Kiev should order them to do so.

Putin’s statement was a response to US President Donald Trump’s call to spare the lives of the “thousands of Ukrainian troops” who are “completely surrounded by the Russian military.” “This would be a horrible massacre, one not seen since World War II,” he commented on Truth Social. Kiev launched a major offensive into Kursk Region in August 2024, successfully capturing the town of Sudzha along with numerous villages. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky stated that the incursion across the internationally recognized border aimed to secure leverage for future peace negotiations.

However, the Russian military quickly halted the Ukrainian advance and has since been regaining territory. As of Wednesday, 86% of the land occupied by Ukraine was reclaimed, according to General Valery Gerasimov, the head of the Russian General Staff. He noted that the remaining Ukrainian units in the area are largely “encircled” and “isolated.”

NATO and Kiev are stuck. Not Russia.

• Russia ‘Must’ Accept Ceasefire Deal – Macron (RT)

Moscow must accept the US-proposed 30-day ceasefire deal and stop making “delaying statements,” French President Emmanuel Macron has stated. Kiev agreed to a month-long truce in the Ukraine conflict following talks with the US in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. Washington subsequently resumed intelligence sharing with Ukraine and arms shipments to the country. No EU member states were represented at the negotiations. Speaking on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Russia is ready to discuss a ceasefire but that the terms need to be clarified to ensure it leads to a stable and permanent peace. On Friday, following talks with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, Macron demanded that Moscow accept the proposed deal.

“Russia must now accept the US-Ukrainian proposal for a 30-day ceasefire,” he wrote on X, adding that he will continue working to drum up support for Kiev going forward. The UK has also demanded an unconditional armistice from Moscow. “Now is the time for a ceasefire with no conditions. Ukraine has set their position out. It is now for Russia to accept it,” UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said in a comment to the press on Friday. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed the demand. “Britain and its minister can shove their idea back up the sh*thole it came from, diplomatically speaking,” Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, wrote on X.

Russia has condemned the increasingly hostile statements coming from European leaders about boosting their militarization, as the tide on the battlefield turns increasingly in favor of Moscow. Western states’ continued provision of military supplies to Ukraine makes the conflict a NATO-led proxy war against Russia, according to Moscow. Replying to British and French initiatives to deploy peacekeeping contingents to Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called such ideas “outright hostile” to Russia. Any troops of the US-led military bloc in the conflict, even under the guise of peacekeepers, will amount to the “direct, official, undisguised involvement of NATO countries in the war against Russia,” the top diplomat has said.

“..issues ranging from the fate of Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk, to Ukraine’s ongoing forced mobilization, to monitoring for violations, and arms supplies to Kiev must be dealt with before Russia agrees to a ceasefire..”

• Russia Needs Permanent End to Ukraine Crisis, Not Minsk 3.0-Style Pause (Sp.)

Shortly after the US rolled out its 30-day Ukraine ceasefire proposal, President Trump appealed to President Putin to spare the lives of “thousands” of Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk region. Sputnik asked a pair of veteran international affairs analysts about the risks and opportunities hidden in the US proposals. Donald Trump’s call on Russia to spare Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk reminds veteran geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic of the Minsk peace agreements, the second iteration of which was signed in February 2015, “when Ukrainian forces were encircled and facing capture or annihilation at the hands of Donbass fighters.”

Back then, “US and European leaders eagerly urged a temporary ceasefire and the creation of conditions under which Ukrainian forces could recover, reorganize, rearm, and restart hostilities at a future date with factors leaning better in their and their Western sponsors’ favor,” the former US Marine recalled. “Now, Russian forces have delivered a significant defeat to Ukraine and its Western backers – including the United States – and once again there are urgent attempts to pause the fighting to buy time for the Ukrainians and ultimately buy time for Washington’s proxy war,” the observer said. The US’s 30-day ceasefire proposal “sidesteps” the “root causes of this conflict (US-led NATO expansion),” with the alliance’s European members being called on to more than double their defense spending, Berletic pointed out.

Accordingly, rather than a mere “freeze” of the conflict, Russia, which has “expanded its own combat power faster than Ukraine with Western backing can negate it” to achieve victories in Kursk and the incremental collapse of Ukrainian positions along the rest of the front, needs a “permanent conclusion to this conflict,” not a temporary freeze which would ensure its continuation “well into the foreseeable future,” Berletic emphasized. President Putin confirmed as much in his press conference Thursday. “We agree with the proposals to cease hostilities, but proceed from the assumption that this cessation should lead to long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of this crisis,” he said. Furthermore, issues ranging from the fate of Ukrainian troops trapped in Kursk, to Ukraine’s ongoing forced mobilization, to monitoring for violations, and arms supplies to Kiev must be dealt with before Russia agrees to a ceasefire, Putin added.

Veteran independent Argentine journalist Tadeo Castiglione argues that the US president’s appeal to Russia can be interpreted as a signal to speed up peace talks, and a message to Volodymyr Zelensky to call on his troops to surrender to avoid a massacre.“Throughout the three years of the Special Military Operation, Russia has respected international law, and ensured respect for all Ukrainian servicemen who surrendered,” something that could not be said about the other side, the veteran international affairs observer pointed out.

Kursk is outside the Special Operation Zone, Castiglione stressed, and for the Russian side, fighting on this front is considered an anti-terrorist operation, since Ukrainian forces invaded and attacked civilians beyond the NATO-Russia proxy war’s boundaries. “This is a crime on the part of the Ukrainian government. That is why Putin has emphasized that despite breaking the law on Russian territory, they will still be treated as prisoners of war,” Castiglione explained. Therefore, “if both sides really want peace, the first step must be the capitulation of Ukrainian units in Kursk,” the observer summed up.

Her successors are far worse than she is, but she started the decline.

• Merkel Slams ‘Putinversteher’ Witch Hunts (RT)

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has criticized the use of the term ‘Putinversteher’ (Putin understander) to silence those who discuss Russia’s perspective, arguing that it prevents meaningful dialogue and complicates diplomacy. In an interview with Berliner Zeitung on Friday, Merkel was asked how she felt about the term, which is often used to label people who address Russian President Vladimir Putin’s concerns over NATO expansion. “Not good, because there has to be a discussion about it. You have to plan ahead for diplomatic initiatives so that they are available at the right moment,” she said.

She also rejected the idea that seeking to understand Moscow’s position amounts to supporting it. “I find the accusation of being a Putinversteher inappropriate. It is used as a conversation-stopper, a way to shut down debate.” Asked if she has ever been called one, Merkel replied: “No one has ever called me that – it’s a strange word. Understanding what Putin does and putting oneself in his position is not wrong. It is a fundamental task of diplomacy and something entirely different from supporting him.” Her remarks come amid an ongoing debate in Germany over its policy toward Russia. The term ‘Putinversteher’ is frequently used to criticize those who advocate for diplomatic engagement with Moscow, portraying them as sympathetic to the Kremlin.

Speaking on European security concerns, Merkel warned that failing to address Russia’s interests could increase the risk of future conflicts. “There is no justification for him [Putin] invading another country, but the discussion about Russia’s interests must be allowed.” Merkel was a key mediator in the Minsk agreements, a 2015 road map negotiated along with then-French President Francois Hollande, which was officially intended to reintegrate the Donbass region into Ukraine. However, after the 2022 escalation, both Merkel and Hollande admitted that the accords were never meant to bring peace, but rather to buy time for Kiev to strengthen its military with NATO’s help.

Kellogg speaks only to Zelensky. Trump doesn’t care what he says anyway. This way Zelensky thinks he still matters.

• Trump Clarifies Ukraine Envoy’s Duties (RT)

US President Donald Trump has appointed Keith Kellogg to lead talks with Kiev. Earlier, media reports suggested that the retired lieutenant general was ousted from peace talks with Russia at Moscow’s request. “I am pleased to inform you that General Keith Kellogg has been appointed Special Envoy to Ukraine,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday. He added that Kellogg will lead direct talks with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and senior officials. “He [Kellogg] knows them well, and they have a very good working relationship together,” Trump said.

NBC News and Reuters reported on Thursday, citing sources, that Russian officials demanded that Kellogg be excluded from peace talks due to his pro-Kiev position. The retired US Army lieutenant general was absent from last month’s Russia-US talks in Saudi Arabia and this week’s US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah, where the delegations proposed a 30-day ceasefire. On Thursday, US special envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Moscow to formally present the details of the initiative to Russian officials. Witkoff’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin was hailed as “very good and productive” by Trump.

Putin expressed support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, but has raised concerns regarding how it can be implemented. He also offered the Ukrainian forces encircled in Russia’s Kursk Region time to surrender, guaranteeing them their lives and dignified treatment. Regarding ties between Moscow and Washington, the Russian president acknowledged the Trump administration’s efforts to rebuild them, but said the process remains challenging. “We know the new administration, headed by President Trump, is doing everything to restore at least part of what was practically reduced to zero, destroyed by the previous American administration,” Putin said.

“..Medvedev dismissed the ultimatum, telling Britain and Lammy personally to “shove their idea back up the sh*thole it came from, diplomatically speaking.”

• Putin Aide Compares EU Leaders To ‘Affectionate Puppies’ (RT)

President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, has echoed the Russian leader’s comparison of European leaders to puppies, commenting on how quickly they shifted to supporting the US push for a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict. Last month, Putin predicted that European politicians, who “happily carried out any order from the president in Washington” under President Donald Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, would soon fall in line with changing US policy. Given Trump’s “character and persistence,” all of them would soon “stand at the master’s feet and gently wag their tails,” the Russian president said. In an interview on Friday with Russia 1 TV journalist Pavel Zarubin, Ushakov was asked to comment on European leaders’ recent shift to supporting the US-proposed 30-day ceasefire after years of steady military assistance to Kiev.

Everything is turning out as Putin “vividly” portrayed, the presidential aide said. “He described it as if they would be like affectionate dogs at the feet of their master. This is approximately what is happening now,” Ushakov stated. Following a virtual meeting of European leaders on Friday, France and the UK both demanded that Russia accept the 30-day ceasefire agreed upon by Ukraine and the US during bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia earlier in the week. “Russia must now accept” the truce deal, French President Emmanuel Macron wrote on X. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy told the press that Moscow must accept the ceasefire without conditions. “Ukraine has set their position out. It is now for Russia to accept it,” he said. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed the ultimatum, telling Britain and Lammy personally to “shove their idea back up the sh*thole it came from, diplomatically speaking.”

The US and its allies in Europe severed diplomatic ties with Russia soon after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, pledging to support Kiev with financial and military aid “as long as it takes.” Moscow has long characterized the conflict as a Western proxy war against Russia. Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to diplomatically wind down the conflict during his reelection campaign. Relations between Washington and Moscow began to thaw following a phone call between Putin and Trump, which was followed by high-level talks in Riyadh last month. European leaders who severed ties with Moscow can reestablish diplomatic contact whenever they choose, Putin said last month, though he noted they are “deeply entangled with the Kiev regime” and that it would be “very difficult or almost impossible for them to backtrack without losing face.”

“For Orban, the War Against Soros Is Personal.”

Where do you think this weekend’s big anti-Orban protests come from?

• Viktor Orban vs. the Modern-Day Habsburgs in Brussels (Sp.)

Hungary’s prime minister has released a 12-point ultimatum to the European Union, demanding peace, sovereign equality, the protection of Europe’s Christian heritage, the expulsion of “Soros agents” in the European Commission, and an EU “without Ukraine.” Sputnik asked two renowned experts of Hungarian politics what’s really at stake. Orban’s appeal, coinciding with the anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, signals recognition that Brussels bureaucrats have become the modern-day oppressors of Hungary, imposing an “ongoing tyranny” amid Budapest’s efforts to “pursue its own national, historical, cultural policies,” renowned international affairs commentator Dr. George Szamuely explained. It’s very much about “national autonomy, national self-determination [and] national identity” versus the universalist, globalist vision of the likes of Ursula von der Leyen, according to the observer.

The timing of Orban’s statement has to do with the rise of Trump, Szamuely says, with the Hungarian leader already serving “kind of ‘Trump before Trump’” anyway, opposed to mass illegal immigration, promoting a “Hungary First” vision, and consistently advocating for “immediate peace in Ukraine.” “Russia raised objections about Ukraine in NATO, but never in the EU. So it’s very interesting that Orban has done this,” Szamuely said, commenting on the Ukraine-related aspect of Orban’s 12-point demands. “He sees Ukraine in the EU as being a serious economic threat to countries such as Hungary and others in Central Europe, particularly with its cheap agricultural products that will be used to wipe out agriculture,” Szamuely explained.

“He probably sees that this is part of the plan on the part of the EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and the rest to destroy the economies of Central European states such as Hungary and Slovakia,” the observer added.
Veteran Hungarian journalist Gabor Stier agrees. “Orban is saying we have suffered from the war, and now will suffer from Ukraine’s membership in the EU, because the EU will collapse if Ukraine becomes a member…I agree with this 100%,” Stier, a senior foreign policy analyst at Hungary’s conservative daily newspaper Magyar Nemzet, explained. In this regard, Orban and Hungarians recognize a reality that EU elites and most ordinary Europeans don’t, according to the observer.

The Hungarian leader has “been very much the victim of George Soros’ infrastructure in Europe, which has been targeting him for 15 years, really, ever since he first came to power in 2010,” Szamuely said, commenting on the anti-Soros portion of Orban’s 12-point appeal. Up for reelection next year, Orban “sees Soros money behind the candidacy of Peter Magyar, who is going to be the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Tisza Party,” Dr. Szamuely explained. Besides this, Soros’ arsenal includes his NGOs, think tanks, newspapers, legal and lobbying groups, who target “nationalist populists” across the EU. “Whether it’s Fico and Slovakia, we’ve also seen what happened to Georgescu in Romania, and without question, if they can get Orban, that’ll be a huge victory for the color revolution,” Szamuely stressed.

Stier notes that Orban’s mission today is about “squeezing out everyone tied to Western networks, the so-called Soros structures.” “This is a part of the war that Trump is waging against the globalists. And [in Hungary] one of Trump’s European supporters is making great efforts to do the same,” Stier explained. Today’s global political landscape in the middle of an “ideological war between globalists and the sovereigntists, between ‘Sorosists’ and ‘Trumpists’,” Stier says. “It’s very important that Orban now feels Trump’s support and strength behind him, and this expands his room for maneuver. At the same time, in domestic politics, he must somehow mobilize his supporters, because while there is still a year before the elections, he will need to work very hard to win,” the observer summed up.

There is no alternative.

“Ukraine is estimated to be already using nearly 50,000 proprietary Starlink terminals..”

• With Starlink, Musk Has Similar Effect On Europe As He Does In US (JTN)

Since returning to the White House nearly two months ago, Donald Trump has tested the willingness of the U.S.’s European allies to deal with uncertainty regarding trade and security. On a smaller, but important, Trump ally and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has charted a similar path with his groundbreaking Starlink telecommunications systems. Using a vast network of low-orbit satellites, Starlink – a subsidiary of Musk’s SpaceX – can provide users with high-speed Internet access essentially anywhere in the world, even when users are on the move. The technology plays a key role in the high-tech war in Ukraine, and it’s also of use in remote parts of the world and can even be used for limited periods during power outages. There are downsides, of course. Though Starlink’s services have come down in price, they are still expensive compared to faster, traditional Internet alternatives. And they require a clear line of sight to the sky order to work correctly, making them ineffective in some urban contexts, mountainous areas, or dense forests.

Scientists also worry about filling up low orbits with “space junk” that could crash into spacecraft or other satellites, obscure astronomers’ views of the heavens, and increase the amount of space debris that falls to earth. But the biggest obstacle to the company’s spread may be Musk himself. Since taking a role in the Trump administration and weighing in on an array of hot button global issues, Musk has become a controversial figure. That is having an impact across Musk’s business empire, leading to plummeting sales of Tesla cars and a growing exodus of users from his X social media platform. Late last year, Italy began talks about signing a $1.6 billion deal to provide Starlink services to its diplomatic corps and military personnel stationed abroad. But the deal has run into trouble amid allegations that it is the fruit of the cozy relationship between Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and both Trump and Musk.

Musk also threatened to turn off access to Starlink in Ukraine (“Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off,” Musk tweeted a week ago). He has since backtracked off the threat, but it has helped turn public opinion against him in Italy and elsewhere. In addition, Musk’s threat also cause s riff with Poland, when the country’s prime minister, Poland’s foreign minister over the use of the tech billionaire’s Starlink satellite internet system in Ukraine. Musk said on X that Ukraine’s “entire front line” would collapse if he turned the system off, Radoslaw Sikorski,responded to Musk by saying his country pay for Starlink’s use in Ukraine and a threat to shut it down would result in a search for another network. “Starlinks for Ukraine are paid for by the Polish Digitization Ministry at the cost of about $50 million per year,” he said. “The ethics of threatening the victim of aggression apart, if SpaceX proves to be an unreliable provider we will be forced to look for other suppliers.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed Sikorski’s claims and told him to be grateful, while Musk called him a “little man.” Musk has also drawn fire from leaders in the U.K., Germany, and France. Additionally, the Trump administration’s hardline criticisms of Europe are having an impact, according to Hashem Alkhaldi, founder of ReshapeRisks, a London-based geopolitical risk consultancy. “European political considerations are an increasingly important factor for Starlink,” Alkhaldi told Just the News. “U.S. companies, including Starlink, are now likely to be viewed as strategic threats rather than market partners.” Alkhaldi said the change has ramped up efforts in Europe to improve its “strategic autonomy” from the U.S. “Recent developments have only heightened this sensitivity,” he said, likely referring, at least in part, to Trump’s tariffs on the EU and threats to stop U.S. funding to Ukraine in its effort to fend off Russia’s invasion, leaving the task up to European countries.

The problem is, there isn’t a viable global alternative – at least not for the time being. European leaders said earlier this month that they’d step in to help Ukraine replace Starlink’s networks if access to Starlink was blocked. But it’s not clear how they could do that. A spokesman for the European Commission said the entity was looking into helping Ukraine by using Govsatcom – a pooled constellation of satellites from European Union member states – combined with the Iris2 sovereign satellite network that is at least five years from being fully operational. But that would only answer a small fraction of Kyiv’s operational needs. Shares in French satellite operator Eutelsat – for now, Starlink’s most direct competitor – shot up more than 500% in a week as tensions with Starlink escalated. But by most counts, Eutelsat operates just one satellite for around every 12 Starlink has deployed. In a similar circumstance in the U.S., Musk’s top two Teslas cars – Model Y and Model 3 – account for roughly 43% of the country’s electric vehicle sales.

“The Eutelsat network would be pushed to its limits to meaningfully fill the gap Starlink could leave in Ukraine,” Alkhaldi said. “Starlink has technological advantages over European companies, which haven’t had big incentives to grow since there aren’t that many service gaps in Europe. Add to that the fact that Ukraine has relied excessively on Starlink.” Even if it could work, a switch to a new technology would be slow and expensive. Ukraine is estimated to be already using nearly 50,000 proprietary Starlink terminals. Starlink terminals have also proved unusually resistant to Russian electronic interference. There’s no way to know whether the same would be true for Eutelsat and others. What may be more likely than a viable European alternative in the Ukraine war would be one from the other side of the world: China. China’s global communications satellite presence is still modest, but it is ramping up fast. And even as things stand, Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy warns China is already wading into the fray on the Russian side.

“..for the glory of humanity.”

• Moscow Invites Musk To Collaborate On Mars Exploration (RT)

Russian sovereign wealth fund head Kirill Dmitriev has pitched a US-Russia partnership for Mars exploration to Elon Musk. In a post on X on Saturday, Dmitriev, who has also taken on the role of chief economic envoy in the US-Russia talks, noted the importance of space collaboration between the two countries “for the glory of humanity.” Dmitriev’s remarks came in response to Musk’s announcement of a planned 2026 Mars mission. The SpaceX founder stated that the company’s Starship spacecraft is set to depart for Mars next year and will be carrying a Tesla humanoid bot called Optimus. Musk also suggested that human landings on Mars could begin as early as 2029.

“Shall 2029 be the year of a joint US-Russia mission to Mars, @elonmusk? Our minds & technology should serve the glory of humanity, not its destruction,” Dmitriev wrote. He also noted that 2025 marks the 50th anniversary of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first crewed international space mission carried out jointly by then-spaceflight rivals, the US and the Soviet Union, in July 1975. Musk has not yet publicly responded to Dmitriev’s proposal, but the idea has garnered a slew of positive reactions from X users.

“The message is that America wants Greenland, but that Greenland will ultimately need the U.S…”

• Trump’s Overtures Toward Greenland Are Paying Off (DS)

Acquiring Greenland remains a priority for the Trump administration, and there are signs that a deal may be inching closer to happening.You may have missed it, but President Donald Trump referred to Greenland in his joint address to Congress in early March. Trump said to the people of Greenland, “We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.” That short line, “and if you choose,” is significant because it undermines the silly conjecture that Trump is going to take the United States to war with Greenland and NATO or some such nonsense. Sumantra Maitra at The American Conservative wrote that the U.S. purchasing and integrating lands peacefully is very much in line with the country’s traditions.

“The idea that the U.S. would just simply annex Greenland, even by force if needed, is unappealing to a lot of Americans and worse for Europeans,” Maitra wrote. “Peaceful integration and mutually beneficial trade with foreign lands, on the other hand, is as American as, well, apfelstrudel” (the German phrase for apple pie). Gentle, but forceful coaxing is the way to go here to entice the people of Greenland without provoking anti-American backlash. Trump affirmed his commitment to this path on Thursday, too, saying how important he thinks Greenland is for security around the Arctic, through which Russian and Chinese ships frequently pass. The message is that America wants Greenland, but that Greenland will ultimately need the U.S. It will be a mutually beneficial relationship for all. Greenland’s recent elections were a mixed bag but they showed that the potential for a long-term deal is increasing.

The victorious Demokraatit party is considered center right. It’s generally pro-Europe and not currently in favor of U.S. acquisition but leans toward long-term independence. Notably, the second-highest vote-getting Naleraq party—that only trailed Demokraatit by a few points—is the one most strongly amenable to independence (from Denmark) and partnership with the U.S. They will almost certainly be part of the ruling coalition of the country, since the two parties’ combined vote percentage was over 50%. And most importantly of all, the left-wing parties hostile to Trump and the U.S. were soundly defeated. [..] Even NBC News admitted in an analysis of the election that while the pro-U.S. party didn’t win outright, the results are likely good for the White House. It should be noted that Greenland’s voters are typically very much to the Left of Americans. The rightward shift after Trump’s overtures is significant.

Greenland is almost certainly willing to “play ball,” so to speak. And for a good reason. The United States offers huge investment possibilities far beyond the capacity of any European country or collection of countries, and certainly of Greenland alone. Right now, both Denmark and Greenland are trapped in a suboptimal economic situation. Denmark can’t quite invest in Greenland to the degree necessary to make the partnership really pay off and it remains an underdeveloped financial burden as a result. Greenland is rich in natural resources, but the island has a tiny number of people and only a few marginal industries. A great power like the United States could step in and make things happen like never before. The key phrase here is “great power.” Greenland is of more importance now than it has been in decades because there’s been an unmistakable return to international great power competition.

A look at any map of the globe from the top should explain why Greenland is important. It’s straddled by Russia on one side, and China is highly interested in the region, especially its resources. Starting the long-term process of acquiring Greenland signals that the U.S. is not going to let another great power encroach on the territory. It will help build upon the U.S. presence and influence over the Arctic. And it will provide significant investment and job opportunities to Americans and Greenland residents. Trump said to the people of Greenland in his address, “We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.” The Trump administration’s focus on Greenland demonstrates that the U.S. is not content to be a fading power or an economic zone in a global, woke empire. Instead, it will act as a great nation, willing to defend its interests at home and abroad and unwilling to allow other powers to force their way into the Western Hemisphere.

“Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;” “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

• The 4th Circuit Reverses Nationwide Injunction on Ending DEI Funding (Turley)

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the much-covered nationwide injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore regarding ending federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The three-judge panel ruled that Judge Abelson had gone “too far” in seeking to enjoin the federal government across the country. The Fourth Circuit recognized that the executive orders “could raise concerns” about First Amendment rights that might have to be addressed down the road. However, it found Abelson’s “sweeping block went too far.” It also pointed out that the orders were not nearly as unlimited and sweeping as suggested by the district court or the media.

Trump’s orders directed federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts, and further required federal contractors to certify that they implement DEI programs which the Administration believes are discriminatory and violated federal civil rights laws. Those orders are also being challenged in other cases and include “Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;” “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The district court found the orders in the Maryland case to be unconstitutionally “vague” and chilled free speech. That was a victory for the litigants, including the City of Baltimore, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.

In their order, the panel explained that the orders were misrepresented in their scope. Judge Pamela Harris, a Biden appointee, wrote that: “The challenged Executive Orders, on their face, are of distinctly limited scope. The Executive Orders do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion, and they should not be so understood.” Judge Harris also noted that the orders “do not authorize the termination of grants based on a grantee’s speech or activities outside the scope of the funded activities.” Likewise, she noted that the certifications only require pledges not to violate existing federal anti-discrimination laws. Nevertheless, Judge Harris noted that the officials could enforce these orders in unconstitutional ways: “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns,” the judge added.

Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee, agreed with Harris but wanted to emphasize that the enforcement of these orders should not stray from their narrow framing: “I too reserve judgment on how the administration enforces these executive orders.”Judge Diaz, however, went beyond that scope and engaged in a degree of editorialization on the value of DEI programs. “Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,” the judge wrote. “When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people. When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that?… A country does itself no favors by scrubbing the shameful moments of its past.”

The only Trump appointee pushed back on the rhetoric of her colleagues in their defense of DEI policies. Judge Allison Rushing correctly, in my view, objected to the political dimension of such dicta. “Any individual judge’s view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration. A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.” I also found the tenor of the opinion of Chief Judge Diaz to be concerning. The review of an injunction is not an invitation or license to express one’s personal view of the moral or social value of government programs. I share the concern of all three judges with how these orders will be enforced to protect free speech rights. However, we have a court system to address any such abuses if they were to arise. If there are “as applied” violations, they can be raised in the context of a specific case with the courts. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is losing patience with nationwide injunctions from district court judges.

“..unelected bureaucrats were running the country while Biden struggled to remember what day it was..”

• Trump Has Something To Say About the Biden Autopen Scandal (Margolis)

The Biden administration has been caught in what could be one of the most jaw-dropping scandals in presidential history. As PJ Media previously reported, virtually every document during Biden’s presidency was signed by autopen. While the presidential autopen isn’t new—Barack Obama first used it to sign legislation in 2013—the scale of its use under Biden and the circumstances surrounding it are raising serious red flags. Legitimate questions have been raised as to whether use of the autopen was always authorized by Joe Biden, or even if he was aware it was being used to sign documents. The situation has become so alarming that President Trump addressed it directly during his Friday speech at the Department of Justice.

“Crooked Joe Biden got us into a real mess with Russia and everything else he did, frankly,” Trump begain. “But he didn’t know about it and he, generally speaking, signed it with autopen. So how would he know? That autopen is a big deal? I don’t know.” Trump continued, “You know, they’re having, who’s, who’s doing this? When my people come up, Will and all of the people, Steve, they come up and, ‘Sir, this is an executive order.’ They explain it to me and you know, 90% of the time I sign it, 99% of the time I say, ‘Do it,’ but they come up and I sign it. But you don’t use autopen. Number one, it’s disrespectful to the office. Number two, maybe it’s not even valid because you know who’s getting him to sign? He had no idea what the hell he was doing. If he did, all of these bad things wouldn’t be happening right now.”

Even more alarming are the revelations from former Biden White House insiders. One source told the New York Post that they suspect a key aide to Joe Biden may have unilaterally decided what documents to auto-sign. The plot thickens, with anonymous White House sources painting a picture of potential abuse of power. The source explained that “everyone” was worried that a particular aide was exceeding his or her authority, “But no one would actually say it.” “I think [the aide] was using the autopen as standard and past protocol,” the source said. “There is no clarity on who actually approved what — POTUS or [the aide].” Speaker Mike Johnson previously highlighted Biden’s inability to recall signing an LNG (liquified natural gas) exports executive order. Let that sink in—the “president” couldn’t remember signing a major executive order affecting our energy security. But was he even involved in the decision at all?

The left-wing media will try to sweep this under the rug, but the evidence is mounting. We’re potentially looking at a situation where unelected bureaucrats were running the country while Biden struggled to remember what day it was. Former White House staffers can dispute these allegations all they want, but the American people aren’t stupid—we could see what’s happening. This isn’t just about an autopen anymore—it’s about who was really calling the shots in the Biden White House. And the answer to that question should terrify every American who believes in democratic governance. With President Trump speaking of the scandal, you can bet this won’t go away anytime soon. Will we find out that Joe Biden hadn’t authorized and maybe wasn’t even aware that official documents were being signed on his behalf? What happens if we do?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1900579758162788741

“..Under the order, the agencies must reduce their operations and staff to the bare minimum required by law..”

• Trump Orders Cutbacks At State-Run Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at significantly reducing operations at the agency that funds state-sponsored news outlets such as Voice of America and Radio Liberty. The move is part of Trump’s drive to root out wasteful spending, bureaucracy, and corruption in the US government, which has already resulted in the cancelation of programs and significant job cuts within the federal workforce. Signed on Friday, the executive order targets seven federal agencies, including one that provides funding for museums and one that deals with homelessness. It also targets the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees the state-owned Voice of America (VOA), along with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and Radio Free Asia, which are separate not-for-profit entities that are also fully funded from the US budget. All three claim to provide unbiased news to audiences in around 100 countries, but are widely seen as propaganda outlets.

Under the order, the agencies must reduce their operations and staff to the bare minimum required by law. Agency heads have seven days to submit compliance plans outlining which functions are legally mandated. Trump has frequently criticized US-funded media outlets, including VOA, accusing them of being biased. In a speech at the Department of Justice on Friday, he blasted the US media as “corrupt and illegal,” calling them “political arms of the Democrat party.” He singled out CNN and MSNBC, claiming they “literally write 97.6% bad about me,” and vowed to continue eliminating “rogue actors and corrupt forces” within the federal government.

Elon Musk, who leads Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has pushed for a complete shutdown of RFE/RL and VOA. In a post on X last month, the tech billionaire labeled them “radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.” Since then, the Trump administration has reportedly taken nearly full control of the USAGM, imposed a 30-day freeze on its funding, and initiated layoffs, particularly among probationary employees at VOA. Kari Lake, Trump’s newly appointed head of VOA, has supported the cost-cutting measures, but suggested that the agency could still be salvaged. On Thursday, she announced plans to end costly contracts with major wire services such as AP, AFP, and Reuters. In a social media post, Lake said she was “finding a lot of nonsense that the American taxpayer should not be paying for.”

“Trump can authorize Musk and DOGE to do what he simply cannot because of time and resource constraints on him. To argue otherwise is to suggest either that the president can be barred from ensuring that the laws be faithfully executed or that the chief executive must be omniscient..”

• The Swamp Can Scream But DOGE Is on a Lawful Path to Success (DS)

Despite a smattering of preliminary injunctions and administrative stay orders from rogue federal judges, President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is well on its way to accomplishing its worthy goals. And despite what some out-of-control judges are saying, it is acting well within the boundaries of the law. Already, DOGE has exposed wasteful, potentially fraudulent, and truly bizarre spending of taxpayer funds to the tune of $105 billion. For comparison, that’s equivalent to about half the gross domestic product of Kansas and more than twice that of Vermont. Unsurprisingly, DOGE’s work has elicited vehement howls from the parasites of government largess, particularly so-called nongovernmental organizations that have received billions of dollars. They have flooded the courts—engaging in very selective venue shopping to find “their” judges—with multiple lawsuits all alleging that Elon Musk and his team are acting outside of the law.

“NGO” is really a misnomer when you consider that these organizations who call themselves “nongovernmental” are sucking so much money out of the federal government—like Planned Parenthood, which received over half a billion taxpayer dollars in just one year. No way are they “nongovernmental.” But contrary to what it might seem if you read the headlines of The New York Times or watch hysterical outbursts at MSNBC, so far the Trump administration has been relatively successful in defeating those trying to prevent DOGE from finding and stopping the waste of federal funds. To date, about 23 lawsuits have been filed to halt DOGE’s work. Only three have obtained orders adverse to DOGE—and none has successfully stopped DOGE from doing its much-needed work.

For instance, 19 states led by New York asked U.S. District Court Judge Jeannette Vargas to stop DOGE from changing how the Treasury Department performs its work, which included actually recording who payments were going to and what specific congressional appropriation authorized the payment. Gosh, what a radical concept—applying standard business accounting standards to the government! What did Vargas say to this wild request from New York? A resounding “no” to such “broad and sweeping” restraints on the executive branch. Instead, she issued a much narrower injunction limiting who could access personally identifiable information. A Maryland judge also entered a temporary restraining order barring “unauthorized” government employees—i.e., DOGE—from accessing personally identifiable information possessed by the Treasury Department on similar grounds.

Those injunctions presume that Congress can limit the president from reviewing information held by executive branch agencies or authorizing someone to do it for him. That’s a dubious idea when it comes to the president’s inherent executive authority under the Constitution to oversee federal agencies and make sure they are following the law—if necessary, by checking in on their day-to-day operations. And then on March 10, District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that DOGE must respond to a Freedom of Information Act request. In his view, DOGE’s actual structure and work didn’t matter as much as rhetoric around DOGE for determining whether DOGE is an agency that is subject to FOIA. Otherwise, however, DOGE’s challengers are striking out.

When unions sued to block DOGE’s access to data at the Labor Department and two other agencies, Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, denied their request for a temporary restraining order. Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, also refused to issue a temporary restraining order in another lawsuit challenging DOGE’s access to student loan data. And when the Electronic Privacy Information Center broadly challenged DOGE’s access to agency-held information, Judge Rossie Alston, a Trump appointee, also denied an injunction. Even Judge Tanya Chutkan, who presided over special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal prosecution of Trump and demonstrated on numerous occasions that she is no friend of Trump’s, could not find sufficient legal grounds to issue an injunction when 14 states claimed that Musk’s position and role were unconstitutional. As she explained, the states were only speculating that they would be harmed. But as a consolation prize, she did expedite the discovery process in their lawsuit.

That’s not to say that the judges hearing these challenges are not sympathetic to claims that DOGE’s structure or operations somehow raise constitutional flaws. Chutkan, for instance, speculated that Musk might need to be Senate-confirmed and pontificated that DOGE represents an unconstitutional power grab by the president. At the end of the day, however, such speculation—which lies at the heart of many of these lawsuits—is just wrong. Speculations by a judge are totally inappropriate unless the issue has been raised and briefed by the parties, and the judge has examined all the facts, thoroughly researched the law, and come to a conclusion on the merits—or lack thereof—of the claims being made. Keep in mind that it was President Barack Obama who launched the U.S. Digital Service, DOGE’s predecessor, in 2014 and appointed a tech engineer who formerly worked for Google to head the team. Even Obama had an Elon Musk—and no one cried foul then.

Trump’s executive order simply renamed the U.S. Digital Service as DOGE and reorganized it within the Executive Office of the President—and a president has complete control over the structure, organization, and staff of his Executive Office. Neither Congress nor any court can tell him what to do within that office. Aside from that realpolitik observation, Musk isn’t an officer requiring Senate confirmation. Obfuscating rhetoric aside, Musk has no actual power to change or cancel contracts, terminate or halt spending, or create any regulation. He is simply an unofficial adviser to the president with no executive authority of any kind. All he can do is make recommendations—which, as Trump reminded his Cabinet during their first meeting, agency officials can reject.

It is Trump who is vested with the authority under Article II of the Constitution to carry out Congress’ legislative mandates. Thus, he has a constitutional obligation to ensure that bureaucrats inside the executive branch are complying with statutory requirements and that taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

On top of that, the president has inherent constitutional authority to instruct executive officials to gather whatever information is needed to carry out those duties, unless there is a specific statute that limits the president’s authority, is within the constitutional bounds of congressional authority, and does not violate the president’s constitutional position as the head of the executive branch. The notion that federal agencies should police themselves and that the president has no authority to do that (or to receive advice on how to do that from anyone he wants) is nonsense. It is fundamentally contrary to the constitutional mandate that the buck stops with the president. That’s why Trump doesn’t need Congress to pass a law authorizing DOGE to do its work. He has inherent constitutional authority as the chief executive to ensure that federal agencies are following the law.

At bottom, Trump can authorize Musk and DOGE to do what he simply cannot because of time and resource constraints on him. To argue otherwise is to suggest either that the president can be barred from ensuring that the laws be faithfully executed or that the chief executive must be omniscient. Neither is tenable—and the former is unconstitutional. Opponents of reform have retreated to the citadel of judicial activism in a last-ditch attempt to cripple the now-underway restoration of America’s political institutions. But contrary to their claims, DOGE is bringing much-needed sunlight to the swamp of bureaucracy that is the federal government today. And it is doing so well within the legal boundaries set by the Constitution. We can only hope that more unelected judges recognize that fact and stop acting like an imperial judiciary that can override the elected leader of the country.

Wrong chair, dude.

• Federal Judge Tells Trump He Can’t Use the Law to Deport Illegals (Margolis)

Judicial activism was hard at work again on Saturday when a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport members of the notorious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The ruling not only halted deportations but also ordered any flights already in progress under Trump’s directive to turn back and return to the United States, effectively forcing the administration to keep these dangerous criminals on American soil. USA Today has more:

“The order came after Trump on Saturday issued a proclamation, which he signed the day before, that relies on the 18th-century law to deport members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which he said “continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens.” The Alien Enemies allows the deportation without a hearing of anyone from the designated enemy country who is not a naturalized citizen. The law has only been invoked three times while the country was at war, to hasten the removal of citizens of enemy countries. Hours before the proclamation’s release, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Saturday and ordered the government not to deport five Venezuelan nationals cited in a lawsuit brought by two nonprofits, Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union.”

So, yeah, we have a federal judge telling a U.S. president he literally can’t use the law to deport criminal illegals. The judge converted a lawsuit into a class action during a hearing Saturday evening, extending the temporary restraining order to all non-citizens in the U.S. covered by Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The order will remain in place for at least 14 days while litigation proceeds. Trump’s proclamation, which invoked the Act, accused Tren de Aragua, a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization, of conducting hostile actions and irregular warfare against the U.S. at the direction of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro. Another hearing is scheduled for Monday.

Boasberg claims the Alien Enemies Act does not “provide a basis for the president’s proclamation given that the terms invasion, predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by any nation and commensurate to war.” But, that’s not exactly true. “Congress approved the Alien Enemies Act in anticipation of another war against the United Kingdom,” explains USA Today. “It has been invoked three times: during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, according to Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.” However, there is ample precedent for using the law even when not during times of war.

Despite being invoked during wars, former Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman each continued to enforce the law after the end of hostilities, Ebright said. Wilson used it to detain German and Austro-Hungarian immigrants for two years after the end of World War I in 1918. Truman used it for detentions and deportations for six years after the end of World War II in 1945. The Supreme Court upheld Truman’s extension in 1948 by reasoning the end of wartime authorities is a “political” matter. The Trump administration plans to appeal, of course.

Boasberg is the judge who was in charge of FISA when it was being used to illegally spy on Trump as part of an operation to overthrow the president. https://t.co/btXKlSfqB6

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 9, 2024

“Last night, the Constitution appeared to me in a dream and told me to do this..”

“At publishing time, Judge Dithers had been unseated as President by a higher court judge who declared himself President instead..”

• Federal Judge Appoints Himself President (BBee)

The Trump Administration agenda was stopped in its tracks this week after a federal judge appointed himself the new President of the United States. “There’s nothing we can do,” said legal experts. “He’s a federal judge.” Sources confirmed that Judge Mortimer Dithers of the Northern District of California granted himself all the powers of the executive branch in an emergency move to stop Trump. “Last night, the Constitution appeared to me in a dream and told me to do this,” said Judge Dithers. “You can’t argue with that. Also, my word on this is law because I’m a federal judge.”

President Judge Dithers has already issued several executive actions, including orders for Tesla to stop making cars, Elon Musk to punch himself in the face, and Trump to not move his head next time someone shoots at him. “This is the bidding of your new leader,” said Judge Dithers. “So let it be done, by the order of your new Federal Judge President.” Trump later responded to the ruling on Truth Social by accusing the judge of “looking like a potato.” At publishing time, Judge Dithers had been unseated as President by a higher court judge who declared himself President instead.

Clots
https://twitter.com/SenseReceptor/status/1900741265651581263

Elephant

An elephant swimming
pic.twitter.com/p78d7te88s

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 14, 2025

Mother and
https://twitter.com/TheFigen_/status/1900323166557528133

Jurassic

This guy looks like he swam right out of a Jurassic Park movie pic.twitter.com/s7gNz374uo

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) March 15, 2025

Boji

The story of Boji the dog riding public transport for 5 years.

He's still alive and was adopted by billionaire Ömer Koç in 2022.pic.twitter.com/ENn8FCnsxa

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) March 16, 2025

Pizza
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1900989010492760340

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 14 2025

Mar 142025

March 14, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:12 am Finance Tagged with: ceasefire, deficit, EPA, Kellogg, Lavrov, Panama, Putin, Schumer, Tesla, Trump, Zelensky 51 Responses »

Pablo Picasso Rest (Marie-Thérèse Walter) 1932

• Trump ‘Would Like To Meet’ Putin (RT)

• Putin Lists Guarantees Moscow Wants For 30-Day Ceasefire (RT)

• Putin’s Statement On Trump’s Ukraine Ceasefire Proposal (RT)

• Moscow Banned Trump’s Ukraine Envoy From Peace Talks – NBC (RT)

• Zelensky’s Last Stand? Trump’s Push For A Ukraine Settlement (Kortunov)

• Zelensky In Political ‘Final Act’ — FT (RT)

• ‘A Ceasefire Only Benefits Those Who Are Retreating’ (RT)

• Is Putin Being Boxed In by Trump and Zelensky? (Paul Craig Roberts)

• US Deficit Sets Record With $1.1 Trillion In First 5 Months Of FY 2025 (JTN)

• Trump Demands ‘Military Options’ To Control Panama Canal (RT)

• Schumer Throws Contrived Tantrum After Caving To GOP (ZH)

• MTG-Led DOGE House Panel Urges DOJ To Investigate Recent Attacks On Tesla (JTN)

• EPA to Begin the ‘Biggest Deregulatory Action in US History’ (Moran)

• Investors Betting On Russian Return To Western Markets – Bloomberg (RT)

• EU Seeks To Intensify Immigrant Deportations (RT)

• Tariffs are Theft (Ron Paul)

• Clinton-Appointed Judge Slams Trump “Sham” (ZH)

• America and the EU Are Drifting Apart – Moscow Is Watching (Bordachev)

• A Conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov (Larry Johnson)

Lutnick is impressive
https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1899925243189170457

White House Automall
https://twitter.com/AutismCapital/status/1900027336676041126

Elon

If you hate Elon and Tesla, would you answer a few quick questions for me? pic.twitter.com/dcR8ayOQPf

— Kaizen D. Asiedu (@thatsKAIZEN) March 12, 2025

Fox Elon
https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1900061762788974949

Bondi Patel
https://twitter.com/1776Diva/status/1900069765340656088

Artemis

NASA’s Artemis mission isn't about returning to the moon. A 99-page playbook leaked to Blaze News & Glenn TV reveals it's really a $100 billion DEI PROPAGANDA operation, complete with heroes & villains, partnerships with Hollywood, Coca-Cola, & Nike, and even a theme park. pic.twitter.com/ibYHVWCLaG

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) March 13, 2025

Rogan DOGE

Joe Rogan explains the importance of hearing Elon Musk directly talk about USAID cuts instead of hearing it from the media

Every single thing being cut is FULLY transparent and available to view:

Joe Rogan “It’s fascinating because it's like the vampires all out themselves.… pic.twitter.com/a9WcirVZ53

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 11, 2025

“They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is. They’ve known that answer for 40 years..”

• Trump ‘Would Like To Meet’ Putin (RT)

President Donald Trump has expressed his readiness to meet and speak with his Russian counterpart after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was open to a US-proposed ceasefire in Ukraine but raised numerous questions about its practical implementation. The Russian president voiced support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict on Thursday, but warned of loopholes and strategic disadvantages, outlining Moscow’s concerns over how such a truce could be enforced. “[Putin] put out a very promising statement, but it wasn’t complete. And, yeah, I’d love to meet with him or talk to him,” Trump told journalists during a bilateral press conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later in the day. Trump said the US has already discussed many details of a potential “final agreement” with Kiev and is now waiting to see “whether or not Russia is there.”

“We’ve been discussing land with Ukraine… pieces of land that would be kept and lost and all of the other elements of a final agreement. You know, we’ve been discussing concepts of land because you don’t want to waste time with a ceasefire if it’s not going to mean anything,” Trump said. “They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is. They’ve known that answer for 40 years, in all fairness.” Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, visited the Russian capital on Thursday to discuss the results of US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia earlier this week and to relay Moscow’s position back to Washington. Witkoff was also expected to meet with the Russian president behind closed doors in the evening, but officials have yet to confirm whether the meeting took place or to provide details of his other interactions during the brief visit.

Earlier in the day, Putin stated that Russian troops were advancing along nearly 2,000 kilometers of the front line and warned that halting military actions would disrupt their momentum and give Ukrainian forces time to regroup. “These 30 days – how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units?” Putin asked. Enforcing a ceasefire over such a vast battlefield would be difficult, he added, and violations could easily lead to a blame game between both sides. Putin also mentioned that Ukrainian troops who invaded Russia’s Kursk Region in August 2024 are now cut off. “Are we supposed to let them out after they committed mass war crimes against civilians?” he said. The Russian leader suggested that further direct discussions with his American counterpart would be necessary to find a viable solution, but officials have yet to confirm any specific timeline for such talks.

Russia delivers main ceasefire demands to US - Reuters

• No NATO membership for Ukraine
• No NATO ”peacekeepers” in Ukraine
• Ukraine is denazified/demilitarised
• The 4 Donbass regions are recognised as Russian territories plus Crimea

In exchange:
• Cease of all hostilities
• Peace and stability for Ukraine

• Putin Lists Guarantees Moscow Wants For 30-Day Ceasefire (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict but has raised concerns regarding how such a truce be implemented. Speaking on Thursday, Putin warned of potential loopholes and strategic disadvantages. “We also want guarantees that during the 30-day ceasefire, Ukraine will not conduct mobilization, will not train soldiers, and will not receive weapons,” Putin said during a press briefing with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko in Moscow. The president pointed out that Russian troops are advancing along nearly 2,000 kilometers of frontline, and halting military actions could disrupt ongoing operations. Ukrainian forces could use a ceasefire period to regroup, receive more weapons, and train fresh recruits, he warned.

“These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen?” Putin asked. Enforcing a ceasefire over such a vast battlefield would be difficult, he added, violations could be easily disputed, leading to a blame game between both sides. Systems of “control and verification” to monitor a ceasefire are not in place but should be agreed. Putin also mentioned that Ukrainian troops who invaded Russia’s Kursk Region in August 2024 are now cut off. What is to be done with them in the event of a truce is unclear, he noted.

“Are we supposed to let them out, after they committed mass war crimes against civilians? Will the Ukrainian leadership tell them to lay down their arms, and just surrender?” Putin said. As of Wednesday evening, Moscow’s forces have regained control of 86% of the territory that was occupied by Ukrainian forces in August 2024, according to the head of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov. Kiev’s remaining units in the area have been largely “encircled” and “isolated,” he claimed. Putin suggested that discussions with his American counterpart Donald Trump will be necessary to find a viable solution. “The idea of ending the conflict through peaceful means is something we support,” he stressed.

It’s simply not that simple..

“Who will give orders to stop hostilities? And what is the price of these orders? Can you imagine? Almost 2,000 kilometers. Who will determine where and who broke the potential ceasefire? Who will be blamed?”

• Putin’s Statement On Trump’s Ukraine Ceasefire Proposal (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on Thursday that Russia is ready to discuss a ceasefire but that the terms of such an arrangement should be clarified. Putin has said as far back as July 2024 that Moscow is not interested in short-term pauses but is ready to engage on addressing the causes of the conflict. Washington and Kiev both endorsed a 30-day temporary truce following a meeting between their respective delegations in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. Here’s a full transcript of the Russian president’s response:

“Before I assess how I view Ukraine’s readiness for a ceasefire, I would first like to begin by thanking the President of the United States, Mr. Trump, for paying so much attention to resolving the conflict in Ukraine. We all have enough issues to deal with. But many heads of state, the president of the People’s Republic of China, the Prime Minister of India, the presidents of Brazil and South African Republic are spending a lot of time dealing with this issue. We are thankful to all of them, because this is aimed at achieving a noble mission, a mission to stop hostilities and the loss of human lives. Secondly, we agree with the proposals to stop hostilities. But our position is that this ceasefire should lead to a long-term peace and eliminate the initial causes of this crisis. Now, about Ukraine’s readiness to cease hostilities. On the surface it may look like a decision made by Ukraine under US pressure.

In reality, I am absolutely convinced that the Ukrainian side should have insisted on this (ceasefire) from the Americans based on how the situation (on the front line) is unfolding, the realities on the ground. And how is it unfolding? I’m sure many of you know that yesterday I was in Kursk Region and listened to the reports of the head of the General Staff, the commander of the group of forces ‘North’ and his deputy about the situation at the border, specifically in the incursion area of Kursk Region. What is going on there? The situation there is completely under our control, and the group of forces that invaded our territory is completely isolated and under our complete fire control. Command over Ukrainian troops in this zone is lost. And if in the first stages, literally a week or two ago, Ukrainian servicemen tried to get out of there in large groups, now it is impossible.

They are trying to get out of there in very small groups, two or three people, because everything is under our full fire control. The equipment is completely abandoned. It is impossible to evacuate it. It will remain there. This is already guaranteed. And if in the coming days there will be a physical blockade, then no one will be able to leave at all. There will be only two ways. To surrender or die. And in these conditions, I think it would be very good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a truce for at least 30 days. And we are for it. But there are nuances. What are they? First, what are we going to do with this incursion force in Kursk Region? If we stop fighting for 30 days, what does it mean? That everyone who is there will leave without a fight? We should let them go after they committed mass crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership order them to lay down their arms. Simply surrender. How will this work? It is not clear.

How will other issues be resolved on all the lines of contact? This is almost 2,000 kilometers. As you know, Russian troops are advancing almost along the entire front. And there are ongoing military operations to surround rather large groups of enemy forces. These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen? How will the issues of control and verification be resolved? How can we be guaranteed that nothing like this will happen? How will the control be organized? I hope that everyone understands this at the level of common sense. These are all serious issues.

Who will give orders to stop hostilities? And what is the price of these orders? Can you imagine? Almost 2,000 kilometers. Who will determine where and who broke the potential ceasefire? Who will be blamed? These are all questions that demand a thorough examination from both sides. Therefore, the idea itself is the right one, and we certainly support it. But there are questions that we have to discuss. I think we need to work with our American partners. Maybe I will speak to President Trump. But we support the idea of ending this conflict with peaceful means.

Kellogg is an ex-army guy, who comes in with pre-conceived ideas. “Not our kind of person, not of the caliber we are looking for.”

Witkoff is a business man.

• Moscow Banned Trump’s Ukraine Envoy From Peace Talks – NBC (RT)

Keith Kellogg, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to Russia and Ukraine, has been barred from taking part in peace talks at Moscow’s request, NBC News reported on Thursday, citing sources. According to the report, Russian officials view Kellogg as too hawkish and “too close to Ukraine.” The retired US Army lieutenant general was absent from both last month’s Russia-US talks in Saudi Arabia and this week’s US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah. The White House also confirmed that Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will attend the next round of negotiations with Russia instead of Kellogg. Witkoff arrived in Moscow late Thursday. “Kellogg is a former American general, too close to Ukraine,” an unnamed Russian official reportedly told NBC. “Not our kind of person, not of the caliber we are looking for.”

An official in the Trump administration reportedly confirmed that Moscow did not want Kellogg involved in the peace process. Another source claimed that Kellogg’s exclusion “stung” him. Neither Kellogg’s office nor Moscow have commented on the report. While Kellogg has supported Trump’s calls to end the Ukraine conflict, his views on achieving peace have not aligned with Moscow’s. He has backed continued US aid to Kiev, which Russia argues only prolongs the conflict, and advocated for freezing the conflict along the current front lines, which Moscow has rejected in favor of a lasting settlement. Kellogg has also pushed for using frozen Russian sovereign assets to rebuild and rearm Ukraine – an idea that Moscow has called theft.

In an interview with RT Russian on Wednesday, political analyst Malek Dudakov suggested that Kellogg could be permanently removed from negotiations following last month’s tense meeting between Trump and Vladimir Zelensky, which devolved into a shouting match after the Ukrainian leader pushed back against Trump’s demand for peace talks with Russia. This prompted Trump to accuse him of “gambling with World War III” before cutting the meeting short. The fallout reportedly delayed a key US-Ukraine rare-earth minerals deal and led to a temporary suspension of US military aid and intelligence-sharing with Kiev. “Basically, Kellogg was responsible for communication with the Ukrainian side, he instructed the Ukrainians, and we see that all this led to a grand failure. And now he will no longer participate in any new negotiations,” Dudakov told RT.

“The EU establishment has spent years positioning itself as the defender of Kiev, and to be excluded from decisive negotiations would be nothing short of humiliating. However, this is precisely what is happening.”

• Zelensky’s Last Stand? Trump’s Push For A Ukraine Settlement (Kortunov)

As high-stakes diplomacy unfolds between the United States and Ukraine, one thing is clear: President Donald Trump has little personal sympathy for his Ukrainian counterpart, Vladimir Zelensky. Their last meeting at the White House in February only reinforced this reality, with Trump once again treating Zelensky with thinly veiled disdain. There are rational reasons for Trump’s attitude. Zelensky bet too heavily on Joe Biden, tying Ukraine’s fate to the Democratic party. When Biden’s second term never materialized, and Kamala Harris crashed and burned, Kiev was left without a reliable sponsor in Washington. Trump’s instincts – both personal and political – place him in direct opposition to figures like Zelensky, who, despite also being an unconventional political outsider, represents a style of governance fundamentally at odds with the US president’s worldview.

What is particularly striking is Trump’s open criticism of Zelensky, a direct violation of established diplomatic norms. The White House has even floated the idea of his resignation – a notion recently reported by the German media outlet Bild. According to these reports, Trump no longer sees Zelensky as a viable ally and is exerting significant political pressure to force him out. The administration has not denied these claims. However, gaining Trump’s approval is no easy feat. Among today’s political heavyweights, very few leaders have managed to earn his genuine respect. The capricious and ego-driven 47th president of the United States has little patience for the leadership class of the European Union, nor for the leaders of America’s immediate neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

Trump appears far more at ease with strong, authoritative figures who project power – leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and, most notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet, in politics – as in business – one does not always get to choose one’s partners. Throughout his career in the highly competitive and often ruthless New York real estate market, Trump had to engage with individuals with questionable reputations. In that sense, his approach to international politics is no different from his business dealings: pragmatism trumps sentimentality. Trump’s interest in Ukraine is not about personal affinity; rather, he views the country as an asset in which the US has made a substantial investment. While he did not personally decide to back Kiev, he now finds himself responsible for managing America’s stake in the conflict, and like any businessman, he wants a return on investment.

This is why Trump’s approach is not one of immediate disengagement. He is looking for ways to extract value – whether through Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, transport and logistics infrastructure, fertile black soil, or other material assets. He does not want to simply write it off as a sunk cost, at least not before attempting to recoup some of America’s losses. Thus, his administration is attempting to force Kiev into a settlement on terms dictated by Washington. This effort culminated in Tuesday’s meeting in Riyadh, where Trump’s negotiators presented Zelensky’s team with a stark choice: accept the US conditions – including a ceasefire or partial cessation of hostilities – or risk complete abandonment.

Before this crucial meeting, Zelensky reportedly sent an apology letter to Trump, attempting to smooth over the tensions which followed their embarrassing White House encounter. According to US special envoy Steve Witkoff, this was an effort to salvage what remains of Ukraine’s negotiating position. Trump remains deeply skeptical of Zelensky’s ability to deliver on any agreement. The Ukrainian president’s credibility has been severely undermined, and his capacity to negotiate on behalf of his country’s political elite is far from certain. After all, Trump has learned from past experience that promises made by Kiev do not always translate into action. Following the Riyadh meeting, Trump’s attention turned to the far more consequential issue: negotiations with Moscow. Unlike Zelensky, Putin is negotiating from a position of strength, which makes any agreement far more complex. The days when the West could dictate terms to Russia are long over, and Trump likely understands that his leverage with Moscow is limited.

If Trump can reach an understanding with Putin, then the next stage of this process will involve forcing Western European nations to accept the new geopolitical reality. For Washington’s European allies, who have invested heavily in Ukraine, this will be a bitter pill to swallow. The EU establishment has spent years positioning itself as the defender of Kiev, and to be excluded from decisive negotiations would be nothing short of humiliating. However, this is precisely what is happening. The bloc’s leaders, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have been reduced to spectators, offering empty declarations of support for Ukraine while having no real influence over the outcome of events. For them, a settlement brokered by Trump without their participation would be the ultimate confirmation of their diminishing role in global affairs. Worse still, much of Western Europe’s investment in Ukraine – both financial and political – will likely be lost. While the Biden administration at least attempted to keep European allies involved in decision-making, Trump has no such inclination.

His goal is to conclude a deal that serves American interests, and he is unlikely to show concern for the reputational damage this will inflict on the EU’s political elite. The situation now presents Trump with one of the biggest diplomatic challenges of his presidency. Unlike in business, where deals can be walked away from, geopolitical agreements have long-lasting consequences. His ability to navigate this complex landscape – balancing pressure on Kiev, negotiating with Moscow, and sidelining Western Europe – will determine whether he can claim victory as a peacemaker. Ultimately, Ukraine’s fate is no longer in its own hands. The decisions made in Washington, Moscow, and – ironically – Riyadh will shape the country’s future. Whether Trump can strike a deal that satisfies all parties remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Ukraine’s days as the central pillar of the West’s confrontation with Russia are coming to an end.

Any paper he signs comes (pre-)loaded with legality questions.

• Zelensky In Political ‘Final Act’ — FT (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky’s leadership is coming to an end, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing a senior Kiev’s official. The article comes amid growing concern in Washington over Zelensky’s legitimacy. Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024. However, he has refused to hold a new election, referring to martial law imposed during the conflict with Russia. The current US administration has recently been trying to negotiate a path toward ending hostilities. US President Donald Trump briefly halted military assistance and intelligence sharing with Kiev, but resumed it following a bilateral meeting in Saudi Arabia earlier this week.

“We are in the final act [of Zelensky’s presidency],” a senior Ukrainian official told FT, confirming growing speculation in the country’s political circles over how long he will stay in office. The official also described the conflict with Russia as currently in a “hot phase.” According to Ukrainian soldiers, analysts, and officials cited by the newspaper, Kiev would be able to keep fighting for “at least six months” in case of a complete halt of military assistance from the US. They said, however, that it could be longer if the EU fills the gap and domestic arms production intensifies. Unnamed Western officials told FT that apart from a lack of weapons and ammunition, Zelensky’s leadership could be challenged by a shortage of men in the ranks, which remains Ukraine’s most pressing problem.

In November 2024, the administration of then US President Joe Biden urged Kiev to draft more troops and reduce the minimum conscription age from 25 to 18 to tackle a manpower shortage. The Ukrainian authorities rejected the proposal at the time, claiming that the main problem for the country’s forces was a lack of weapons. FT noted that Zelensky’s political opponents are currently “preparing for elections, forming alliances, and testing public messaging.” Several politicians have reportedly begun outreach to officials in the Trump administration.

Zelensky, whose presidential term expired in May 2024, has refused to hold new presidential and parliamentary elections, citing martial law due to the conflict with Moscow. Last month, US President Donald Trump questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, branding him a “dictator without elections.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has cast doubt on Zelensky’s position as well. Shortly after his official term as the country’s head of state expired nearly a year ago, the Russian president called the Ukrainian parliament the only legitimate authority. Putin recently reiterated that the Ukrainian leader no longer has the right to sign official agreements.

“5 of Russia’s top foreign relations experts and actors react to US-Ukraine talks.”

• ‘A Ceasefire Only Benefits Those Who Are Retreating’ (RT)

Political analyst Sergey Markov: Reasons why Russia might refuse a ceasefire:

1. A ceasefire would be exploited by the West and Ukraine to halt the advance of the Russian army, strip it of its initiative, supply the Ukrainian army with more weapons, continue extensive mobilization in Ukraine, and strengthen the repressive and anti-Russian nature of the Ukrainian political regime

2. The experience of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements clearly demonstrates this pattern

3. The consistent dishonesty of Western politicians and media regarding the conflict, as well as their refusal to acknowledge their own and Ukraine’s culpability, strongly suggests that history will repeat itself

4. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly stated that what Russia needs is lasting peace, not just a temporary ceasefire

5. The West cannot really be trusted

6. Russia is advancing. A ceasefire always benefits those who are retreating.

“If Putin doesn’t agree to a cease fire, he risks offending Trump’s ego. Does Trump then become coercive because he is on the line with his promise to end the conflict?”

• Is Putin Being Boxed In by Trump and Zelensky? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Trump and Zelensky have agreed on a cease fire, a pause in the conflict. How does this benefit Russia? It doesn’t. The Ukrainian military is collapsing on all fronts. 86% of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk has been retaken, and the remaining Ukrainian forces are surrounded. What remains of the Ukrainian military is retreating from the few kilometers of Russian territory still occupied in the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions that have been reincorporated into Russia. A cease fire is the last thing Russia needs when Russia is on the verge of total victory. Russia should be imposing surrender terms on Zelensky, Trump, and Europe. Russia has won the conflict. Why agree to a negotiation? The victor dictates the surrender terms. If Russia’s surrender terms are not accepted, Russia should proceed with the conquest of the entirety of Ukraine and reincorporate Ukraine into Russia where it historically belongs.

It was Washington taking advantage of the Soviet collapse that cut out Ukraine from its historic multi-century home as part of Russia. Are Putin and Lavrov too besotted with good will toward the West, which has been trying to destroy Russia, to understand the basics? Does Putin understand that Trump should first have come to him, worked out the terms of surrender between them, and imposed them on Zelensky, who in fact is not a legitimate head of government as his term in office has expired? Putin is correct. There needs to be a Ukrainian election that installs a legal government to whom to dictate the terms of surrender. What is the worth of a document signed by an illegal occupant of office? If Putin agrees with the Trump-Zelenzky cease fire, will it obligate Putin to agree to a settlement that is less than victory?

A cease fire would halt the Russian advance, provide Ukraine with time to rebuild with the weapons now again supplied by Trump. Will negotiations be a repeat of Putin’s Minsk mistake which cost Russia so dearly? If Putin denies Russia a victory, could he be removed from office? Peace must be conclusive. Cease fires never are. If memory serves, the Korean War in the 1950s is still governed by a cease fire, and antagonisms still exist between North and South Korea with Washington still adding to the confrontation. From what I know of Russia’s Westernized intellectual class that influences Putin and Lavrov, they are Westernized to the point of treason. Putin needs a Russian government occupied and advised by Russian nationalists. Otherwise Russia will remain a target despite its unrivaled weapons systems. In my column on March 11, I asked, “What should Trump do about Ukraine?” I answered:

“To end the conflict Trump doesn’t need to be holding meetings and talking about meetings with Putin, Zelensky, EU or anyone. It is extremely simple for Trump to end the conflict as far as the US is concerned. All he has to do is to make the hold he has put on delivery of weapons permanent and withdraw all US operatives in the proxy conflict with Russia. Without the US supplying weapons, intelligence, targeting information and money to keep the conflict alive, the conflict will quickly end. This is what Trump needs to tell Putin: “I know Washington is responsible for this conflict. I am withdrawing Washington’s participation. The conflict would not have happened if the Democrats had not stolen the 2020 election. I am cancelling the sanctions. I will be accused by the Democrats and the presstitutes of selling out Ukraine to you. Your job is to be merciful to Ukraine. As the US is responsible for the conflict, the US will help you to rebuild a demilitarized Ukraine in which economic advancement takes precedent over war. You must not fail my good intentions, or the Cold War will resume.”

As I asked later in my column, can Trump’s ego permit him to allow the settlement on Putin’s terms? For three years Putin has been slowly fighting a conflict that a capable war leader would have ended in three weeks. Putin’s failure as a war leader is clear. Putin, being sufficiently Westernized, never realized that his never-ending war would result in negotiations in which he was the last participant included. As Trump and the illegitimate Zelensky have arrived at a cease fire, the pressure is on Putin to join in, or Russia will be reviled for blocking a settlement with intentions of proceeding from the conquest of Ukraine to the conquest of Europe. If Putin joins in the cease fire, he risks Russia’s victory being watered down by the terms of a negotiated settlement.

Russia has been in many ways an easy target for the West. Soviet Communism having bred distrust of Russian government, has left Russian intellectuals easy pickings for Western propaganda. Many Russian intellectuals represent the West, not Russia. This Russian vulnerability has been skillfully exploited by the West. The question remains: How serious are Putin’s mistakes in his dealings with Washington? By permitting a conflict to continue until the initiative for its end passed into Washington’s hands, Putin has lost the initiative. If Putin doesn’t agree to a cease fire, he risks offending Trump’s ego. Does Trump than become coercive because he is on the line with his promise to end the conflict? Does Putin submit to Trump’s coercion? The outlook for this conflict being resolved is not as good as it seemed.

Better call Elon.

• US Deficit Sets Record With $1.1 Trillion In First 5 Months Of FY 2025 (jTN)

The United States’ deficit increased by a record-breaking $1.1 trillion during the first five months of the current fiscal year, new data from the Treasury Department showed. The new numbers, released Wednesday, showed the deficit between October 2024 and February 2025. The unadjusted increase saw a surge of $1.147 trillion, while the deficit for the same period in fiscal year 2024 was $828 billion. The deficit for February alone was $307 billion. The deficit is largely driven by spending on interest, military programs, public benefits and security, according to the financial news outlet Barron’s. The largest spending costs came from interest paid on the public debt and higher tax credits.

A Treasury department spokesperson told CNBC that there has been limited impact from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, which is attempting to reduce wasteful government spending. But the department’s operations have only been active for one month. One exception has been the Education Department, per Barron’s, where expenditures were lower by $5.6 billion in February compared to the year before. President Donald Trump’s tariffs also did not appear to impact February’s deficit, but could impact March’s. The current fiscal year runs from October 2024 through September 2025.

“President Jose Raul Mulino stated that the canal is part of Panama’s “inalienable patrimony”..

But Americans built it..

• Trump Demands ‘Military Options’ To Control Panama Canal (RT)

The Panama Canal, a vital maritime route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, has been under Panamanian control since 1999 following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which stipulated that it would remain neutral and open to all nations. Trump has repeatedly threatened to take back control of the waterway, citing the “ridiculous fees” and concerns over China’s increasing presence in the region. Earlier this year, Trump refused to rule out the use of military force to take control of the canal, stating that all options are on the table to protect US economic and national security interests. In an Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance memo obtained by CNN on Thursday, the White House formally asked the Pentagon to “immediately” provide options to ensure unlimited US access to the canal.

“Provide credible military options to ensure fair and unfettered US military and commercial access to the Panama Canal,” one of the directives in the memo reportedly stated. US Southern Command is already developing potential plans, ranging from “partnering” closely with Panamanian security forces to a scenario in which US troops seize the canal by force, unnamed officials told NBC. Sources cited by Reuters also said the Pentagon had been ordered to explore military options to secure US access to the waterway.

Panamanian officials 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 stated that the canal is part of Panama’s “inalienable patrimony” and stressed that Panama maintains full control of its operations. However, after US Secretary of State Marco 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.

Chuck is shrinking before our eyes….

• Schumer Throws Contrived Tantrum After Caving To GOP (ZH)

Update (2145ET): After bending the knee to the GOP and agreeing to vote ‘yes’ on the House-passed continuing resolution to fund the government through September, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered a contrived outburst on MSNBC, calling Republicans ‘bastards’ before quickly correcting himself. “To have the conflict on the best ground we have, summed up in a sentence, that they’re making the middle class pay for tax cuts for billionaires?” said Schumer. “It’s much, much better not to be in the middle of a shutdown, which should divert people from the number one issue we have against these bastards, sorry, these people, which is not only all these cuts, but they’re ruining democracy.” How many times did he practice that in the mirror? Schumer also raged on X after bending the knee, writing that “a shutdown would be a gift,” and “the best distraction he could ask for from his awful agenda.”

Whatever you say Chuck…

* * *
Update (1800ET): And there it is… in a complete reversal following a closed-door lunch, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told fellow Democrats that he would vote for cloture tomorrow morning on the GOP stopgap, according to Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman – who notes that 6 more Democrats will need to follow their leader after Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) already said he would (see below). “I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down,” Schumer announced on the Senate floor Thursday, adding that a shutdown “would give Donald Trump and Elon Musk carte blanche.” As we noted below, the most likely scenario looks to be the case; Dems will provide the necessary votes to pass the GOP bill, in exchange for Senate Republican leaders granting them a performative amendment vote on the Democrats’ separate CR proposal (which means absolutely nothing aside from putting their dissent on record).

* * *
With tomorrow’s shutdown deadline looming (and the House gone on recess until March 24), Senate Democrats are scrambling to both kill the GOP bill that passed the house, and avoid the optics of a shutdown falling squarely on their shoulders after minority leader Chuck Schumer categorically rejected the bill on Wednesday, and instead floated a 30-day continuing resolution which would allow Democrats to stuff it full of their own pork to include in a revised package (that he doesn’t have the votes for)… As the Senate opened Thursday, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) – who filed cloture on the House-passed CR on Wednesday – said, “It’s time to fish or cut bait.”

And as the Associated Press notes, debates over funding the federal government routinely erupt in deadline moments but this year it’s showing the political leverage of Republicans, newly in majority control of the White House and Congress, and the shortcomings of Democrats who are finding themselves unable to stop the Trump administration’s march across federal operations. Given that the Senate has 53 Republicans, one of whom is a definite ‘no’ (Rand Paul of Kentucky), at least eight Democrats need to cross party lines to avert a shutdown at midnight on Friday. According to the chaps at Punchbowl News, there’s really two ways this can play out at this point:

Option one: Democrats can fold and take the deal on the table – providing the votes needed to advance the House GOP’s stopgap spending bill in exchange for a symbolic amendment vote on their own 28-day funding extension. This would be pure theater, giving Democrats the chance to go on record opposing a shutdown while letting Republicans push through their own bill anyway. The government stays open, Schumer saves face with progressives, and Republicans get what they wanted all along. But make no mistake – this wouldn’t be a win for Schumer (a “fake BBQ’ing Palestinian”), who floated a 28-day CR that doesn’t have the votes to pass, even with a simple majority. Meanwhile, Republicans can sit back and let the clock force the issue. Time isn’t on the Democrats’ side, and at some point, they’ll have to face reality.

Option two: Schumer and Senate Democrats hold the line, block the House CR, and force a government shutdown. That means federal workers furloughed, services delayed, and chaos come Monday morning when the full effects hit. And here’s the kicker – Trump’s people at the Office of Management and Budget get to decide exactly how painful this shutdown will be. White House sources are already warning that the former president will make sure Democrats feel every bit of the pressure. But here’s where it gets ugly for Schumer: what’s the exit strategy? There isn’t one. The House is gone, meaning there’s no magic fix coming. And at some point, Democrats will have to explain why shutting down the government over a short-term CR that never had a shot at passing was somehow worth it.

So those are the choices: take the loss now and move on, or hold out, take the blame for the shutdown, and likely still take the loss later. Either way, Trump and Musk are watching from the sidelines, ready to make their next move while Washington does what it does best—trip over itself in broad daylight. According to the White House, “They’re totally screwed.”

You would hope the FBI is on it.

• MTG-Led DOGE House Panel Urges DOJ To Investigate Recent Attacks On Tesla (JTN)

The House’s Department of Government Efficiency panel, led by GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, is asking the Justice Department to investigate Tesla vehicles being vandalized and destroyed since EV car company’s owner, Elon Musk, became a White House appointee. “These attacks, which seem to involve coordinated acts of vandalism, arson, and other acts of violence, seriously threaten public safety,” the DOGE subcommittee wrote in a letter Wednesday to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.

Multiple Tesla cars, charging stations and dealerships have been vandalized since Musk began leading the Trump administration DOGE, according to ABC News. The letter listed examples such as Tesla charging stations being set on fire in Boston and Tesla cyber-trucks being set on fire in Seattle. Greene asked whether non-governmental organizations were involved in the attack. “If NGOs are linked to these attacks, has federal funding been provided to any of them?” the letter reads. “The American public deserves transparency and assurance that their tax dollars are not being used to fund domestic political terrorism.”

“The EPA will “reconsider” 31 major environmental actions ranging from emissions standards for automobiles to the legal theory underpinning climate change..”

• EPA to Begin the ‘Biggest Deregulatory Action in US History’ (Moran)

On Wednesday, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin outlined the most ambitious deregulation scheme in the history of the U.S. government. The EPA will “reconsider” 31 major environmental actions ranging from emissions standards for automobiles to the legal theory underpinning climate change. It’s truly breathtaking. However, announcing the reconsideration is only the first step. Now must come the long, drawn-out rulemaking process that will set guidelines on how the agency can proceed to repeal the regulations. That process alone will take many months, if not years, and green groups will challenge it every step of the way.

“These are all rules and regulations. They can’t just wish them away with a press release. You have to tear a regulation down the same way it was built up. They have to make a proposal for each one of these things and explain the reasoning and show evidence, and they have to have public comment and respond to public comment and then reach a final decision and defend it in court,” said David Doniger, the senior strategist and attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and energy department. “We’re going to fight them every step of the way.” Indeed, the work it will take to “reconsider” these regulations and repeal them makes me think this move by Zeldin has more to do with politics than government. Some of these rules have been upheld by the Supreme Court, including the climate change “endangerment finding” that undergirds the bulk of climate law.

Zeldin can’t just wave a magic wand and get rid of it. “This is crazy. This is insane,” said Jason Rylander, the legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “There have been attempts to limit the authority of EPA, but the scale and scope and speed with which this administration is attacking environmental safeguards is unprecedented.” It’s not “crazy” by any means. Remember that these environmental advocates think any word ever turned into regulation is holy writ and can’t be changed, or Gaia will strike us down. “Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S., and more,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin.

“Alongside President Trump, we are living up to our promises to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, and work hand-in-hand with our state partners to advance our shared mission,” he added. As you might expect, some EPA staffers are approaching vapor lock. “Simply put, this is embarrassing,” one EPA worker said. “This is not the EPA we have dedicated our careers to. Instead of highlighting the importance of protecting human health and the environment, this administration is highlighting cutting cost in dollar figures while ignoring the human cost. The air we breathe and water we drink is a collective human right and more valuable than any dollar figure.”

No one is saying that air and water are not more valuable than dollars and cents. But neither are EPA regulations the word of god and can’t be changed. This particular employee actually believes that there’s no agenda attached to any of these regulations, an agenda that has little to do with protecting the environment. Even conservative judges are going to have a hard time with Trump’s EPA getting rid of most of these regulations. That’s why I suspect politics is the driving force in these actions by Zeldin and Trump, giving heart to the faithful and confusion to the enemy.

“..(NDFs), a financial derivative that allows investors to bet on a currency’s future value without actual exchange. By not involving physical Russian assets or individuals, they remain outside the scope of current sanctions.”

• Investors Betting On Russian Return To Western Markets – Bloomberg (RT)

Investors are quietly betting that US President Donald Trump’s recent initiatives to negotiate a peace deal in the Ukraine conflict could lead to Russia’s return to Western financial markets, Bloomberg reported on Thursday. The US and its allies have slapped numerous rounds of sanctions on Moscow since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Russia has been cut off from Western investments and its largest stock exchange has been sanctioned. In recent weeks, traders at a London brokerage have been seeking to buy Russian securities, an asset largely avoided over the past three years, Bloomberg reported. Their focus has been on buying dollar-denominated bonds issued by Russian energy giant Gazprom.

Investors are speculating that heavily discounted Russian securities could surge in value if Ukraine-related sanctions imposed on Moscow are lifted, the outlet stated. Investors “understand that as soon as there’s a thaw, these discounts will collapse,” Iskander Lutsko, Dubai-based head of research and portfolio management at Istar Capital, told Bloomberg. Money managers report that sales teams are assessing interest in staking on the ruble through non-deliverable forwards (NDFs), a financial derivative that allows investors to bet on a currency’s future value without actual exchange. By not involving physical Russian assets or individuals, they remain outside the scope of current sanctions.

Major US investment banks Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have reportedly been brokering ruble-linked derivative contracts to meet growing investor interest in Russian-related assets. “There’s an aggressive search for securities of Russian issuers around the world,” Evgeny Kogan, a Moscow-based investment banker, told Bloomberg. “Investors in general are asking how quickly they can enter the Russian market.” According to the report, Russia’s potential reintegration into the Western financial system could unlock hundreds of billions of dollars.

Uh-oh, there goes Mutti’s promised land..

• EU Seeks To Intensify Immigrant Deportations (RT)

The European Commission has formally proposed to harmonize deportation rules across the EU. The current regulations, which vary by state, allow those who have been denied the right to remain in the bloc lawfully to exploit the system, resulting in a 20% deportation rate. President Ursula von der Leyen has labeled the figure “by far, too low.” The proposed rules “will ensure that those who have no right to stay in the EU are actually returned” to their countries of origin, EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, has claimed.

The 87-page document unveiled on Tuesday will require immigrants to cooperate with authorities, permit the extended detention of asylum seekers, and introduce the mutual recognition of deportation orders among member states. The reforms aim to encourage voluntary returns and close loopholes currently exploited by illegal immigrants who evade forced repatriation by moving between EU countries.The plan will establish “return hubs” – deportation centers in third countries willing to accept expelled individuals from the EU. If approved by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, the new system is set to take effect in mid-2027.

Illegal immigration has remained a hot-button issue in the EU since the 2015 crisis, which saw over a million people arrive in member states. The authorities’ decision to welcome this influx sparked a backlash from several Eastern European nations, citing threats to security and culture. Political guidelines issued by von der Leyen last July pledged to strengthen the EU’s borders and crack down on human trafficking, a significant driver of illegal immigration.

Interesting when compared to Paul Craig Roberts yesterday, who said:

“Trump has spoken of substituting tariffs for the income tax. This is a brilliant thought.
The income tax taxes labor and capital, factors of production. Thus income tax reduces GDP and living standards.”

• Tariffs are Theft (Ron Paul)

The US and China came closer to a full-fledged trade war last week when China imposed tariffs of up to 15 percent on key US agricultural exports. This was retaliation for President Trump’s increasing of tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States from 10 percent to 20 percent. China’s retaliatory tariffs show how export-dependent industries are harmed by protectionist policies. Even if other countries refrain from imposing retaliatory tariffs, exporters can still suffer from reduced demand for their products in countries targeted by US tariffs. Businesses that rely on imported materials to manufacture their products also suffer from increased production costs thanks to tariffs. President Trump acknowledged how tariffs harm US manufacturers when he granted US automakers’ request for a one-month delay in new tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada.

Many American consumers who are struggling with high prices are concerned that President Trump’s tariff policy will further increase prices. They are right to be concerned. Contrary to popular belief, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs. Tariffs are paid by US businesses that wish to sell the imported goods. When tariffs are increased, the importing businesses try to recoup their increased costs by increasing their prices. Consumers then must choose whether to pay the higher price, find a cheaper alternative, or do without the product. Whatever they choose, consumers will be worse off because they cannot spend their money the way they prefer.Tariffs may provide a short-term benefit to the protected businesses. However, tariffs could keep businesses alive that should be allowed to fail so the business owners and workers can put their talents to use in other endeavors that would more greatly benefit and the whole economy.

Defenders of tariffs, including President Trump, claim the revenue from tariffs can be used to “offset” the revenue government loses from tax cuts. Some even claim that tariffs can generate enough revenue to allow the government to repeal the income tax. The problem with this is that a tariff brings in more revenue to “pay for” tax cuts only to the extent the tariff does not cause consumers to cease buying imported goods. Thus, the tariffs, to bring revenue to the government, must not be large enough to discourage Americans from buying foreign products. The more tariffs increase government revenue, the more they will tend to fail in bringing about another often promoted tariff goal — an increase in the purchase of domestic goods.

According to the Tax Foundation, if President Trump’s tariff plan for China, Mexico, and Canada were fully implemented, it would increase federal tax revenue by 142 billion dollars this year — an average tax increase of over one thousand dollars per household. The tariffs would also decrease economic output. This does not account for the decline in consumer satisfaction caused by consumers being forced to alter their consumption choices because of government-caused price increases. It also does not account for the new businesses, products, and jobs that could have been created had government not drained resources from the productive economy via tariffs. The economic effects are a good enough reason to oppose raising tariffs. However, the main reason to oppose tariffs is that tariffs, like all taxes (including the inflation tax), are theft.

Mr. policy-maker. He should move into the White House. ‘You can only fire people if i say so’..

• Clinton-Appointed Judge Slams Trump “Sham” (ZH)

San Francisco based… check. Clinton appointed… check. So how do you think the case against President Trump firing federal probationary staff went? Bingo… U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office to sidestep legal requirements for reducing the federal workforce. Politico reports that Alsup, a San Francisco-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, ordered the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs departments to “immediately” offer all fired probationary employees their jobs back. The Office of Personnel Management, the judge said, had made an “unlawful” decision to terminate them. The order is one of the most far-reaching rejections of the Trump administration’s effort to slash the bureaucracy and is almost certain to be appealed.

“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross examination would reveal the truth,” the judge said to a DOJ attorney during a hearing Thursday. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth. … I’m tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth.” The judge called the move “a gimmick.” Alsup also said the Office of Personnel Management couldn’t give guidance on who to terminate, according to ABC News. “It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said. Do those sound like the findings of a non-partisan, legally-trained, judicially-independent member of the bench? And on it goes…

“Washington is increasingly making it clear that Western Europe must contribute more while receiving less in return.”

• America and the EU Are Drifting Apart – Moscow Is Watching (Bordachev)

The geopolitical unity of the West, often perceived as a monolithic front against Russia, is showing visible fractures. The question now is whether Moscow should actively encourage the widening rift between the United States and Western Europe – or simply sit back and let history take its course. For now, the EU states are desperate to avoid responsibility for the crisis in Ukraine. This was evident in Brussels’ immediate endorsement of the latest US-Ukraine talks, signaling relief that Washington is still managing the situation. European leaders had feared that the new American administration under Donald Trump might offload the burden onto them, forcing them to take direct responsibility for confronting Russia. That nightmare, at least for now, has been postponed. But the larger strategic question remains: How long can this uneasy balance last?

Is the US-Europe rift temporary or permanent? The unity of the collective West – a term used to describe the US and its European allies acting as a single political and military bloc – was never an absolute certainty. It was always dependent on American leadership, which is now undergoing major internal shifts. Trump’s return has signaled a profound shift in Washington’s strategic thinking. While the US remains the most militarized and economically powerful country in the Western alliance, it is now experiencing an identity crisis. The ruling elite in Washington knows it must redefine its role in a world where its global dominance is being challenged. This raises a critical question: Can the US and Western Europe continue as a united front, or is their strategic divergence inevitable? For Moscow, this is more than just a theoretical debate. If the West’s unity was merely a temporary phenomenon – a product of post-World War II security arrangements and Cold War politics – then it follows that Russia must consider whether and how to encourage this fragmentation.

The US political crisis and its impact on Europe The deepening internal crisis in the US is one of the main reasons the EU is being forced into an uncomfortable position. First, America’s economic model is under strain. For decades, Washington sustained its dominance by attracting cheap labor from Latin America while maintaining global economic hegemony. But the mass migration crisis has turned into a politically explosive issue, with growing resistance to uncontrolled immigration. Second, the old neoliberal model of globalization is breaking down. Many nations no longer accept a US-led order that imposes unequal economic relationships. This has led to an emergence of independent power centers – from China and India to Middle Eastern states – that refuse to play by Washington’s rules. Finally, the conflict in Ukraine has exposed the limits of American power. Russia’s ability to withstand three years of Western pressure – economically, militarily, and diplomatically – has forced Washington to reconsider its strategy. The US has never faced a direct geopolitical confrontation with China, and its approach toward Beijing remains one of cautious engagement. But with Russia, it has now met a determined adversary that refuses to bend.

Western Europe’s dilemma: dependence or independence? For the EU, any major shift in US policy is a cause for alarm. Since World War II, Western European elites have relied on American military protection while enjoying economic prosperity under the US-led global order. In exchange for this security umbrella, these states surrendered much of their foreign policy independence. Despite its economic weight, the EU has largely functioned as a political appendage of Washington. This has come at a cost: Western European leaders have little say in critical global decisions, and their fate remains tied to decisions made in the US. Now, with Washington signaling it wants to shift its focus – both in military and economic terms – the bloc finds itself in a precarious situation.

Western Europe lacks the demographic and financial resources to turn itself into a military superpower. The idea of building an independent EU defense structure is often discussed but remains unrealistic. Without U.S. support, these states cannot sustain a large-scale conflict with Russia. Also, Washington is increasingly making it clear that Western Europe must contribute more while receiving less in return. The US political class knows that economic resources are finite, and American taxpayers are questioning why they should continue subsidizing European security. The rise of populist and nationalist movements across Europe – many of which favor detente with Moscow – adds another layer of complexity. Washington’s support for non-mainstream European politicians, such as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) or Romania’s banned presidential candidate Calin Georgescu, signals an emerging divide.

How should Russia respond? Moscow must recognize that any long-term fracturing of the West works to its strategic advantage. History shows that Russia has been most successful in its geopolitical struggles when the West was divided. During the Northern War, Peter the Great’s Russia exploited divisions within Europe’s anti-Swedish coalition; in the Napoleonic Wars, Russia aligned with Britain – normally a rival – to defeat France. During World War II, the Soviet Union benefited from the split between the US and Nazi Germany’s former allies. Conversely, when the West has acted as a single entity, Russia has faced its most significant challenges – such as during the Cold War, which led to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Given these historical lessons, it would be unwise for Moscow to ignore opportunities to accelerate the split between Washington and its European allies. Russia must continue engaging with Trump’s team while indirectly supporting voices in Europe who favor a more balanced approach to Russia. Moscow should deepen its bilateral economic ties with individual European countries, bypassing Brussels’ restrictive policies wherever possible. Any serious attempt by Western Europe to build an independent military bloc should be closely monitored – though in reality, such plans remain far-fetched.

The future of the West is uncertain While Trump’s arrival has disrupted the status quo, it remains unclear whether this is just a temporary setback for transatlantic unity or the beginning of a permanent shift. If Washington continues down the path of reducing its commitments to Europe, the EU will face an identity crisis – one that may ultimately lead to a loss of American influence over EU politics. For Russia, this presents an opportunity. By carefully navigating these developments, Moscow can ensure that any cracks in the Western alliance become permanent fractures – shaping a world where American and Western European interests no longer align as they once did. Russia does not need to rush or force the split – the US is doing that on its own. But Moscow can and should help accelerate the process where possible. After all, a divided West is a weaker West – and that is something Russia has always understood.

What an invitation! Now imagine Marco Rubio, or Macron, von der Leyen, reaching out to new media this way. Trump might…

• A Conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov (Larry Johnson)

What an honor. I was invited, along with Judge Napolitano and Mario Nawfal, to interview Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on Monday. Mr. Lavrov is smart, charming, funny and quite approachable. He ain’t a bullshitter. There was no pretense about him. After spending more than 90 minutes conversing with him, I came away with a new appreciation of his skill as the consummate diplomat. Although we each had prepared a couple of questions in advance, those went out the window once the conversation started. There were no constraints on what we could ask. There was an added treat before Mr. Lavrov arrived… we spent thirty minutes chatting with Maria Zakharova in a casual environment. She is equally charming and tough as a rhinoceros hide. I think of her as an iron fist wrapped in a luxurious velvet glove. A formidable diplomat in her own right.

Here is a summary of the key points Mr. Lavrov made during our discussion:
• I think what is going on in the United States is a return to normalcy. <…> The fact is that a normal administration without any, you know, unChristian ideas came to power and the reaction was such an explosion in the media, in the politics all over the world is very interesting and very telling.
• When we met in Riyadh with Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz and Steve Witkoff they suggested the meeting and they said, look, we want normal relations in the sense that the foundation of the American foreign policy under the Donald Trump administration is the national interest of the United States. But at the same time, we understand that other countries also have their national interest.
• It is very well understood that countries like the United States and Russia would never have their national interest the same. They would not coincide maybe even 50 or less percent. But when they do coincide this situation must be used to develop this simultaneous and similar interest. But when the interests do not coincide and contradict each other then the responsible countries must do everything not to allow this contradiction to degenerate into confrontation, especially military confrontation which would be disastrous for many other countries.
• The beginning of the special military operation was a decision because all other attempts, all other alternatives to bring things into some positive dimension failed for ten years after the illegal coup in Kiev, in violation of the deal signed the night before and guaranteed by the Germans, French and Poles.
• I don’t think the Americans would drop from NATO. At least President Trump never hinted that this might be the case. But what he did bluntly say was that if you want us to protect you, to give you security guarantees, you pay what is necessary.
• But President Trump doesn’t want to provide these security guarantees to Ukraine under Zelensky. He has his own view of the situation which he bluntly presents every now and then, that this war should never have started – that pulling Ukraine into NATO in violation of its constitution, in violation of the Declaration of Independence of 1991, on the basis of which we recognized Ukraine as a sovereign state. For several reasons including that this Declaration was saying no NATO, no blocs, neutral status. Another thing which this Declaration also confirmed and solidified – all rights of Russian and all other national minorities are to be respected.
• Europe and the UK, they certainly want this to continue. The way they received Zelensky in London after the scandal in Washington, it’s an indication that they want to raise the stakes and they are preparing something to pressure the Donald Trump administration back into some aggressive action against Russia.
• It’s not about the territories, it’s about the people who were deprived of their history by law. Territories are important only because people live on these territories. The people who live on the territories are descendants of those who for hundreds of years were building Odessa & other cities on those very lands who were building ports, roads, who were founding those lands and who associated with the history of this land.

! The Americans know that we would not betray our commitments, legal commitments, the political commitments which we develop with China.

Mario Nawfal, the young man seated between the Judge and me, was a delight to be with. At the ripe old age of 30, he treated Judge Nap and me like two respected grandfathers. Being able to spend five days with Judge Napolitano — it was the first time we have been together physically in the entire time that I have known him — was a special treat. The Judge and I met for breakfast every morning in the room pictured above during our time in Moscow. While eating, we were serenaded by a talented harpist, which added a surreal quality to the experience. The staff at the Metropol are superb as well. I will provide a more detailed account of our time in Moscow in a forthcoming post.

Flu shot
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1899889092911129014

Happybird
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1900074009003188539

Table

Wood table with little dog sculpture

pic.twitter.com/Y7sHW0PYjn

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 13, 2025

Origami
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1900239757554442694

AI Hepburn
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1900059437622063208

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 13 2025

Mar 132025

March 13, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:34 am Finance Tagged with: ceasefire, dictator, fake, income tax, Medvedchuk, Rubio, Schumer, shifty, shutdown, truce, Trump 35 Responses »

James Ensor The frightful musicians 1891

• Trump Is the World’s Worst Dictator (Joecks)

• Moscow ‘Studying’ 30-day Truce Plan, Makes Steady Battlefield Gains (ZH)

• Trump Envoy Witkoff To Present Ceasefire Deal To Russia This Week – White House (RT)

• Kremlin Drags Its Feet On Ceasefire Deal As Armies Steamroll Ukraine (JTN)

• US Discussed Territorial Concessions With Ukraine – Rubio (RT)

• All The Pressure Is Now On Zelensky After Ceasefire Offer (Proud)

• Free Trade: Ricardo’s Theory To Dispossess The British Aristocracy (PCR)

• Medvedchuk Cautions Trump On Dealing With Kiev (RT)

• Why Won’t Europe Step Up and Help Ukraine? (Victor Davis Hanson)

• EU Accuses Trump of ‘Blackmailing’ Zelensky! (Pinsker)

• 800 Billion Euros of Delusional Promises (Dionísio)

• This Is Literally The Worst News Democrats Could Get Right Now (Margolis)

• Shutdown Schumer, the Shifty Democrats And a Government Standstill (Thorne)

• Old Joe’s Fake Oval Office – and Its Fake News Apologists – Exposed (Victoria Taft)

• Made in China 2025 – Revisited (Pepe Escobar)

One of his people was brutally murdered this week

RED ALERT! High-level US Intel has warned me of a transnational operation targeting me for death. In the report below, I break down the nature of the threat. The agency intercepts show the highest threat level targeting a civilian ever recorded. I just received more information… pic.twitter.com/WmWOKDfhLz

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) March 12, 2025

Inflation

CNN just aired Trump’s first inflation report—better than expected and reversing four straight months of rising inflation under Biden.

America is healing! pic.twitter.com/JyG74moYhG

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 12, 2025

Maloney

This is the story of USA's gold: there's only 0.04% left. pic.twitter.com/QJ5RUPEfYH

— Michael Maloney (@mike_maloney) March 12, 2025

THIS IS SUCH AN INSANE THING TO VISUALIZE pic.twitter.com/aJcPskSBWF

— Liz Wolfe (@LizWolfeReason) March 11, 2025

Lavrov and the US new media

“Trump is one of the most successful men in the world, but he’s a complete failure at being a dictator.”

• Trump Is the World’s Worst Dictator (Joecks)

Dictators crave power. President Donald Trump is using his power to give Americans more freedom. That’s a massive difference. Desperate to find an effective attack against Trump, some Democrats are recycling an old one. They claim he’s an authoritarian. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., invited laid-off federal workers to attend Trump’s recent speech to Congress. She said she was standing “shoulder to shoulder with people in defiance to a dictator.” That type of defiance led Democrats to callously withhold applause from a 13-year-old brain-cancer survivor simply because Trump introduced him. Shameful. Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams recently called Trump a “petty tyrant.” The Associated Press claimed that Trump “has embarked on a dizzying teardown of the federal government and attacks on long-standing institutions in an attempt to increase his own authority.”

These accusations aren’t new. Former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris frequently labeled Trump a threat to democracy. Last year, historian Jon Meacham called Trump a “tyrant” who would cause the downfall of the American Republic. Trump has fed into this. After he attacked congestion pricing in Manhattan, the White House posted a picture of him wearing a crown. Trump said, “Long live the king.” While that was obviously not a serious claim to monarchical authority, it sent the propaganda press into a tizzy. Many Americans believe the worst about Trump as 41% of Americans say Trump is a dictator, according to a February YouGov poll. Those people aren’t just wrong–they have it backwards. Trump is doing the one thing dictators never do–reduce their own power.

It’d help to define some terms. Merriam-Webster says a dictator is “one holding complete autocratic control.” An autocracy is a “government in which one person possesses unlimited power.” Tyrant has a similar meaning–“an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.” Therefore, by definition, you can’t be a dictator while increasing freedom and shrinking the size and scope of government. It’s a contradiction. That’s what Trump is doing. He rolled back Biden’s target for electric vehicle sales. He’s unshackled the energy industry. He wants to undo Biden administration restrictions on dishwashers, shower heads and light bulbs. He’s ordered agencies to eliminate 10 previous regulations for every new one they put in place. He’s increasing freedom. He’s also pushing for a significant tax cut. Dictators aren’t known for wanting to let you keep more of your own money.

He’s laid off tens of thousands of federal workers. Another 75,000 federal workers took buyouts. The Department of Government Efficiency is attempting to reduce federal spending by more than $100 billion. He’s shrinking the government he runs. The Trump administration is even gearing up to eliminate the Department of Education. In early March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon laid out “our department’s final mission.” She wants “to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.” Indoctrinating a nation’s children is a powerful tool for any would-be dictator. Communist dictators wanted kids’ primary loyalty to be to the government. They sought to drive a wedge between children and their parents. Trump wants to give parents more control of their children’s education.

Now, Trump is governing aggressively. The executive orders have been fast and furious. He’s closed the border. He’s clearing out the deep state. He’s rooting out diversity, equity, and inclusion in the government. He’s recognized that men are not women. But an elected official changing government policy isn’t tyranny. That’s the point of having an election. It’d be tyrannical if an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy could stop a democratically elected president from running the executive branch as he sees fit. Just look at the obstacles Trump faced in his first term. Trump is one of the most successful men in the world, but he’s a complete failure at being a dictator.

For now it’s just some statements, they haven’t been given the “plan” yet.

Rubio was doing fine so far, but here he leaves the impression that if Russia doesn’t respond to a “plan” they don’t even know, it means they don’t want peace. Confused comments galore.

• Moscow ‘Studying’ 30-day Truce Plan, Makes Steady Battlefield Gains (ZH)

The Kremlin says it is “studying” statements issued by the US and Ukrainian delegations following yesterday’s talks in Jeddah, and further describes Russian officials are waiting for a fuller briefing from the US on the proposal. The 30-day ceasefire plan calls for a halt to all the fighting on land, sea and in the air – which can be extended by mutual agreement, with a hoped-for path to a permanent truce based on negotiations in the interim. President Zelensky in a Tuesday X post said the ceasefire will apply to missile, drone and bomb attacks “not only in the Black Sea, but also along the entire front line” – though its as yet unclear what mechanism there will be to monitor this. The joint statement issued from Jeddah said the sides “will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace.” Thus nothing will happen unless Moscow agrees.

Washington has agreed to lift the Trump ban on arms and intelligence for Kiev, while at the same Kiev and Washington agreed on inking a deal on Ukraine’s critical minerals “as soon as possible”. Russian state media is meanwhile reporting that President Putin is open to holding a telephone conversation with his US counterpart. On the potential for a new Trump call to discuss progress toward setting up negotiations and a truce, spokesman Dimitry Peskov said Wednesday, “We also do not rule out that the topic of a call at the highest level may arise. If such a need emerges, it will be organized very quickly. The existing channels of dialogue with the Americans make it possible to do this in a relatively short time.”

If it happens this would mark the second call since Trump’s inauguration, after the prior February 12 call. Theoretically this could lead to an in-person meeting between the two leaders if all goes well. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is traveling back from the meeting in Saudi Arabia, and gave some remarks to a press conference in Ireland:
• Deterrence against future attacks on Ukraine will be a crucial element of future negotiations.
• The US-Ukraine minerals deal benefits both nations and deepens Washington’s interest in Ukraine, but “I would not couch it as a security guarantee”.
• European sanctions against Russia will be part of the negotiations, making Europe’s involvement in the process essential.
• Any truce could be effectively monitored, but “one of the things we’ll have to determine is who both sides trust on the ground” to oversee it.

Ukraine continues to hold little to no leverage, given Russia is fast taking back its territory in Kursk as of mid-week. Over a dozen settlements have been liberated, and by all accounts Ukraine forces are in retreat there, also as Russian troops are currently in the center of Sudzha town. One regional source says that the Russian advance has been swift especially after one particularly daring operation: “Reports over the weekend claimed that 800 Russian special forces had crawled for 15 kilometers through an unused section of pipeline, which once carried Russian gas to Europe via Ukraine, in order to carry out a sneak attack on Ukrainian forces in Sudzha,” writes Moscow Times. These developments mean that Putin is even less likely to agree to any temporary pause in fighting. In January statements he had warned the Kremlin will not sign off on any temporary truces – given Ukraine could just use it to rearm, resupply, and regroup. Moscow has less incentive to sign onto a deal unless territorial concessions are part of it, given that at this rate it can just keep advancing in territory, particularly in the Donbass.

“Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy, is making his way to Moscow this week again..”

• Trump Envoy Witkoff To Present Ceasefire Deal To Russia This Week – White House (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff will be traveling to Moscow later this week to deliver the US ceasefire proposal for the Ukraine conflict, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz met with representatives from Kiev in Jeddah on Tuesday to discuss a diplomatic end to the Ukraine conflict. In a joint statement afterward, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, while the US resumed all military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Waltz held a phone conversation with his “Russian counterpart” on Wednesday to discuss the proceedings, Leavitt told journalists in a media stakeout at the White House. Trump’s envoy will be traveling to Russia in person, she added. “Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy, is making his way to Moscow this week again to urge the Russians to sign on to this negotiation,” Leavitt told Fox News on Wednesday.

Russia and the US will hold a “big meeting” on Thursday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. When asked about potential US leverage on Moscow to accept the ceasefire deal, the US president warned of “devastating” financial measures he could impose. Moscow is “carefully studying the statements that were made as a result” of the US-Ukraine talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. He cautioned against making rushed statements, and stressed that Russia first needs to receive “detailed information” on the proposed ceasefire teased by Waltz on Tuesday. Moscow has previously opposed any temporary truce in the Ukraine conflict, saying that it would simply be a repeat of the ill-fated 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, which it claims were used by Kiev’s Western backers to rearm them.

How can you “drag your feet” on a ~~“deal”~~ plan you’re not part of or party to?

• Kremlin Drags Its Feet On Ceasefire Deal As Armies Steamroll Ukraine (JTN)

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday indicated that Moscow was in no rush to reply to the American-Ukrainian plan for a 30-day ceasefire, an announcement that came as Russian armies drove battered Ukrainian troops out of a salient in its own Kursk Oblast and appear poised to advance along the front. On Tuesday, Ukrainian diplomats reached an agreement with American officials to restore military aid and intelligence sharing to Kyiv in exchange for agreeing to an immediate, 30-day ceasefire deal that they would present to the Russians. That exchange followed a public squabble at the Oval Office between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump in which Zelensky was removed from the White House. Zelensky had been in Washington to sign a mineral resources deal that was not executed. Ukraine recommitted to the deal as part of the Wednesday deal.

“Look, you are getting a little ahead of yourself, we don’t want to do that,” Peskov told reporters about the ceasefire, according to Russian outlet RIA Novosti. “Yesterday, when talking to the press, both [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio and [National Security Advisor Mike] Waltz said that they would pass on to us detailed information about the essence of the conversations that took place in Jeddah through various diplomatic channels. First, we need to get that information.” A ceasefire proposal appears to be unpopular with some members of the Russian government, with high-profile politicians condemning the idea. State Duma Deputy Viktor Sobolev, a member of the Duma’s defense committee and notably, an opponent of the pro-Putin coalition, called a temporary ceasefire “absolutely unacceptable,” saying it would allow Ukraine to “regroup and rearm” and “play into the hands of” Kyiv.

Russian troops are currently advancing along the front and posting substantial gains against the Ukrainian military at the moment and a ceasefire would potentially bring that momentum to a halt. Ukrainian forces last year invaded Russia directly, carving out a large swath of territory in the border “oblast,” or region, of Kursk, centered on the city of Sudzha. That location became a cauldron for the Ukrainians as Russia stiffened its defense, and the region became decidedly unstable in recent weeks after the recapture by Russian forces of Sverdlikovo, exposing the Ukrainian flank. A daring operation by Russian special forces, moreover, saw personnel travel through a drained pipeline to attack the Ukrainian rear, which triggered a rout and led to the Russian recapture of Sudzha on Tuesday. Geolocation-based territorial maps show varying degrees of Russian control in the city.

Complicating matters for both sides is their history of dubious and short-lived ceasefires since the outbreak of the Donbas War in 2014. The Minsk I and II Accords both followed a decisive Ukrainian defeat on the battlefields of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, respectively. In those battles, Ukraine fought Russian-backed separatists and not the official Russian military. Both sides blame the other for violating both agreements. Explicitly pro-Ukrainian analyst Julian Ropcke, senior editor for security policy at Bild-Zeitung, a German-owned tabloid, highlighted that history and implied a ceasefire deal would lead to a repeat of those incidents. “Amazed to see people thinking a ceasefire deal would stop Russia’s war in Ukraine,” he wrote on X. “After signing Minsk 1 in September 2014, Russia pumped in more troops and kept advancing, capturing Donetsk airport and 20 more towns and villages. After signing Minsk 2 in February 2015, Russia further advanced and captured Debalsteve and five more villages.”

The Russians themselves previously ruled out a ceasefire, with Russian President Vladimir Putin stating last year that he would not accept a temporary agreement and would only allow a ceasefire after a lasting accord had been reached. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, downplayed the seriousness of a ceasefire proposal ahead of the Ukrainian meeting with the Americans on Tuesday. “Zelensky is saying publicly that he doesn’t want any ceasefire until Americans give him any guarantees that they will destroy Russia with nuclear weapons. It’s not serious,” Lavrov told reporters on a Russia Today webcast. In an interview with bloggers Mario Nawfal, Larry C. Johnson, and Andrew Napolitano published Wednesday, moreover, Lavrov insisted that Trump had no desire to provide Ukraine with security guarantees while Zelensky remained in power.

“He has his own view of the situation, which he bluntly presents every now and then that this war should have never started. That the pulling Ukraine into NATO, is a violation of its constitution, a violation of the declaration of independence of 1991,” Lavrov said. “On the basis of which we recognized Ukraine as a sovereign state for several reasons, including that this declaration was saying no NATO.” The terms of the deal itself remain unclear and the joint statement from the State Department and Ukrainian government did not offer much detail other than a proposal for an immediate 30-day ceasefire, during which they hope to hold negotiations with Moscow. At present, Russia maintains a swath of Ukrainian territory from the Khariv to Kherson Oblasts, providing a land bridge to Crimea, which it annexed in 2014. Russia formally annexed four more regions amid the war but does not fully control any of them. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that the Ukrainians would likely have to give up some territory in a peace deal.

“The most important thing that we have to leave here with is a strong sense that Ukraine is prepared to do difficult things, like the Russians are going to have to do difficult things to end this conflict or at least pause it in some way, shape or form,” Rubio told reporters Tuesday. “I think both sides need to come to an understanding that there’s no military solution to this situation.” The state of the Russian economy has also appeared as a contributing factor. Trump previously threatened the Russians with additional sanctions if they refused to come to the table, though the scope of those sanctions and their potential impact remains unclear. “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week.

Conversely, some analysts believe Putin may use the ceasefire offer to drag out negotiations and demand greater concessions for a pause. Bloomberg News, citing an unnamed person “close to the Kremlin,” reported that he may demand an end to arms shipments to Ukraine. “Putin won’t give a hard ‘yes’ or a hard ‘no,’” Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center Senior Fellow Tatiana Stanovaya told the outlet. “Even in a fantastic situation where Putin makes some gestures toward a truce, it would still be a temporary one and with very harsh conditions.”

“Moscow has repeatedly stated that the status of these regions is non-negotiable.”

• US Discussed Territorial Concessions With Ukraine – Rubio (RT)

American and Ukrainian delegations discussed the issue of territorial concessions during their meeting in Saudi Arabia, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed on Wednesday. Representatives from Washington and Kiev met in Jeddah on Tuesday to discuss a path toward a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict. Kiev claims sovereignty over Crimea, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. These territories officially became a part of Russia after each of them held referendums in 2014 and 2022. Moscow has repeatedly stated that the status of these regions is non-negotiable. After a nearly 9.5-hour meeting, the two sides released a joint statement in which Kiev agreed to a 30-day ceasefire while the US announced the resumption of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, Rubio, who took part in the meeting, was asked to disclose more details about what had been discussed and whether the issue of territorial concessions had been brought up. The secretary stated that “we had conversations” on the issue but declined to disclose specifics. He emphasized that the key point was figuring out what the negotiation process would look like and what issues would be on the agenda. Rubio called it obvious that the Ukraine conflict cannot be resolved militarily, and that “neither side can militarily achieve their maximalist goals” and that the only way to stop the fighting is through negotiations.

On Monday, ahead of the Jeddah talks, Rubio also indicated that Ukraine would inevitably have to relinquish the goal of regaining all the territory it claims in order to facilitate peace negotiations with Russia. “Obviously, it’ll be very difficult for Ukraine in any reasonable time period to sort of force the Russians back all the way to where they were in 2014,” the secretary told the New York Times. Moscow has not yet commented on the statement released by the US and Ukraine following the talks in Saudi Arabia, nor has it yet reacted to the proposed 30-day ceasefire. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stated that Moscow first expects to receive the details from the US, which should be sent in the coming days.

“..it wants the big questions addressed front and centre. These include Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO, the status of the four oblasts annexed by Russia since the start of the war and the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.”

• All The Pressure Is Now On Zelensky After Ceasefire Offer (Proud)

I assess that Russia will agree with the U.S. on a proposed ceasefire in Ukraine. This would put the ball back in Zelensky’s court to sign a peace deal that could destroy him politically and may give President Putin the security assurances he has sought for over seventeen years. In a quite remarkable turn of events, the BBC announced that Britain had helped the U.S. and Ukraine agree on the need for a 30-day ceasefire. This is spin of the most disingenuous kind. The UK has done everything in its power to prevent the possibility of ‘forcing’ Ukraine into negotiations on ending the three-year war. Indeed, just last week, a prominent UK broadsheet reinforced this point in a searing editorial. The British narrative for three years has been that, with sufficient support and strategic patience, Ukraine could impose a defeat on Russia. To use a British military phrase, that plan ‘didn’t survive contact with the enemy’.

Ukraine’s sudden collapse in Kursk, after Russian troops crawled ten kilometres through a gas pipeline that President Zelensky had, with much fanfare, shut down in January, was an astonishing defeat. It was astonishing because it revealed what many western commentators had said since August 2024, that seizing a small patch of land in Russia would turn out to be a strategic blunder for Ukraine. Since the Kursk offensive was launched, Russia has occupied large tracts of land in southern Donetsk, including several important mines and one of Ukraine’s largest power stations. The basic maths show a significant net loss to Zelensky over the past six months. The bigger picture proves that the overall direction of the war has been moving in Russia’s direction since the failed Ukrainian counter-offensive in the summer of 2023. In Ukraine itself, the vultures are already circling in the sky as the body of Zelensky’s now six-year presidential term approaches its final breath.

Arestovich was quick to call for Zelensky to resign after the damaging shoot-out at the Oval Office. Poroshenko has come out to say Ukraine has no choice but to cut a deal. Even Zelensky’s former press spokeswoman has called for peace and implied that the Ukrainian government tries to limit free speech on the subject of a truce. Team Trump is apparently talking to the egregiously corrupt former Prime Minster Yulia Tymoshenko about the future, heaven help us. The domestic political space for Zelensky to keep holding out with meaningless slogans like ‘peace through strength’, and ‘forcing Russia to make peace’ is rapidly closing around him. That Ukraine has come to the negotiating table at all is a sign that it has been given no choice, since America paused the military and intelligence gravy train. There is nothing in the Jeddah meeting that suggests any change in the U.S. position towards Ukraine.

All that the ceasefire does, if Russia agrees to it, is pauses the fighting. Indeed, it goes further than the unworkable Franco-Ukrainian idea to pause the fighting only in the air and sea, allowing Ukraine to keep fighting on the ground. Ironically, the Jeddah formulation favours Russia, as a partial ceasefire would have provided succour to the Ukrainian army which does not enjoy strategic air superiority, despite its mass drone attack on Moscow and other parts of Russia. The joint U.S.-Ukraine statement calls for Ukraine and others to ‘immediately begin negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security’. If Russia agrees to a ceasefire, the clock will start on 30-days of intensive talks aimed at delivering a durable peace. Russia has said consistently that it will not agree to a ceasefire only; it wants the big questions addressed front and centre. These include Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO, the status of the four oblasts annexed by Russia since the start of the war and the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.

“Trump has spoken of substituting tariffs for the income tax. This is a brilliant thought. The income tax taxes labor and capital, factors of production. Thus income tax reduces GDP and living standards.”

• Free Trade: Ricardo’s Theory To Dispossess The British Aristocracy (PCR)

In their book, Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests published in 2000 by The MIT Press, Ralph E. Gomory and William J. Baumol proved that the free trade theory with which economists today are still indoctrinated is false. Economists have done their best not to notice that a part of their repertory is invalid. A number of years ago I presented Gomory and Baumol’s analysis to libertarian economists at the Mises Institute. They didn’t like it, but they couldn’t confute it. Over the years I have called attention to the defective theory that economists hold close to their breasts, but it is unpleasant information that they don’t want to hear. With Trump’s talk of tariffs, the invalid free trade theory is being used as a weapon against Trump. Those on Wall Street who are indoctrinated with free trade have been driving down the Dow with their panic.

As for Trump’s tariffs, at the present time it seems that often they are threats leveled at specific countries to get them to do what they should be doing or to get them to give their help to Trump’s agenda. For example, the initial tariffs Trump announced against Mexico and Canada were withdrawn once the two countries agreed to police their borders with the US to help halt the flow of immigrant-invaders into America. It remains to be seen whether a full blown tariff system is put in place. The American market is a large one, and although US consumer demand has been weakened by the offshoring of middle class manufacturing jobs, debt expansion has kept the American consumer market going, and the US remains a lucrative market for foreign produced goods.

It is possible that tariffs could recover their historic role in the financing of the US government. The US government was financed over most of its history by tariffs. It was not until 1918 that the income tax passed in 1913 affected the population, so the US government has been dependent on income taxation only for about a century. As I have explained, the introduction of an income tax resurrected a form of slavery as it gave government ownership rights in our labor. The definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. Today people subject to an income tax are in the same position as medieval serfs who owed part of their labor to feudal lords.

Trump has spoken of substituting tariffs for the income tax. This is a brilliant thought. The income tax taxes labor and capital, factors of production. Thus income tax reduces GDP and living standards. Classical economists, unlike the present day “junk economists” as Michael Hudson correctly calls them, said, correctly, that consumption, not factors of production, should be taxed. That is what a tariff does. If you don’t consume goods produced in other countries, you pay no taxation. Countries once understood that being dependent on imports of necessities, such as food, was a threat to national existence. A country could be subdued by the cutoff of food.

The British had the Corn Laws (corn was the term for all grains–wheat, barley, oats) that protected English farmers. The Corn Laws protected the incomes of the landed aristocracy, Britain’s leadership class during the years that Britain was the world power. As income is a basis of power, the rising British middle class wanted the power that was in aristocratic hands. David Ricardo, a bourgeois financier, attacked the incomes of the landed aristocracy with his concocted free trade theory. The repeal of the Corn laws shifted power from one class to another. The bourgeois gained and the aristocrats lost, and the British became dependent on food imports. The repeal was followed by Death Duties that appropriated the estates of the aristocrats, thus destroying the leadership class of Great Britain. Look at the post-aristocratic leadership of Britain. What do you see?

“What US President Donald Trump does not realize is that as soon as he gets rid of Zelensky… the Ukrainian political system will throw another clown at him..”

• Medvedchuk Cautions Trump On Dealing With Kiev (RT)

US President Donald Trump will not be able to reach any kind of agreement with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, nor with any other politician from his circle who may eventually replace him, exiled Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk has cautioned. Zelensky’s presidential term officially expired in May 2024 as he has refused to hold a new election, citing martial law imposed during the conflict with Russia. Trump reportedly insisted earlier this week that the Ukrainian leader should hold elections and possibly step down. Writing in an article for the ‘Other Ukraine’ news outlet on Wednesday, Medvedchuk – who was ousted in 2022 – suggested that removing Zelensky might not help achieve peace, as the country’s political system could produce another leader with similarly obstructive tendencies.

“What US President Donald Trump does not realize is that as soon as he gets rid of Zelensky… the Ukrainian political system will throw another clown at him,” Medvedchuk claimed. Medvedchuk cited the recent talks between Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office, which escalated into an unprecedented public confrontation, as proof that there is a pervasive culture among Kiev’s pro-Western political factions that prioritizes self-interest. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance ended up accusing the Ukrainian leader of disrespectful behavior, a lack of gratitude, and an unwillingness to pursue peace. “America’s problem is that it’s not just Zelensky who doesn’t understand how he disrespected Trump, but most of his entourage doesn’t… Ukraine’s pro-Western politicians are not accustomed at all to considering the interests of others,” Medvedchuk argued.

He went on to claim that “Zelensky’s Ukraine is raising citizens to be spoiled, hysterical, illiterate, infantile and irresponsible; they believe that everyone owes them, and that they never owe anything to anybody in return.” Medvedchuk was leader of the Opposition Platform – For Life party, formerly the second-largest group in the Ukrainian parliament, until his arrest in April 2022. The party was subsequently banned, and Medvedchuk was sent to Russia in September of that year in exchange for several POWs. He founded the Other Ukraine movement in 2023 and acts as chairman of its council. In January, Zelensky imposed sanctions against him.

“We have 500 million people in Europe and they’re very upset that 330 million people across the ocean will not help 40 million people fighting 140 million people in Russia…”

• Why Won’t Europe Step Up and Help Ukraine? (Victor Davis Hanson)

Europe is greeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as if he’s a rock hero and giving us all sorts of dramatic, melodramatic, psychodramatic pronouncements that they are going their own way because of the Trump isolationism, and sometimes it’s Trump Jacksonianism. They can’t count on us. And Ukraine was the catalyst. But let’s look at that issue for a moment. We have 500 million people in Europe and they’re very upset that 330 million people across the ocean will not help 40 million people fighting 140 million people in Russia. In other words, of all the players in this drama, it’s Europe who should be in the driver’s seat. They have 500 million people. And yet, when we look at their expenditures, nine countries out of the 32, 11 years later, have not increased their NATO contributions to 2%. What should they be doing? They should be meeting with the Trump administration and telling the American people why countries in Europe still won’t meet their military responsibilities.

They’re also running a $200-plus billion trade surplus with the United States. They need to tell us—instead of just saying, “We don’t want to get in a tariff war; Trump is a protectionist”—just explain to us why we in Europe believe that we deserve a $200 billion surplus each year with the United States. And maybe you could explain why your tariffs are not symmetrical with ours. We just need to know. We need to know that very quickly, in fact. Another thing we need to know from Europe that we’re not getting, besides their surplus and the inability for all the NATO nations to meet their responsibilities and their promises of 11 years ago, is what is the strategy for Ukraine? They’re very angry that President Donald Trump temporarily cut off some aid to Ukraine to urge Mr. Zelenskyy to consider a truce so he can negotiate a more lasting peace and stop the Stalingrad slaughter between Ukraine and Russia.

I don’t even mean between Ukraine and Russia. It’s basically caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and they’re on the defensive, but Ukraine has not been able, strategically, to show a pathway to strategic resolution and victory. Again, my interest and your interest is, what’s the alternative position by Europe? Is it we have 500 million people, we’re going to rearm, we’re going to divide up tasks? Finns have great artillery. They will supply the artillery to Ukraine. The Swedes and the French have good air forces. They will supply the air cover. The Germans have a tradition of great tank-making. They’re not very productive in tank production today. But perhaps they’ll promise to send 500 tanks. And then outline a position or a trajectory or a pathway where they can force, apparently, Russian President Vladimir Putin all the way back to where he was either in February 2022 or maybe even 2014.

But we don’t get any of that. We don’t get anything but rah-rah talk that we’re all Europeans. We’re not Donald Trump. We’re going to stick together. We’re going to put boots on the ground. We have what? Logistical capacity, armor, air force. Why can’t they just get together and get an exact, detailed plan of military wherewithal, coupled with a strategy, coupled with a renewed commitment to meet their NATO promises, coupled with an explanation to the American people why they feel that $200-plus billion trade surplus is essential to Europe’s survival and it is not a result of asymmetrical and unfair trade practices? That’s all we’re asking for.

“They want a peace guarantee that’s backed by American blood..”

• EU Accuses Trump of ‘Blackmailing’ Zelensky! (Pinsker)

Yesterday’s pacifists are today’s Rambos, it seems: 442 lawmakers in the 720-seat European Parliament just agreed to a joint declaration that “strongly deplores any attempts at blackmailing Ukraine’s leadership into surrender to the Russian aggressor for the sole purpose of announcing a so-called ‘peace deal.’” It passed via landslide: 61%. Not all EU politicians supported the measure: Melonian Nicola Procaccini, co-chair of the Conservatives (ECR), had tried to delay the vote arguing that a strong stance by the chamber would risk undermining the delicate ongoing discussion between the United States and Russia on the conditions of the ceasefire that were agreed yesterday in Jeddah — on which the Kremlin has yet to officially comment — casting a negative light on the efforts of the star-studded administration.

But the parliament rejected his request, and thus the joint resolution submitted by EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew and Greens (which followed a debate last February) passed with 442 votes in favor, 98 against and 126 abstentions. Which means, less than 14% of our “friends” in the EU had the testicular fortitude to oppose this brazenly anti-American statement. Thanks, guys. But perhaps we’re being unfair. Perhaps the EU genuinely, sincerely opposes browbeating a democratic nation — especially one that was just invaded and attacked! — into accepting a permanent, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire. Perhaps this isn’t another example of our European “friends” acting selfishly and cowardly, but a heartfelt moral position. Nah: Fun Fact: Just one year ago, this is the same European Parliament that demanded Israel commit to a ceasefire in Gaza!

Hypocrisy, thy name is EU: The European Parliament was able to call for a permanent, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza only last month, on February 28, over 140 days after the genocidal war began. On that day, at the initiative of the Left, the European Parliament’s plenary in Strasbourg amended the 67th article of the 2023 Report on the ‘Human Rights and Democracy in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter’ to include the call for an “immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, allowing uninterrupted access to food and water for its inhabitants.” [emphasis added] It raises the very obvious question: Israel was attacked by invaders, too. Why is it moral and just to impose a ceasefire on Israel, but “blackmail” to do so to Ukraine? As Politico reported today:

“The European Parliament on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of “blackmailing” Ukraine’s leadership into capitulating to Russia with a forced ceasefire, and denounced Washington’s decision to leave the European Union out of negotiations.” It’s unclear why the European Parliament insisted on using the word “blackmailing.” We’re not threatening to disclose harmful information about Zelensky. Besides, how do you blackmail a guy who’s already been videotaped [playing piano with his dick]: Usually, the “victim” of blackmail is the one who lost his money. Not here: The EU is claiming that Zelensky was blackmailed because Trump DIDN’T pay him. It doesn’t make much sense.The Politico article continued: “The statement also condemned as “counterproductive and dangerous” the current attempts by the Trump administration “to negotiate a ceasefire and peace agreement with Russia over the heads of Ukraine and other European states.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, they added, was being “rewarded” for Moscow’s ongoing three-year invasion of Ukraine. Even after all these years, Europe’s level of entitlement never ceases to astonish. What Ukraine and the EU really want is an American war guarantee. When you strip away the diplomatic niceties and coded language, Zelensky’s tantrum and EU’s fury can all be boiled down to this: They want a peace guarantee that’s backed by American blood. And because Trump doesn’t believe a Ukrainian war guarantee would “Make America Great Again,” he’s trying to find an off-ramp that averts World War III. He’s trying to stop a war between a nuclear superpower and a near-west ally that’s already cost 1.5 million lives.

By any objective standard, that’s a laudable goal. (If this had been Obama doing the negotiating, the Nobel Prize committee would’ve called an emergency meeting and earmarked him the next 10 awards.)Yet the EU not only objected, they actually called it “blackmail!” Sigh. If only they were willing to stand up to Putin like they stand up to Trump. Because the EU will do everything they can to protect Ukraine… just as long as they don’t have to do any of the fighting themselves.

“..the EU will discuss proposals to exclude military spending from the limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact..”

• 800 Billion Euros of Delusional Promises (Dionísio)

Von der Leyen has accustomed us to her grandstanding nihilism and disconnection from reality. Listening to her, one might sometimes get the impression that she sees herself as a kind of a god of creation, capable of transforming everything into matter with the mere power of her words. But of course, this is not true! The Russian economy has not collapsed in “tatters”; in fact, it has shown remarkable resilience, with wages growing at their highest rate in 16 years (a 21.6% increase compared to March of last year, and an 11.3% real growth after inflation—a dream for any Portuguese citizen), with the average wage expected to reach $1,113 by 2025, while everything remains cheaper than in any EU country.

It is also not true that the Russians have been stripping semiconductors from washing machines, nor is it true that the G7 has blocked Russian oil exports with their oil caps. In fact, Russia has never exported as much oil as it does today. The broker Ursula von der Leyen was also wrong when she claimed that the U.S. had the cheapest LNG—why would Trump want to lower prices now?—urging European countries to buy more shale gas, in violation of the European corporate sustainability directive, which requires suppliers to comply with environmental sustainability rules. As is well known, shale gas is extracted through fracking, a method highly damaging to the environment and banned in the EU. It seems that for the unelected president of the European Commission, directives are applied according to her whims.

But the latest delusion from the European Commission president is the announcement of a “massive boost”—as she loves these Americanized propaganda slogans with supposed creative power—to European military spending, which has already been increasing over time, but now she proposes to raise it by an additional 840 billion euros. It’s worth noting that she was Germany’s Defense Minister, during the scandal involving the sale of Trident submarines to Portugal, a deal that led to the imprisonment of several intermediaries. During that time too, von der Leyen, when investigated about several businesses, said that she lost the cellphone which helped her avoid jail. Similarly, during her time at the European Commission, she was involved in the vaccine procurement scandal. Certain character traits never disappear, and it’s a pity that these are the traits that determine who gets chosen for such positions. To our detriment.

Of course, the European Commission president could have proposed, instead, a massive diplomatic effort, a vigorous and mobilizing movement for world peace, a series of proposals for disarmament and the reduction of military stockpiles. Would it have worked? Maybe not, but as a leader of a vast population and the guardian of the keys that unlock the doors to death, it was her duty, first and foremost, to make every effort to negotiate not just peace, but a relationship of unity and cooperation across Europe, promoting prosperity and improving the living conditions of its people. Wouldn’t this be expected of any leader who claims to be democratic, humanistic, and a lover of freedom? The first step should never be to deepen the war.

She could even blame Vladimir Putin, demonizing him to unimaginable levels, but always keeping her feet on the ground and acknowledging the enormous responsibility she claims to bear: the guardian of the free world. A “guardian of the free world” is expected to make every effort to preserve that freedom. Instead, von der Leyen has done everything to erode and erase it from the map. Instead of setting an example of elevating and exalting our civilizational values, the European Commission and all the actors parading around the European Council have chosen to adopt a rigid, backward, isolationist, and sectarian stance. “I won’t move from here,” “I won’t talk to them,” “I won’t even think about them!” The EU is the only bloc today that behaves this way, except for Israel with the Palestinians. This should give us much to think about.

But this isn’t even the biggest problem with von der Leyen’s proposal. I’m not even talking about the arbitrariness of a commission composed of unelected bureaucrats proposing draconian rearmament plans, which the Council approves almost unanimously, without criticism, except for Orban. It’s more than that. Von der Leyen doesn’t have the authority to approve such a thing, nor can she force member states to spend this money, or compel them to approve eurobonds that would allow such a magnitude of debt. I’ve mentioned in other articles that by 2026, with a military budget exceeding 600 billion euros, the EU and its member states will already be close to spending 3-4% of GDP on armaments, as Trump desires—the same Trump they claim not to align with. With this increase proposed by von der Leyen, 5% of GDP would be guaranteed.

The truth, however, is that when we look at the proposals, we see that what’s on the table is a line of credit, available to member states, worth 150 billion euros, with the remaining amount coming not from the “European Union,” but from the member states themselves. To facilitate this, the EU will discuss proposals to exclude military spending from the limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact, allowing increased investment in armaments to not count toward deficit or public debt limits. In other words, if it’s for weapons, states can borrow as much as they want.

“..the news of lower inflation..”

• This Is Literally The Worst News Democrats Could Get Right Now (Margolis)

The left’s desperate attempts to paint Donald Trump’s second term as an economic disaster are crumbling faster than Hunter Biden’s art career after his daddy left office. After spending four years gaslighting Americans about “Biden’s amazing economy” while families struggled to put food on the table, Democrats have suddenly discovered that inflation exists — and they’re trying to pin it on Trump. How convenient. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently embarrassed himself on ABC News when he claimed, “Donald Trump and Republicans consistently promised that they were going to lower the high cost of living, and they’ve done the exact opposite.” That’s not what the facts say at all. Remember when the left couldn’t stop squawking about egg prices? Well, those same Democrats are mysteriously quiet now that egg prices have plummeted.

After reaching an all-time high of $8.17 per dozen in early March, egg prices have plummeted to $5.51. Democrats will be sad to know that this is below the $7 average price when President Trump took office in January. But that’s not all — gas prices have dropped for three straight weeks. Funny how we’re not seeing wall-to-wall media coverage of these positive developments. The Democrats’ economic fearmongering hasn’t aged well. Their claims that Trump would cause runaway inflation have been proven laughably wrong. For Our VIPs: Sorry Dems, but the Trump Recovery Is Underway. The latest economic data shows inflation cooling to 2.8% year-over-year in February, with monthly inflation at just 0.2% — both numbers came in below expectations.

Even CNN had to swallow their pride and report on these positive developments. CNN’s Matt Egan had to concede that the latest economic report was “good news on the economy,” and he emphasized that inflation is “really the number one issue for many Americans.” He noted that both the annual and monthly increases were “a step in the right direction, and both were better than expected.” “This is definitely very encouraging to see,” Egan continued, adding that it is going to “relieve some fears that inflation was perhaps reaccelerating.” He pointed out that February’s report “actually breaks a streak of four straight months… where the inflation rate was going in the wrong direction, right? It was going higher and higher. Finally, we’re seeing it dip.”

Americans may finally be seeing some relief from Bidenomics. Remember how Democrats were lamenting the recent stock market woes? The market has rallied in the wake of the news of lower inflation. This is exactly why Americans are turning their backs on the Democrats’ economic policies. While Biden and his cronies were telling us to lower our expectations and accept sky-high prices as the “new normal,” Trump has been delivering actual results. The stark difference between Democrat rhetoric and reality couldn’t be clearer. Maybe it’s time for Democrats to admit what the rest of us have known all along: their economic policies failed miserably, and Trump’s America First approach delivers results for working families. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that admission — they’re too busy planning their next round of failed talking points.

Smells like lawfare.

• Shutdown Schumer, the Shifty Democrats And a Government Standstill (Thorne)

D.C. Democrats have always ruled the shutdown game. When they are in charge of Congress, they are positively allergic to passing a budget, let alone a balanced one. They prefer to clobber Republicans over the head with shutdown showmanship, ultimately getting their spendthrift way while reaping the fringe benefit of demolished approval ratings for their rival party. Here’s how it works: Democrats sit on their hands and do nothing about spending until the budget deadline looms. Once they are operating in a time-crisis setting, Democrats put forth a grotesque, bloated, and usually immoral omnibus spending bill rife with grift for their friends and economic incontinence. Republicans naturally recoil at this abomination and refuse to vote for it. Democrats and their media allies then bray that Republicans are obstructionists.

If the deadline passes without an agreement, the blame is uniformly heaped upon the Republicans. It is always they, never the blameless Democrats, who shut down the government by refusing to pass the perfectly good spending resolution the Democrats produced. If there is a Democrat president, he does his part by making the shutdown as absurdly public and painful as possible. Who can forget Barack Obama somehow finding employees who were magically exempt from furlough to put up fences around open-air monuments and parks? And to enforce closure of 1,100 square miles of open ocean off the coast of Florida? The compounded applied pressure — generally combined with a greasy offering of pork — is intense enough to shake loose just enough persuadable Republicans to pass everything the Democrats want.

In fact, Republicans were savaged and rolled with this technique enough times that after a while, all the Democrats had to do was threaten to shut down the government to get enough GOP senators to capitulate. But things are different now. Democrats aren’t in power in Congress or the White House, and their media arm has finally lied itself out of relevance. On Tuesday, the Republicans in control of the U.S. House passed a continuing resolution that would keep the government running until this summer — without profligate spending increases — and passed it along to their colleagues in the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the floor Wednesday, still trying to play the Democrats’ game of blaming the Republicans for his party’s obstructionism. “Funding the government should be a bipartisan effort,” droned Schumer dolorously.

But alas, those dastardly Republicans “chose a partisan path, drafting their continuing resolution without any input — any input! — from congressional Democrats. Because of that, Republicans do not have the votes in the Senate to invoke cloture on the house CR.” Republicans brought this shutdown upon themselves, you see. Meanwhile, said Schumer, the virtuous Democrats were “unified on a clean April 11 CR that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass.” Finally, he expressed his fervent hope that “our Republican colleagues will join us to avoid a shutdown on Friday.” But somehow, the blame does not seem to be falling on the Republicans this time. “With Schumer saying that Democrats are not ready to proceed, the Democrats hold the cards,” explains ABC News Delaware affiliate 6ABC. “If they do not furnish the votes to clear this procedural hurdle and get on to the bill, things could be at a stand still, and a shut down could be on the horizon.”

Meanwhile, House Democrats are urging their Senate colleagues to vote no on the funding bill they almost unanimously opposed when it passed through the House on Tuesday evening. “House Democrats are very clear. We’re asking Senate Democrats to vote ‘no’ on this continuing resolution, which is not clean, and it makes cuts across the board,” said Vice Chair Ted Lieu, flanked by five other members of House leadership at a press conference at the Issues Conference at the Lansdowne Resort. Lieu’s comments came before Schumer pushed for a 30-day clean stopgap bill. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that conversations are “continuing” with Schumer all the way down to rank-and-file Democratic members about keeping the Democratic caucus united against the bill. “The House Democratic position is crystal clear as evidenced by the strong vote of opposition that we took yesterday on the House floor opposing the Trump-Musk-Johnson reckless Republican spending bill,” Jeffries said.

Was anything not fake?

• Old Joe’s Fake Oval Office – and Its Fake News Apologists – Exposed (Victoria Taft)

Joe Biden’s stage set is to the Oval Office what Dylan Mulvaney is to women: completely fake. We know that now, but there was a time when the media said all claims that Joe Biden was working from a virtual or fake Oval Office were considered to be “fake news.” Now, with Trump White House adviser Alina Habba personally finding the fake Oval Office set and showing it to the public in a video, people are discovering the story all over again. From January through September 2021, Joe Biden’s water carriers in the media went out of their way to “debunk” the claims that he was doing appearances from a phony Oval Office, a Hollywood-like set. Here’s a Reuters “fact check” that gives you an idea of how completely in-the-bag the White House media were for the man who ran for president from a set in his basement.

“Social media users have shared photos of President Joe Biden in the Oval Office, claiming they provide proof that the office is fake or a film set. The “evidence” includes a supposed change in wallpaper, allegedly darkened windows and claims that former President Trump is walking in the background outside the office. Reuters has examined each of these photos and found none of the claims to be true.” Reuters’ “debunking” went on to link Facebook posts that are no longer available, probably because Mark Zuckerberg’s social media platform instituted censorship on all posts that were from “right wing” sources that took a verbal shot at the man “saving democracy:”

“As so-called evidence, the post includes a series of photos [it] says show that Trump can be seen in the window behind Biden; the color of the rug has changed from Trump’s Oval Office; there is a tank outside the window; the background in the windows behind Biden does not match that of Trump’s Oval Office (here, here); the windows are darkened; the wallpaper is not the same as Trump’s Oval Office; and the post also includes photos of Oval Office movie sets”. When Politifact was at the center of the censorship industrial complex, it, too, “fact checked” the claim in its usual way; it took the claim, changed it, fact-checked the change, and pronounced the whole thing to be false. Here’s Politifact: “Since President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, false claims that his presidency is staged have proliferated online. We’ve debunked social media posts that a White House event was filmed at Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, and that his administration created a fake set for him to get a booster shot.”

Neither was true. Remember: the original claim was that Biden had a fake Oval Office. Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA took a victory lap when he saw the Biden Administration optics as Joe got a COVID shot on a set: Here’s another Politfact fact check from September 2021 listing a Facebook meme as false. The headline reads, “No, White House didn’t create fake set just for Joe Biden’s booster shot.” The supposed fact-checking outfit was looking into a meme featuring a photo of Joe getting a COVID shot on the Hollywood-style set that said, “[The White House] created a fake set for (President Joe) Biden to get his booster shot. The entire Biden presidency is one giant charade.” You can see what they did there. The claim was that the Oval Office with the COVID shot was fake.

Nothing is real with these people, it’s all smoke and mirrors. But we’re supposed to entrust them with all of our personal health decisions? pic.twitter.com/9N5FPYm7pI

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 29, 2021

Politifact conflated that claim with the poster’s opinion that the “entire Biden presidency is one giant charade” and then denounced the whole thing as false. (Later, when proven wrong, Politifact went back and changed its fact check to include a revised version of the story it got wrong in a highlighted box with an “If your time is short” prompt to keep eyes off its incorrect story). Have I ever told you about Politi”fact”, as I call it, fact-checking a claim I made on the radio and my website about bike lanes in Portland? I provided photos and everything. The Politi”fact” reporter checked my claim and pronounced me a liar. When I called her out, the fake fact checker admitted that she checked when it was dark so she couldn’t see properly to verify my claim. She never removed her fake “fact check.”

And then, in October 2021, Newsweek tried to paper over Fourth Estate’s fake news about the Hollywood set in a clean-up piece entitled, “Why the White House Built a Fake Oval Office for Joe Biden.” There, the reporter pacified, “But there is a logical explanation as to why the White House has decided to construct a set version of the Oval Office.” This is the back story that Alina Habba referred to when she sent this video from the fake Oval Office this week. The fake Oval Office production set is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is part of the White House complex.

This map is from the White House tour office. Note how close the West Wing is to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

I cracked the case! DISGRATZ! pic.twitter.com/1hpRBObEb6

— Alina Habba (@AlinaHabba) March 11, 2025

Since it’s so close to the Oval Office (and probably accessible via tunnel or shortcut, but that’s classified), I propose liberating the rooms used by White House Correspondents in the West Wing and relocating the media to the auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where the fake Oval Office is. Move them all, offices and press room — the whole shebang. The West Wing is crammed full as it is, so why not move the fake news to the fake Oval Office?

“Made in China 2025” is a plan from 2015.

• Made in China 2025 – Revisited (Pepe Escobar)

Now let’s focus on China’s extremely complex domestic equation. At the opening of the Two Sessions, Premier Li Qiang came up with a rallying call for the whole nation to rise up to a series of “very challenging” goals, including growth of 5% in 2025 (it was 4.9% last year). Essentially, to revitalize the economy, Beijing will issue 1.3 trillion yuan (around US$182 billion) in ultra-long special treasury bonds. The deficit-to-GDP ratio was set at around 4%. The official policy of “opening up” will reach the internet, telecoms, healthcare and education industries – meaning more opportunities for foreign investors and possible partnerships up and down the industrial supply chain. All those moving parts of the ambitious Made in China 2025 tech project will be on overdrive: AI, smart terminals, the Internet of things, 5G, plus a new mechanism set up for “future industries” to support hi-tech domains,including biomaterials manufacturing, quantum technology, embodied intelligence and 6G.

Premier Li enthusiastically praised the role of regional growth drivers such as the Greater Bay Area – the super high-tech cluster in Guangdong province linked to Hong Kong. Predictably, he extolled the “one country, two systems” model and the further economic integration of both Hong Kong and Macau. Arguably this is the best analysis anywhere not only of why Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson had to get rid of its port operations in the Panama Canal, but also because it offers a crisp Chinese evaluation of the “three powers” behind Trump 2.0: Wall Street, heavy industrial capital (energy, steel, mining) and Silicon Valley. CK Hutchison Holdings, founded in Hong Kong by notorious tycoon Li Ka-shing, essentially had to sell 80% of Hutchison Port Group, a subsidiary that owns 43 container ports in 23 countries, including a 90% stake in the Balboa and Cristobal docks at either end of the Panama Canal, because of hardcore geopolitics. Hutchison will continue to control its ports in China, including Hong Kong.

President Trump made a huge fuss about the BlackRock-led deal. The view in Hong Kong is more pragmatic. Hutchinson was not eager to engage in a furious court battle in US courts – not to mention potential sanctions. So they chose to opt for a “strategic exit”. Premier Li noted how consumption in China now is “sluggish” and, somewhat euphemistically, how there were “pressures on job creation and income growth”. Enter a promised “vigorous boost” to household demand, plus the creation of 12 million new urban jobs, with help focusing on fresh university graduates and migrant workers. In parallel, Beijing will expand its military budget by only 7.2% in 2025, reaching roughly 1.78 trillion yuan (US$ 245 billion). That’s not much compared to the Pentagon budget.

It’s quite enlightening to observe the proposals of the Two Sessions – and the tone-setting by Wang Yi – in relation to the analysis by a certified Asian star such as former Singaporean ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani.
Kishore once again resorts to Sun Tzu, explaining how Chinese rulers always privilege the best way to win as not fighting kinetic wars. What matters is to coordinate expansion – epistemologically, educationally, economically, industrially, techno-scientifically, financially, diplomatically, militarily – under the aegis of deterrence. The bottom line is that Beijing will not be trapped by any possible, bombastic provocation coming from Trump 2.0. Once again, it’s all about “coordinated expansion”.

Example. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, partly funded by the Australian military, and frankly Sinophobic – and Russophobic – at least did something useful by developing a Critical Technology Tracker of 64 current, critical technologies. This is their latest report, from August 2024. It shows that between 2003 and 2007, the US led in 60 of 64 technologies. China led in only 3. Cue to between 2019 and 2023: the US led in only 7, whereas China led in 57 – including semiconductor chipmaking, gravitational sensors, high-performance computing, quantum sensors, and space launch technology.

All that is inextricably linked to the successful planning – and achieved targets – of Made in China 2025. Talk about two five-year plans back to back (Made in China was conceived in 2015). So this is what China 2025 will be all about: serious investments coupled with lots of partnerships with the whole Global South. Once again, in a sort of Sun Tzu framework tweaked by Bruce Lee, China is bound to use Trump 2.0 and the coming mix of confrontation, competition and periodic negotiation as a trampoline to expand its global reach even further. That might be one of the unstated meanings of what Xi Jinping told Putin in Moscow nearly two years ago: “Changes unseen in a century.” Beijing will be sure to find shelter from the storm – any storm. And without having to fight a single kinetic war.

Mother and son

Mother: This is the last time I show you how to go down..

Son: pic.twitter.com/ifOxnLOGYf

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) March 12, 2025

Humming rain
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1899897177243312326

Puli
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1899758633291759933

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1899746630837887170

Book of Enoch
https://twitter.com/JasperUnleashed/status/1899676260550545736

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 12 2025

Mar 122025

March 12, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:56 am Finance Tagged with: CBP app, ceasefire, DOGE, far right, Global Reset, Gonzalo Lira, lawfare, Napoleon, Ontario, truce, Trump, USAID 50 Responses »

James Ensor The intrigue 1890

• Ukraine Open To ‘Immediate’ 30-Day Ceasefire If Russia Agrees: State Dept (JTN)

• 30-Day Truce: US Lifts Pause On Intel & Military Aid To Ukraine (ZH)

• What Should Trump Do? (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Kremlin Warns Russians Not To See Trump Through ‘Rose-Colored Glasses’ (ZH)

• Trump Moves To His Primordial Objective – The Global Reset (Alastair Crooke)

• Ontario Caves to Trump on Tariffs (Margolis)

• Musk: DOGE Will Cut $1 TRILLION in Spending ‘Unless We’re Stopped’ (Green)

• USAID Staff Rush To Shred And Burn Documents (RT)

• Brace Yourselves: The Next Media BIG LIE Is About to Drop (Green)

• The Right is Being Shut Out of Government Across Europe (DS)

• Europe Seizing Russian FX Reserves Would Reset Global Financial System (Every)

• Macron’s Napoleon Cosplay Could Come At A Grave Cost (RT)

• The French Despite Clear Warning Brought The Camp of the Saints to France (PCR)

• Hungary Accuses Ukraine Of Threatening Its Sovereignty (RT)

• Trump Finds an Epic Way to Repurpose Biden’s CBP One App for Ilegals (Margolis)

• Judge Declines Bid to Force Federal Gov’t to Restore Foreign Aid Contracts (ET)

• Moscow Reproaches Western Media For Silence Over Gonzalo Lira’s Death (RT)

https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1899243456800973262

ELON MUSK: "Dramatically increasing my risk of being assassinated and engaging in politics are not what I want to do. I do not have a death wish but the stakes are so high that I really feel I have no choice but to do it."

pic.twitter.com/TbMddm0dMi

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) March 10, 2025

TUCKER: “@elonmusk’s job … is to deal with the one thing that nobody has dealt with, which will be the end of the country — the country's bankruptcy … We don't know if it's going to work or not. I'm praying that it does because I think it's our last chance.” pic.twitter.com/bsLVpXQbdt

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) March 11, 2025

Miller

NEW – Stephen Miller on the stock market dip: "Joe Biden left us with an economic nightmare of inflation and joblessness that President Trump is fixing. I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of what President Trump is in the process of repairing." pic.twitter.com/S27Gd8sgKE

— Overton (@overton_news) March 10, 2025

NOW – RFK Jr. Sounds Alarm: Kids’ Lifespans Sinking Below Parents |

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dropped a chilling statistic that should terrify every parent in America.

RFK Jr stated:

“This generation of our kids is the first generation in 200 years that is going to… pic.twitter.com/N403RqH1Pz

— Overton (@overton_news) March 11, 2025

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1899640782702723406

Stew Peters

Thomas Massie is the line in the sand.

Trump is going to find out how much power our unified movement actually wields.

We will save Massie at all costs and expose MAGA as being nothing more than Israeli handlers pulling Trump’s strings and a few sellout “influencer” accounts. pic.twitter.com/W6Y5U6nRzh

— Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) March 12, 2025

Alina
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1899524695588036956

What Russia wants -at least- has been obvious forever. But Rubio has a meeting wih Ukraine and more or less tells Putin ‘take it or leave it’. Russia will not accept a short term or partial ceasefire that can be used to rearm Ukraine. Russia has the momentum. They will not squander it. Russian troops have died to achieve the present situation. Their memories will be honored.

• Ukraine Open To ‘Immediate’ 30-Day Ceasefire If Russia Agrees: State Dept (JTN)

Ukrainian diplomats signaled their willingness to agree to a 30-day preliminary ceasefire with Russia as part of their negotiations with American officials in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. “Ukraine expressed readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation,” the State Department said in a joint statement with Ukrainian officials, according to CBS News. “The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace,” they said. The United States also announced it would end a pause on military aid and intelligence sharing as a result of the talks.

After the negotiations, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the effort a “concrete step” from Ukraine and expressed “hope that the Russians will reciprocate.” The Russians have not agreed to a ceasefire as of press time. They are unlikely to do so, however, without significant concessions, as the Russian army is currently making significant gains in the Kursk region against Ukrainian troops that occupied the border area. In the meantime, Russian offensives in Zaporizhzhia and the Donbas have posted modest gains in recent days and a spring offensive in expected to materialize soon.

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1899585186624675845

All Ukraine troops must withdraw from Crimea and the four regions. There must be a signed (not by Zelensky!) document that says Ukraine will not be part of NATO. Only then can a truce maybe be considered.

• 30-Day Truce: US Lifts Pause On Intel & Military Aid To Ukraine (ZH)

An apparent breakthrough in Jedda talks between the US and Ukraine, as the United States has announced it “will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine.” The Zelensky government has also “expressed readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation,” the statement said.

“The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace,” it added. This comes after a reported over eight hour-long meeting between the US and Ukrainian delegations in the Saudi port city on Tuesday. No doubt, the Ukrainians came hat in hand, ready to please Trump after relations had fallen off a cliff with the Zelensky Oval Office confrontation earlier this month. Shortly before the announced US-Ukraine agreement for a 30-day ceasefire, a TASS headline said that the Kremlin has no information on any details coming out of the Jeddah meeting.

But will Putin agree? There’s as yet little incentive for him to enact a temporary ceasefire, given as Trump recently admitted… he has all the cards (and Zelensky doesn’t). By all accounts the Russians are fast taking back territory in Kursk and advancing along front lines in the Donbas. Likely Russia fears that Kiev could simply use this ceasefire as an opportunity to rearm, rest, resupply and regroup – especially given Washington just said the US arms and intel pipeline is back on. Moscow is likely to see this is simply a matter between Washington and Kiev, and it appears to be a version of Zelensky’s ‘partial ceasefire’ which demands a halt to all air assaults.

Sergei Lavrov on potential deal.

"What is important to us is not a ceasefire that will allow Ukraine to be armed once again and again directed at our country, but a long-term sustainable peace based on the elimination of the root causes of the conflict" pic.twitter.com/QOcxFVhshJ

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) March 11, 2025

“Trump should immediately remove all sanctions, not only against Russia but against every country. This will boost the dollar’s role as the international medium of exchange, save the basis of American power, and reassure the Kremlin that the Cold War is indeed over.”

• What Should Trump Do? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Trump should end America’s unconditional support of Israel. To enable genoide with weapons, money, and diplomatic cover is not making America great. If under Trump Israel maintains or increases its determination of US policy at home and abroad, it is Israel, not America, that will be made great. Is that Trump’s role, to make Israel great? American Christian Zionists, none of whom are Christians as they worship Israel, not Christ, say yes. The position of Christian Zionists is that God’s purpose for America is to protect Israeli Zionism. As so many of these are MAGA Americans, who really rules America? Trump or Israel? What should Trump do about Ukraine? To end the conflict Trump doesn’t need to be holding meetings and talking about meetings with Putin, Zelensky, EU or anyone. It is extremely simple for Trump to end the conflict as far as the US is concerned.

All he has to do is to make the hold he has put on delivery of weapons permanent and withdraw all US operatives in the proxy conflict with Russia. Without the US supplying weapons, intelligence, targeting information and money to keep the conflict alive, the conflict will quickly end.This is what Trump needs to tell Putin: “I know Washington is responsible for this conflict. I am withdrawing Washington’s participation. The conflict would not have happened if the Democrats had not stolen the 2020 election. I am cancelling the sanctions. I will be accused by the Democrats and the presstitutes of selling out Ukraine to you. Your job is to be merciful to Ukraine. As the US is responsible for the conflict, the US will help you to rebuild a demilitarized Ukraine in which economic advancement takes precedent over war. You must not fail my good intentions, or the Cold War will resume.”

Can Trump do this? Or is Trump compelled by anti-Russian propaganda to force some form of submission from Putin as a demonstration of American power? If Trump can do what is required, Zelensky will then have to deal with Putin. After all, what has it to do with us? If the Europeans want to line up with a loser, let them. There is no reason for Trump, whom they hate, to rescue the Europeans. To demonstrate to Putin that the US proxy war with Russia, started by Zionist Neoconservatives, is over, Trump should immediately remove all sanctions, not only against Russia but against every country. This will boost the dollar’s role as the international medium of exchange, save the basis of American power, and reassure the Kremlin that the Cold War is indeed over.

Trump should get off China’s back. It is not China’s fault that Wall Street drove American manufacturing jobs offshore to China and to other parts of Asia and Mexico. This was the greed for profits by lowering labor costs by leaving the American manufacturing working class without remunerative employment and our former manufacturing cities without a tax base. This is what Wall Street and the corporations did to America. Is it Trump’s role to protect these American adversaries by blaming China? It has never been clear what Trump wants from China. He should tells us so that we can assess his intention. As China has jurisdiction over a large segment of US manufacturing which is situated in China, it makes little sense to provoke confrontation with China.

It is Wall Street and the greedy self-serving corporate executives and boards who received huge renumeration for offshoring the jobs of the working class. When the products of the offshored jobs come back to the US to be marketed, they come in as imports. It is the offshored production of American corporations that is the cause of the trade deficit with China. It is not the fault of China. Why is Trump picking on the wrong source of the problem? If people in the Trump administration are deceiving Trump about this, he had best replace them. Being great has moral meaning. It does not suffice to be successful in business, to make successful deals, to avoid wars. To be great you have to stand up for Truth. You have to stand up for Justice. You have to stand up for the US Constitution.

“..Moscow is signaling it is not in a hurry – and won’t be rushing to the negotiating table just because Trump wants it.”

• Kremlin Warns Russians Not To See Trump Through ‘Rose-Colored Glasses’ (ZH)

Earlier in the Trump presidency, and especially as his spat with Ukraine’s Zelensky played out more directly and out in the open, Russian media and Kremlin officials seemed almost gleeful. A slew of positive statements agreeing with Trump were issued from Moscow – for example enthusiastically backing Trump’s words that Zelensky is a “dictator without elections”. But it seems Russian leadership wants to pull in the reigns a bit on its generally positive Trump commentary, as intense negotiations for peace settlement in Ukraine are anticipated. On Tuesday the Kremlin warned the Russian public against viewing President Donald Trump and his recent actions related to Ukraine through “rose-tinted glasses”.

This is in most immediate reference to the drastic actions of Trump cutting off military aid to Kiev, as well as most intelligence-sharing, which shocked and angered Western allies. Peskov issued the caution about not getting overly excited in remarks given before an audience of Moscow’s Higher School of Economics. “Don’t rush to put on rose-tinted glasses,” Peskov said. “We always need to hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. And we must always be ready to defend our interests.” He also referenced people getting too prematurely eager over this week’s reports that Elon Musk could cut off the Ukrainian military from his Starlink communications system. This was after a fierce online clash with Poland’s outspoken foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, which also drew in Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

But by the end of that brief online spat, Musk pledged, “To be extremely clear, no matter how much I disagree with the Ukraine policy, Starlink will never turn off its terminals.””I am simply stating that, without Starlink, the Ukrainian lines would collapse, as the Russians can jam all other communications! We would never do such a thing or use it as a bargaining chip,” he explained. This was an example Peskov provided to his audience as to why caution is needed with the American side in any future negotiations to end the war. The Putin spokesman stressed that Russia will achieve its war aims no matter what Washington demands:

Peskov said Russia was achieving its aims on the battlefield in Ukraine, regardless of what decisions the U.S. was taking. He said the amount of weapons circulating in Ukraine was so large that Kyiv had enough to keep fighting for many months despite the suspension of U.S. deliveries. All of this seems like Moscow is signaling it is not in a hurry – and won’t be rushing to the negotiating table just because Trump wants it. Each side is of course trying to maintain as much leverage as possible before any talks begin in earnest. Thus clearly Russian officials don’t want appear too ‘enthused’ about Trump and the concessions he might press the Ukrainian government to make.

“The Maga Right has none of the inhibitions of its predecessors. It is planning to leverage the power of a recaptured state to annihilate its enemies..”

• Trump Moves To His Primordial Objective – The Global Reset (Alastair Crooke)

President Trump wants Ukraine settled, full stop. This is so that he can move ahead quickly – to normalise with Russia, and begin the ‘big picture’ project of setting a new World Order, one that will end wars and facilitate business ties. The point here – which Europe feigns to not understand – is that the end to the Ukraine conflict simply is Trump’s ‘gateway’ to the entire rationale and platform on which he stood: The Great Reset of the Geo-Political landscape. Ukraine, simply said, is the obstacle to Trump’s pursuit of his primordial objective: The Global Reset. Starmer, Macron and the eastern wing of the Euro-élites are blind to the sheer scale of the global vibe-shift towards traditionalist U.S. politics and ethics. They miss too, the barely concealed fury in the Trump world that exists behind this nascent revolution.

“The Maga Right has none of the inhibitions of its predecessors. It is planning to leverage the power of a recaptured state to annihilate its enemies”, Allister Heath writes. The European Ruling Class is in desperate trouble and increasingly isolated, in a world shifting ‘Rightward’ at breakneck speed. “The U.S. is now the enemy of the West”, the FT proclaims. European leaders wantonly won’t understand. The reality is that the U.S. is engaged now in rolling up Europe’s foreign policy. And, is about to start exporting U.S. traditional Republican values to roll up the European wokeist belief-system. The European Ruling strata – far removed from its base – has failed to grasp the threat to its own interests (a scenario outlined here). The Trump administration is trying to rebuild the ailing Republic, and Americans in this new era do not care for the European obsession with ancient feuds and their entailing wars.

Trump reportedly views with utter disdain the UK and European boast that should the U.S. not do it, then Europe will. The Brussels class claims to be able still – after three years of losing in Ukraine – to be able to inflict a humiliating defeat on President Putin. More profoundly, however, Team Trump – committed to the task of taking down the American Deep State as the ‘inexorable enemy’ – perceives (rightly) the British security state to be co-joined at the hip with their American counterparts, as a part of its global meta-structure. And its oldest and deepest component has always been the destruction of Russia, and its dismemberment. So when Macron, in an address to the nation this week, rejected a ceasefire in Ukraine and declared that “peace in Europe is only possible with a weakened Russia”, calling the country a direct threat to France and the continent, many in ‘Trump world’ will interpret this defiant declaration (that ‘Ukraine defeating Russia is preferable to ‘peace’’) is nothing more than Macron and Starmer ventriloquising the aims of the Meta Deep State.

This notion is lent substance by the sudden plethora of articles appearing in the European-(managed) MSM to the effect that Russia’s economy is much weaker than it appears and might collapse in the next year. Of course it is nonsense. This is about managing the European public to believe that keeping the war going in Ukraine is a ‘good idea’. The absurdity of the European position was perhaps best captured, as Wolfgang Münchau notes, in its full hubris last year by the historian and writer Anne Applebaum when she won a prestigious German peace prize. During her acceptance speech, she maintained that victory was more important than peace, asserting that the West’s ultimate goal should be regime change in Russia: “We must help Ukrainians achieve victory, and not only for the sake of Ukraine,” she said.

Zelensky and his European fans want ‘to negotiate’ – though later, rather than sooner (perhaps in a year, as one European Foreign Minister reportedly told Marco Rubio privately). “This”, Münchau writes, “is what the very public disagreement in the Oval Office [last week] was all about. Peace through untrammelled victory — essentially the Second World War model — as the lens through which virtually all European leaders, and most commentators view the Russia-Ukraine conflict”. America sees things differently: It views almost certainly the European Deep State to be putting a spoke into Trump’s ‘normalisation with Russia’ wheel – a normalisation to which they are viscerally opposed.

Or, at the very least, as the Europeans chasing a “mirage that no longer exists, stubbornly hiking ‘tax and spend’, whilst doubling down on mass immigration and overpriced energy, oblivious to the flashing red lights in the [financial markets] as government debt yields rocket to their highest levels since 1998”, as Allister Heath outlines. In other words, the suggestion is that Friedrich Merz, Macron and Starmer are talking about how they are going to turn around their countries – via a massive infusion of debt – into defence superstates. Yet, at some level of consciousness, they must realise that it is not doable, so they settle instead for presenting themselves as ‘world leaders on the international stage’.

“Also, Canada must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products..”

• Ontario Caves to Trump on Tariffs (Margolis)

Let me tell you what winning looks like. While the liberal media was busy predicting economic catastrophe from President Trump’s latest tariff moves, Canada just blinked — and blinked hard. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who thought he could play hardball with America by slapping a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, New York, and Minnesota, just got a swift lesson in real negotiation. “Canada is a Tariff abuser, and always has been, but the United States is not going to be subsidizing Canada any longer,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social Monday evening. “We don’t need your Cars, we don’t need your Lumber, we don’t [need] your Energy, and very soon, you will find that out. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” And then, Ontario responded by placing a 25% tariff on electricity coming into the United States, but Trump didn’t blink:

“I have instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an ADDITIONAL 25% Tariff, to 50%, on all STEEL and ALUMINUM COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, ONE OF THE HIGHEST TARIFFING NATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. This will go into effect TOMORROW MORNING, March 12th. Also, Canada must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products, which has long been considered outrageous. I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area. This will allow the U.S to quickly do what has to be done to alleviate this abusive threat from Canada. If other egregious, long time Tariffs are not likewise dropped by Canada, I will substantially increase, on April 2nd, the Tariffs on Cars coming into the U.S. which will, essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada.”

After Trump threatened to double existing tariffs on Canadian goods and announced a new 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, Ford’s tough-guy act fell faster than Joe Biden on the steps to Air Force One. “Today, United States Secretary of Commerce [Howard Lutnick] and Premier of Ontario Doug Ford had a productive conversation about the economic relationship between the United States and Canada,” the pair said in a joint statement Ford shared on X. Secretary Lutnick agreed to officially meet with Premier Ford in Washington on Thursday, March 13 alongside the United States Trade Representative to discuss a renewed USMCA ahead of the April 2 reciprocal tariff deadline. In response, Ontario agreed to suspend its 25 per cent surcharge on exports of electricity to Michigan, New York and Minnesota.

The lesson here is simple: America First works. While Biden spent years letting everyone walk all over us, Trump is back to showing the world what real leadership looks like. Canada’s quick surrender proves what conservatives have always known — strength gets respect, and respect gets results. Whether Canada will budge on tariffs remains to be seen, but Trump showed who has the upper hand in these negotiations because Ontario quickly caved. The economic relationship between the U.S. and Canada might be facing a test, but with Trump at the helm, there’s no doubt who’s going to come out on top. That’s what making America great again looks like in real time, folks.

“If Musk and the DOGE boys can cut a trillion dollars of funny money out of 2025 spending, they’ll gut most of the inflation, too.”

• Musk: DOGE Will Cut $1 TRILLION in Spending ‘Unless We’re Stopped’ (Green)

Earlier today I had to share the bad news about the economy. Now it’s time for the good news. Savings generated by DOGE during the first two months of Trump 47 “exceed $4 billion per day,” Musk told Fox News on Monday afternoon. He also said he and his team will achieve $1 TRILLION in savings “unless we’re stopped.” Hang on to that last line for a moment while I tell you why that big number is a very big deal. Aside, of course, from the outrageous bigness of a one followed by 12 zeroes. Going into this DOGE thing shortly after Trump’s re-inauguration, Musk laid out just how much work there was to do and how difficult it would be to achieve his goal of cutting our [dr_evil_voice] TWO TRILLION DOLLAR [/dr_evil_voice] deficit in half. “Reducing the federal deficit from $2T to $1T in FY2026,” Musk explained back in January, “requires cutting an average of ~$4B/day in projected 2026 spending from now to Sept 30.”

In the last seven-plus weeks, DOGE has exceeded its seemingly impossible goal, though only barely. This is maybe the best news you’ll read all week, even though the legacy dinosaur media insists that it’s all doom and gloom and starving uneducated children who can no longer get their nads hacked off at taxpayer expense. Not to get too deep into the weeds, but cutting [dr_evil_voice] ONE TRILLION DOLLARS [/dr_evil_voice] wasn’t some nice-sounding number picked at random. I’ll keep this as brief and light as I know how. Prices rise and fall all the time according to changing market conditions. But inflation is special. It’s when the government prints additional dollars faster than the economy grows extra value. More dollar bills chasing around the same amount of goods and services causes a rapid and general increase in the price of everything, AKA inflation.

So far, so good? Barring a recession, the economy is expected to grow by about 2.2% this year — a roughly $638 billion increase in the size of the economy. Barring DOGE cuts, Washington is expected to borrow [dr_evil_voice] TWO TRILLION DOLLARS [/dr_evil_voice]. That’s inflationary funny money printed up out of nowhere. Again, roughly speaking, the difference between those two yuge figures is the inflation we’ll suffer. If Musk and the DOGE boys can cut a trillion dollars of funny money out of 2025 spending, they’ll gut most of the inflation, too. They might even get us under the 2% inflation that the Fed targets because the Powers That Be — the ones who politically benefit from spending money we don’t have — long ago decided that 2% annual inflation is good for us, ackshully. But that’s a discussion for another day.

Back to today’s news: DOGE cutting $4 billion a day “would still result in a ~$1T deficit,” Musk said several weeks ago, “but economic growth should be able to match that number, which would mean no inflation in 2026.” A trillion dollars in growth looks unlikely this year but that’s something I’d dearly love to be wrong about. The point is that there is a trillion dollars at stake, “unless we’re stopped,” as Musk put it Monday, and people have been murdered for a lot less than a trillion dollars.

https://twitter.com/joeroganhq/status/1899254896081469715

“The acting executive secretary of the US Agency for International Development”.. should do some stiff jail time.

• USAID Staff Rush To Shred And Burn Documents (RT)

The acting executive secretary of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Erica Carr, has directed remaining staff to destroy sensitive documents stored at the agency’s former headquarters in Washington, DC, according to an internal email. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who leads the recently established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have repeatedly accused USAID – the primary US agency for funding political projects abroad – of misusing taxpayer money and fostering corruption. As part of broader efforts to cut federal spending, the agency was forced to lay off 2,000 employees and place most of the remaining staff on leave. In an email first obtained by ProPublica,

Carr instructed the remaining staff to convene on Tuesday for an “all-day” effort to clear out classified safes and personnel documents at the Ronald Reagan Building. She advised employees to prioritize shredding documents and to use burn bags sparingly. “Shred as many documents as possible first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” the email read. “The only labeling required on the burn bags is the phrase ‘SECRET’ and ‘USAID/(B/IO)’ in dark Sharpie if possible. If you need additional burn bags or Sharpie markers, please let me or the SEC InfoSec team know.”

The email did not specify a reason for the destruction of the documents. However, the building is being vacated following mass layoffs, as US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently rented 390,000 square feet of office space in the facility. The directive has raised concerns among former USAID staff and legal experts, who argue that it could violate federal record-keeping laws and potentially hinder ongoing lawsuits challenging the agency’s restructuring. “Destruction of evidence is a crime,” Musk wrote on X in response to reports of the latest document purge. The billionaire previously called USAID a “criminal organization,” while Trump has claimed it was mismanaged by “radical lunatics.”

The handling of documents at USAID has already been under scrutiny. Last month, two of the agency’s security officials were placed on administrative leave after allegedly refusing to grant a team of DOGE auditors access to classified materials. The Trump administration plans to eliminate 90% of USAID contracts, amounting to $54 billion, AP reported last month, citing an internal White House memo and court filings. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has also had its government funding frozen. Although officially a US State Department-funded nonprofit that distributes grants to pro-democracy initiatives abroad, the NED has long faced allegations of acting as a CIA front for regime change operations.

“All of our “growth” for the last five years is due to unsustainable deficits that will haunt generations of Americans yet to be born..”

• Brace Yourselves: The Next Media BIG LIE Is About to Drop (Green)

Before I tell you about the legacy dinosaur media’s next BIG LIE, I need to show you how they’ll sell it. It starts, as these things always do, with the Left attempting to control the language to alter your perceptions about how the economy performed under Presidentish Joe Biden and will perform under President Donald Trump. We might be done with Biden but he isn’t done with us, as you’re about to see. There was a recession in late 2021/early 2022, commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of economic shrinkage. Except the “non-partisan” National Bureau of Economic Research decided to change the commonly understood definition. In 2022, wouldn’t you know, it turned out that “many factors go into that calculation,” and that the Biden recession wasn’t a recession at all when you looked at the “many factors” that nobody had ever looked at before.

The White House got into the game, too, with the White House Council of Economic Advisors citing a “holistic look at the data,” instead of playing by the established rules. The press played along and pretended the recession never happened. Convenient, eh? I’d also add that if you take away Biden’s monstrous budget deficits, any economic growth that happened on his watch was an illusion. We entered a government-engineered recession during the lockdowns of 2020 and, thanks to epic economic mismanagement under Biden, we never left it. Budget deficits are a drag on future growth and should be subtracted from our GDP figures. But the same government that spends more than it takes in — currently by trillions of dollars — pretends that deficits are growth and, again, the press plays along. So convenient.

Private sector jobs and wages stagnated under Biden because everything was driven by Big Government and sold to you by Big Media. It was a helluva party that Biden threw for his well-connected buddies. Now comes the hangover, and some on the Left already have a word for the recession that hasn’t happened yet: Trumpcession. Assuming we do end up with a recession, they’ll probably call it the Trump Depression or something along those lines. I might be exaggerating but not by much. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton claimed that President George H.W. Bush gave us “the worst economy since the Great Depression,” even though the 1991 recession was mild, short-lived, and over for a year before Clinton won the Democrat nomination.

The press helped him get away with it, too. The conveniences keep piling up. Here are the facts, as dreadful as they are. All of our “growth” for the last five years is due to unsustainable deficits that will haunt generations of Americans yet to be born. Economic decisions are increasingly driven by growth-killing mandates and regulations imposed by Biden and the Democrats during 2021-2022. Consumer spending is driven in large part by cheap imports from a country that hates us.

Getting over our addiction to new debt will be painful. Undoing the Biden regulatory binge comes with political risks that some so-called Republicans in Congress refuse to take. Homeshoring — or at least friendshoring — comes with the shock and pain of tariffs. The last time a new president faced an economic crisis like this one was Ronald Reagan in 1981. The recession he engineered with Fed Chair Paul Volcker that year genuinely was one of the worst since the Great Depression, but it was the price that had to be paid to wring Johnson/Nixon/Carter stagflation out of the system. It was a helluva risk they took but it paid off with 20 years of almost uninterrupted and unprecedented growth. So hang on tight because the so-called Trumpcession is in reality the final price to be paid for four years of Joe Biden.

“Right” has become the equivalent of “far right” and “extreme right”. Simply a convenient -because often legal- way to get rid of normal right wing opposition. Incoming train wreck.

• The Right is Being Shut Out of Government Across Europe (DS)

Right-wing politicians are being shut out of Government across Europe, says Gavin Mortimer in the Spectator, as so-called ‘progressive’ elites in politics and the judiciary effectively rig what are supposed to be democratic elections. Here’s an excerpt. “Alarm grew as opinion polls indicated [Calin] Georgescu would win the second round [of Romania’s Presidential election]. Something had to be done, and it was. A couple of days before the decisive vote, Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round because of alleged Russian interference. The court had perused some declassified intelligence documents that claimed 800 TikTok accounts had been activated shortly before polls opened. There was no evidence of voting irregularities in the election itself but the fact Russia had been active on social media was enough for the court to intervene.

At the time, Georgescu likened himself to Donald Trump: an anti-system candidate who was the target of Establishment ‘lawfare’. The Trump administration has subsequently cited Georgescu as an example of the EU’s creeping illiberalism. In a speech at last month’s Munich Security Conference, Vice-President J.D. Vance expressed his astonishment “that a former European Commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian Government had just annulled an entire election… these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears”. The Commissioner in question was Frenchman Thierry Breton, who in a television interview in January boasted that “We did it in Romania and we will obviously do it in Germany if necessary”. He was referring to the upcoming German election and the possibility that the Right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) might win.

As it turned out, simply annulling Romania’s Presidential election didn’t derail the Georgescu bandwagon. Quite the opposite. He picked up momentum and polls showed that he would romp to victory in May’s re-run election. As I predicted in January, Romania’s elite wouldn’t allow this to happen. And they haven’t. At the end of February, Georgescu was detained by police as he drove through Bucharest to file his candidacy in the election. He was indicted on six counts, among them false funding sources and false information in his last campaign. He was also barred from leaving the country and creating any new social media accounts. Now he is barred from standing for President, a decision he has called a “direct blow to the heart of democracy worldwide”.

It’s part of a disturbing illiberal pattern, says Gavin. In Germany, the AfD came second on 20% of the vote but has been shut out of Government in favour of the Left-wing Social Democrats, despite having had their worst performance since 1945. In Austria, the anti-immigration Freedom Party won the election last October but still finds itself shunned by the other parties who have colluded to keep it side-lined. And in France on March 31st a court will rule whether Marine Le Pen will be barred from office for five years over a charge of “misusing EU funds”. This doesn’t end well. The issues that these politicians represent – and simmering public anger about them – obviously aren’t going away, least of all while Left-wing parties cling to power despite losing elections and refuse to address them.

“An economy that ‘must’ grow at 5%, and via more supply, not demand, necessarily makes too much, exports it, and… dominates global supply chains..”

• Europe Seizing Russian FX Reserves Would Reset Global Financial System (Every)

Yesterday saw the Nikkei -2.2%, the Dax -1.7%, the S&P -2.7%, and the Nasdaq –3.8%, while the US Treasury 10-year yield the White House is now focused on was -5bp to 4.16%. As the headlines put it, markets were “swooning”, first on China drifting back to deflation, then on President Trump’s comments that refused to rule out a US recession. Frankly, that commentary managed to be both very shallow and deeply myopic at the same time. China is “struggling” with deflation due to mercantilism. An economy that ‘must’ grow at 5%, and via more supply, not demand, necessarily makes too much, exports it, and… dominates global supply chains. Many Western economies could do with that right now – as Trump implied.

He made clear he wants to reset the US, and by extension, global economy: “I hate to predict things like [a recession]. There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing. And there are always periods of – it takes a little time… But I think it should be great for us… What I have to do is build a strong country… You can’t really watch the stock market. If you look at China, they have a 100-year perspective. We go by quarters. And you can’t go by that. You have to do what’s right.” Vice-President Vance put the same thing another way: “President Trump’s economic policies are simple: if you invest in and create jobs in America, you’ll be rewarded. We’ll lower regulations and reduce taxes. But if you build outside of the US, you’re on your own.”

Markets, which presumed Trump 2 would retain Trump 1’s monomania for stocks, just want what’s right for them. However, anyone who thought shifting the US to production-based mercantilism from asset-based financialisation via economic statecraft over economic policy could be done without assets falling didn’t understand either ‘ism’, or statecraft. Hence the sell-off. Of course, this attempted US reset could go horribly wrong; or right. Either way, markets will be dragged along behind it. We are also seeing a matching US global foreign policy reset via political statecraft:

The US and Ukraine are to meet in Saudi Arabia today to discuss ending that war, as Senator Graham threatens to sanction Russia aggressively if they don’t come to the table; the US wants a deal, not war between Israel and Hamas, and it, not Israel, is now seen in charge of hostage negotiations and the end game; the US is also getting tougher on Iranian oil, as the Houthis reportedly get ready to attack things again; Trump seems set for a June ‘two birthdays’ summit with China’s Xi despite the escalating trade war; and the FT’s Gideon Rachman claims Trump is “Making Europe Great Again” after decrying all the actions that led to that outcome.

Again, this attempted US reset could go horribly wrong; or right. Either way, markets will be dragged along behind it. So, do try to keep up. Moscow is now blaming the UK for instigating global wars – a Russian obsession and a good way not to blame the US, helping build détente, perhaps. However, that flatters the UK as much as recent comparisons between PM Starmer and Churchill. The looming UK Strategic Defence Review (SDR) reportedly states the military is so weak after 25 years of hollowing out that it will take ten years to become “match fit”, and require “much more” investment, and “industrial policy” to onshore production, tech, and jobs, as well as a recommendation this is done without the US. Oddly for military thinkers, the SDR seems to assume an economics-style static backdrop when it will be dynamic and antagonistic.

What if Russia, China, or even the US make the UK’s “industrial policy” or military decoupling more difficult and expensive via grey-zone sabotage, supply chain ‘shocks’, or economic statecraft countermeasures? At the very least, anyone thinking “much more” investment was covered by the recent policy shift away from foreign aid to defence spending, or that this is going to take only ten years, or that the government has a shovel-ready plan for military protectionism to allow it to happen is likely mistaken. The same applies to Europe: will the new “four-year” loosening of the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact, or the 1.5 percentage points of GDP, be all we get as it rearms? Half a Euro tank or a Euro combat aircraft to replace US systems like the F-35 for fear of built-in ‘kill switches’ –so requiring even more complex new supply chains to be built from scratch, and economies of scale, i.e., larger orders, to make it affordable– is no use to Europe at all.

“France has been eyeing a defense spending boost for a while now – because nothing says sophisticated economic strategy like just cranking out piles of missiles..”

• Macron’s Napoleon Cosplay Could Come At A Grave Cost (RT)

French President Emmanuel Macron is currently completely absorbed in cosplaying Napoleon, leading the charge to put French and European boots on the ground on Ukraine’s side against the Russians. His costume needs to be taken in for resizing – downward. Sharing the stage with “Dollar General Napoleon” is British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the role of “Wish Wellington.” This sweatshop mail order version of the legendary British Duke of Wellington and military strategist sounds like he was knocked around and damaged during the shipping process, and has been keen to use his predecessor’s Iraq War tagline of a “coalition of the willing” for marketing purposes. Because that worked out so great the first time that reminding people of it will surely make them want to have yet another go. This time against Russia.

“Wish Wellington” seems rather keen to repeat the logistic challenges of the actual Duke of Wellington in the Peninsular War of 1807 to 1814 in Spain and Portugal. Only this time the modern-day Napoleon knock-off would be fighting beside him rather than against him. Good luck stretching your logistics to Ukraine for battle when your stated opponent only has to travel from right next door.Macron doesn’t want to go in right away though, he says. He needs for everyone to stop fighting for a bit first – a month to be precise – so the French and Brits and their posse can safely get to the VIP room with the bar service without having to worry about getting mixed up with guys throwing punches in Club Ukraine. Macron has since explained that the French wouldn’t be on the front line, but would be hanging out to guarantee “peace” – by repeating the same NATO troop presence that sparked the conflict’s escalation in the first place.

So there’s no way they could possibly ever find themselves in the middle of punch-ups because Macron envisions that velvet rope separating his fantasy stage play from any real-life consequences remaining intact. A modern-day Maginot Line. In the meantime, he’s been taking to TV to tell French citizens, “Who can believe today that Russia would stop at Ukraine?” Well, the French, for one – 65% of whom currently oppose French troops in Ukraine, according to a new CSA Institute poll. Guess they don’t really see it as the pressing issue that Macron portrays. Neither do other EU members, apparently – contrary to their own hyperventilation on the issue. Why else would they have held their Ukraine defense summit in London and not ensured that the Baltics were there, if they were really that concerned about the EU’s frontline countries.

Obviously this is about something else. And one of those other things is trying to literally scare up as much taxpayer cash by fear-bombing their electorate, using the “Russian threat,” to boost their own industrial base. Germany’s economy has been in the dumps since 2022, but there’s nothing that now can’t be fixed with a trillion-euro blank check from the German taxpayer, as the top establishment parties on both the right and left now want – and a good excuse to have to transfer a big chunk of that cash to the country’s defense industry. Some analysts are saying that the plan could boost the country’s GDP by 2% – in the long run. And well, hey, even if it doesn’t, those responsible probably won’t be around when accountability comes knocking, anyway.

Meanwhile, France has been eyeing a defense spending boost for a while now – because nothing says sophisticated economic strategy like just cranking out piles of missiles. With French manufacturing about as sturdy as a baguette left out in the rain – declining output, sluggish new orders, and job cuts since 2023 – Reuters points to skyrocketing energy prices, fuel costs, and raw materials as the culprits. But hey, at least sticking it to Putin by messing with those things has totally, definitely worked… right? So who’s going to actually pay for all this? Sounds like the French government spokesperson already has an idea: dipping into the interest on French citizens’ savings. Pretty sure that people invest in savings so they can buy themselves nice things – not so Brigitte Macron’s former junior high school drama student can gear up for his “little emperor” era.

All this talk of war with Russia for peace has already sent European defense stocks through the roof. According to the Financial Times, Germany’s Rheinmetall is up 14%. A boost of 15% for France’s Thales and Italy’s Leonardo. BAE systems – 14%. Saab – 11%. Because nothing says ‘safety and security’ like a bunch of investors and establishment cronies getting rich off the backs of the average working stiff.

“Why are Americans supporting an alien culture in Europe to the point of possibly having nuclear war with Russia, a law abiding Christian nation that protects its citizens?

• The French Despite Clear Warning Brought The Camp of the Saints to France (PCR)

France is dying. It is a piecemeal death. One business district at a time. One neighborhood at a time. A restaurant, a business, a theater, a hotel here and there. Each death so sad but survivable. But as the piecemeal deaths mount, they become an aggregate, and now France is dying. Jean Raspail warned the French in clear language in 1973 that the open borders acceptance of immigrant-invaders meant the death of France. Enoch Powell warned the British. It proved to be impossible to warn insouciant moronic populations imbued with racist guilt from decades of propagandistic indoctrination. Enoch Powell was denounced and Jean Raspail ignored. Marine Le Pen, the only politician in France who stands for the French people, seems headed to prison for stranding up for French ethnics against the immigrant-invaders.

The same destruction of nation is happening all over Europe, especially in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany and the UK, countries in which the white ethnic female population has no protection against gang rape by immigrant invaders. White women are discouraged from reporting their gang rapes, because it is considered racist for a white to initiate action against a black. This is Europe today. A cultural dead zone or a rising new culture based on African and Muslim mores. All of my European and English friends tell me: “Don’t come back. It will break your heart. It is not like you remember it.” But still the tourists go. They are shown around the still safe areas and kept from seeing the encroaching barbarity. It is like a sponsored trip to Israel. You are not shown the bad stuff, only the good stuff. Trump is right. Europe is a basket case.

Why are Americans supporting an alien culture in Europe to the point of possibly having nuclear war with Russia, a law abiding Christian nation that protects its citizens? The United States should align with the rising powers–Russia and China–not with the decadent and declining countries, none of which are any longer ethnic nations, in Europe. European governments, who refuse to protect their women from immigrant-invaders, want instead to go to war with Russia. Well, Trump should let them. The war won’t last long, and we will be rid of Europe. Europe is dead just like the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico or is it the Gulf of America where the Mississippi River dumps the chemical fertilizer runoff from commercial agribusiness and other pollutants. The United States has the same anti-Western intellectual class as Europe. How can Trump address our vulnerability from our internal enemies, which is where our vulnerability lies?

“..an overnight drone strike on the Druzhba oil pipeline..”

• Hungary Accuses Ukraine Of Threatening Its Sovereignty (RT)

Hungary has accused Ukraine of threatening its sovereignty after Kiev launched an overnight drone strike on the Druzhba oil pipeline on Tuesday. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said shipments of Russian crude via the pipeline have been temporarily halted following the attack on a metering station. In a video posted on Facebook, Szijjarto stressed that the Druzhba pipeline is a critical component of Hungary’s energy infrastructure, pointing out that if it ceases to function, oil deliveries to Hungary and Slovakia would be “physically impossible.” “We consider these attacks against our energy infrastructure targeting Hungary to be unacceptable,” the foreign minister said. “Hungary’s energy supply is a matter of sovereignty and we expect everyone to respect this,” he added. Szijjarto noted that he had spoken to Russia’s deputy energy minister, who has assured him that crude oil deliveries will likely be resumed within the next 24 hours.

The diplomat recalled that Budapest had repeatedly raised the issue of the safety of its energy infrastructure multiple times in Brussels, and had been given assurances by the European Commission that there would be no attacks on such facilities. “Unfortunately, this is already the umpteenth time when the EC’s guarantee is violated,” Szijjarto pointed out. According to media reports, three Ukrainian fixed-wing drones attacked the Druzhba terminal in Bryansk Region on Tuesday night. No injuries were reported. The attack was part of a larger raid on Russia, which reportedly involved more than 340 UAVs, nearly a hundred of which were brought down near Moscow. The falling debris from the destroyed drones near the capital reportedly caused the death of at least three people, while over 20 civilians have been injured.

“The CBP Home App gives aliens the option to leave now and self-deport, so they may still have the opportunity to return legally in the future and live the American dream.”

• Trump Finds an Epic Way to Repurpose Biden’s CBP One App for Ilegals (Margolis)

The days of using government technology to roll out the welcome mat for illegal aliens are officially over. The Trump administration has just launched the CBP Home app, replacing Biden’s disastrous CBP One system that essentially served as a concierge service for illegal immigration. Remember how Biden used CBP One to usher in over a million illegal aliens? Those days are done. The new app has one crystal-clear message: It’s time to go home. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem didn’t mince words about the change. “The Biden Administration exploited the CBP One App to allow more than 1 million aliens to illegally enter the United States,” she declared. “With the launching of the CBP Home App, we are restoring integrity to our immigration system.”

The app’s primary feature is a “Submit Intent to Depart” function, which lets illegal aliens report their planned departure. It’s like an RSVP system for self-deportation. How sweet is that? It can also allow users to verify that they have left the United States. According to Fox News Digital, this feature is “limited to those who were paroled into the U.S.” Noem laid out the options in terms nobody can misunderstand: “The CBP Home App gives aliens the option to leave now and self-deport, so they may still have the opportunity to return legally in the future and live the American dream. If they don’t, we will find them, we will deport them, and they will never return.” The Trump administration isn’t just talking tough; it’s backing it up with action. On day one, Trump killed the parole function that Biden abused.

ICE has now expanded its authority to cancel existing parole statuses, and those previously cherished TPS extensions? Gone for many nationalities. Even domestic travel is getting a reality check. The CBP One system will now only help facilitate one kind of journey — the one that leads out of the country. Since Trump has taken office, border crossings have plummeted. Essentially, he secured the border in a matter of weeks. As President Trump told Congress with his characteristic directness, “The media and our friends in the Democrat Party kept saying we needed new legislation. ‘We must have legislation to secure the border.’ But it turned out that all we really needed was a new president.” This is a complete reversal of Biden’s open-borders disaster. While the Biden administration used technology to welcome illegal immigration, Trump is using it to restore law and order.

The automatic update of all existing CBP One apps to the new CBP Home version sends an unmistakable message: the Biden-era immigration free-for-all is over. The choice for illegal aliens is simple — leave voluntarily now and preserve the possibility of legal return or be deported and face permanent exclusion. This is what actual border security looks like. No endless processing of bogus asylum claims, no more humanitarian parole abuse, just straightforward enforcement of our immigration laws. It’s amazing what can happen when an administration actually wants to solve the border crisis instead of enabling it.

Judges seeking to make policy; it is a peculiar sign of our times. Luckily, it’s not all of them.

• Judge Declines Bid to Force Federal Gov’t to Restore Foreign Aid Contracts (ET)

A federal judge on March 10 declined to compel President Donald Trump’s administration to restore foreign assistance contracts that it had canceled. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said that Trump’s administration must spend money allocated by Congress on foreign aid, but that it is up to the Executive Branch as to which projects it funds with the money. “The separation of powers dictates only that the Executive follow Congress’s decision to spend funds, and both the Constitution and Congress’s laws have traditionally afforded the Executive discretion on how to spend within the constraints set by Congress,” Ali said in a 48-page ruling. “The appropriate remedy is accordingly to order Defendants to ’make available for obligation the full amount of funds Congress appropriated’ under the relevant laws.”

Officials have canceled about 9,900 of the 13,100 USAID and State Department agreements, according to court filings. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on social media this week that the canceled contracts “did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.” The ruling came in response to a lawsuit from organizations that had agreements with the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) when Trump paused foreign aid spending to let the State Department review agreements to make sure they furthered his agenda. After Ali previously ruled that USAID and the State Department must fund contracts that predated the Trump administration but were paused under the freeze, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the judge to clarify which obligations the government must meet to comply with his order.

Ali set a March 10 deadline to issue payments to the organizations, while promising further instructions concerning groups that are not parties in the case. In the new ruling, Ali said that the Executive Branch unlawfully impounded congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds and ordered the Trump administration to pay committed funds for work completed before Feb. 13. The administration must pay nearly $2 billion in total, issuing around 300 payments a day until the organizations that had agreements with the government are recompensed for their work, the judge said.

Ali said that he concluded that government lawyers defending the withholding of foreign assistance funds, which were allocated by Congress, “offer an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected—a view that flouts multiple statutes whose constitutionality is not in question.” However, he also said that courts are restrained in the relief they can offer in such disputes. “The Court must be careful that any relief it grants does not itself intrude on the prerogative of a coordinate branch,” he said. “The Court accordingly denies Plaintiffs’ proposed relief that would unnecessarily entangle the Court in supervision of discrete or ongoing Executive decisions, as well as relief that goes beyond what their claims allow.”

“Has anyone else talked about Gonzalo Lira? An American journalist, He had a US passport. Has anyone talked about him besides Russia? Try to remember. Nobody did,”

• Moscow Reproaches Western Media For Silence Over Gonzalo Lira’s Death (RT)

The fact that only Moscow cared about the fate of US blogger Gonzalo Lira, who died in a Ukrainian prison last year, is a sign of the “deepest crisis” affecting the international bodies that are supposed to protect journalists, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Lira, a Chilean-American citizen, passed away behind bars in Ukraine in January 2024, while awaiting trial for “systematically justifying the Russian aggression.” Zakharova recalled the ordeal of the US journalist during a conference on the development of modern media at the Moscow School of Economics (MSE) on Tuesday. “Has anyone else talked about Gonzalo Lira? An American journalist, He had a US passport. Has anyone talked about him besides Russia? Try to remember. Nobody did,” she insisted.

When asked about Lira’s incarceration, the White House and the US State Department replied with “strategic silence, generously paid for by USAID, an American agency that supposedly promotes international development. It is ridiculous,” the spokeswoman stressed.The international institutions that are supposed to protect journalists are currently in “the deepest crisis,” Zakharov said. “Waiting for them to resuscitate or for them to be resuscitated by someone else is unnecessary and useless” as Russia, which has “an amazing and diverse” journalistic community, has the potential to correct the situation on its own, she noted. Lira, who was married to a Ukrainian woman and had resided in the city of Kharkov since 2010, got in trouble with the Kiev authorities for his coverage of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on YouTube, which was critical of the government of Vladimir Zelensky.

The blogger, writer and filmmaker, who had Hollywood experience, was first detained by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in early 2022, but released after a week without any charges being pressed against him. Lira was arrested again in May 2023 and released on bail three months later; he claimed he’d been subjected to torture while in prison. He ended up in custody again in late July that year after jumping bail and attempting to flee the country to seek asylum in Hungary. At that time, his father, Gonzalo Lira Sr., suggested that the administration of then-President Joe Biden gave “at least tacit approval of Gonzalo’s arrest.” The journalist’s family later blamed Kiev for his death in prison. In February, US President Donald Trump’s close ally Elon Musk also claimed that Zelensky had “killed” the American journalist. When asked about Lira during a press conference last month, the Ukrainian leader replied: “I do not know this man. I never knew him.”

Rogan98

pic.twitter.com/zfIF8iAMDx

— Joe Rogan Podcast (@joeroganhq) March 10, 2025

Joe Rogan destroying NASA's version of the fake moon landing. pic.twitter.com/eYsOLQdymT

— illuminatibot (@iluminatibot) March 10, 2025

Kagu, the bird on the brink of extinction meets its own kind

pic.twitter.com/VJloyr9oWc

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 11, 2025

https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1899473449409552461

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1899474006811537804

A true friend never leaves you behind … pic.twitter.com/zYWVEBprsU

— The Figen (@TheFigen_) March 10, 2025

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 8 2025

Mar 082025

March 8, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 11:05 am Finance Tagged with: Atlanticism, blob, ceasefire, Democrats, militarization, nukes, peace, rescission, Trump, war, war bonds 35 Responses »

Gustave Courbet The man made mad by fear 1844

• ‘Party of Insanity and Hate’: US Democrats Show Their True Colors (Bridge)

• Every Vote for a Democrat Is an Attack on America (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Bill O’Reilly Reveals the Dark Future Trump Created for the Democrats (MN)

• Bill Ackman Says Democrats Need “Complete Reboot” (ZH)

• Dems and Blob Together (James Howard Kunstler)

• The Geopolitics of Peace (Jeffrey Sachs)

• Trump v. Atlanticism: Understanding Russiagate (One-Legged Parrot)

• ‘We’re Out Of There’ If Ukraine Doesn’t Want Peace – Trump (RT)

• Trump Mulls Pulling US Troops Out Of Germany – Telegraph (RT)

• US Business Wants Easing Of Russia Sanctions (RT)

• EU ‘Can’t Afford’ To Support Ukraine – Orban (RT)

• Trump Calls For ‘Getting Rid’ Of Nuclear Weapons (RT)

• Poland Should Have Its Own Nukes – PM Tusk (RT)

• Musk Fired-Up About Rand Paul’s Rescission Idea To Slash $500 Billion (ZH)

• Putin Ceasefire Conditions Unacceptable To Ukraine (ZH)

• Ukraine Cut Off From US Satellite Imagery – Media (RT)

• EU Militarization A Deep Concern – Kremlin (RT)

• New EU Carbon Market Set to Hit Households and Small Businesses (Kennedy)

WORLD WAR III: Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda says the quiet part out loud, "Ukraine is bying the precious time for us every day, paying with the blood. So it would be highly irresponcible to waste this time." Europe is preparing for war. pic.twitter.com/ntTgBtf4UD

— @amuse (@amuse) March 7, 2025

Golden age

pic.twitter.com/ReyOK1CGPF

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2025

Dore

Hilarious! The majority of Americans polled after Trump's State of the Union address indicated they very much approved of his message. Now watch how creative CNN gets as they skew the information to present the results as negative. They'll never tell you the truth even when it's… pic.twitter.com/iUtN2wl2N3

— Jimmy Dore (@jimmy_dore) March 7, 2025

Trump Putin
https://twitter.com/i/status/1898077744313122915

Elon Rogan

I can’t understand how this one statement alone by Elon Musk wouldn’t immediately trigger DOJ and FBI investigations into Nancy Pelosi and Paul Pelosi

Joe Rogan “Have a spouse that’s really good at insider trading, like Paul Pelosi”

Elon Musk “It’s a lot more than insider… pic.twitter.com/hkfa6ortSB

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 6, 2025

Rogan
https://twitter.com/i/status/1897766932914352450

Nap Mearsheimer

Trump is overriding the entire establishment structure right now to bring peace in Ukraine. Russia was aiming for a complete surrender but is now willing to negotiate.
But the opposition are hurdles are numerous as the attacks on Trump will keep being…1/2pic.twitter.com/J7fYUrrI9l https://t.co/QD6vCHtNQq

— Mearsheimer Jr (Fan) (@Real_Politik101) March 7, 2025

War bonds
https://twitter.com/i/status/1897892858092568692

Pepe

This is the TRAILER of the documentary the wonderful team at Shmel shot about my latest trip to Donbass last month along my translator/top producer, the amazing Masha.

This is VERY special – dedicated to all the extraordinary people I met in my travels in Russia and Donbass.… pic.twitter.com/mC4xss6Paj

— Pepe Escobar (@RealPepeEscobar) March 7, 2025

I collected a few articles on how people view the Democrats’ future. Bill O’Reilly says it may take 5 elections before the Dems can win one. And well, if you go into an election with Kamala Harris as your main asset, helped along by guys in girls’ locker rooms… (Hate of) Trump has become the Democrats’ sole identity. They even complain that Trump wants to be nice for kids with cancer and brain-damage.

On the other side of the pond, Jeffrey Sachs laments that Europe has no voice of its own, the way it did in the early 1990’s. But it does have that voice: it belongs to Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. It’s very much pro-war and anti-Trump and anti-Russia. It’s a voice for which peace is a four-letter word. It’s very eerily similar to that of the US dems.

Europe is on course for a major battle with Trump, and his entire administration. He’s working hard for peace, and they want war. There’s even talk of issuing war bonds. Trump will fight them hard.

• ‘Party of Insanity and Hate’: US Democrats Show Their True Colors (Bridge)

During Donald Trump’s address to Congress, the president made reference to a young man in the audience who survived one of the worst medical scourges of all time. Yet that distinction could not get the Democrats off their feet. “Joining us in the gallery tonight is a young man who truly loves our police,” Trump began. “His name is D.J. Daniel, he is 13 years old and he has always dreamed of becoming a police officer. But in 2018, D.J. was diagnosed with brain cancer; the doctors gave him five months at most to live. That was more than six years ago.” Trump continued, saying he would grant the young man the greatest honor of them all by asking the new Secret Service director to make him an agent of the US Secret Service. Needless to say, it was not the time or place for political grandstanding.

But the Democratic Party reared its ugly head and refused to stand for the young man who was seated in the president’s guest suite accompanied by his father, who held up his son with a proud smile. Social media quickly lit up across the board, condemning the Democrats. “A terminally ill child with brain cancer is given an honorary Secret Service award and the Democrats refuse to stand or clap for the child,” Trump administration official Ric Grennell tweeted regarding the magic moment between the 13-year-old and the president. “Democrats refused to stand for the brain cancer surviving kid! How awful can one party be?” Outkick founder Clay Travis tweeted. Donald Trump Jr. also blasted Democrats for their silence. “If you can’t stand up and cheer for a kid with brain cancer being made an honorary member of the Secret Service, then you might be a deeply disturbed and f—ed up person!!!” he tweeted.

In fact, one of the times that a Democrat rose from his seat came when Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas broke with decorum and heckled Trump so obnoxiously that he was kicked out of the session by security. Indeed, the Democrats came away from the 99-minute address looking once again as the “party of insanity and hate,” as White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dubbed them. Refusing to stand for a young cancer survivor was only one of many clues as to what makes the Democratic Party tick these days. They refused to applaud Trump’s remarks on issues including “the capturing of an ISIS terrorist,” “recognizing only two sexes,” “Americans joining the military in record numbers,” “securing our border,” “pursuing peace in Ukraine,” and “defeating inflation.”

In more than one way, Trump owned the moment. He showed the world why the American people put him back in office by a large margin. In the quest for restoring the American Dream, he is bringing back decency and common sense, putting American interests above those of other nations. The Democrats revealed whose side they are on, and it’s not the American people. And it’s going to take a long time for the Republicans to undo the damage that the Democrats have done to the country under the Biden administration. Illegal immigration for one. Under four years of Democratic rule, the US-Mexico border was left wide open, allowing for millions of illegal aliens – many of them violent gang members – to pour into the country.

Trump also paid tribute to the families of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student who was murdered by an illegal immigrant last year, and Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered by illegal aliens. Trump noted how the men charged for the 12-year-old’s death were a part of Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang. Trump also honored the family of slain firefighter Corey Comperatore, who was shot during the Republican’s July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump described how Comperatore gave his life to defend his family, who were sitting in the balcony in the president’s guest seating area.

“Corey is looking down on his three beautiful ladies right now, and he’s cheering you on. He loves you. He is cheering you on,” he said. “Corey was taken from us much too soon, but his destiny was to leave us all with a shining example of the selfless devotion of a true American patriot,” he continued. “It was love like Corey’s that built our country, and it’s love like Corey’s that is going to make our country more majestic than ever before.” Once again it became apparent where the interest of the audience lay and it was not on the side of love or compassion. As the right side of the gallery rose in salute to the fallen father, most liberals laid back in their seats.

“The way Democrat grift works is first appropriate money for some cause; then create a bunch of “charities” to receive the money.”

• Every Vote for a Democrat Is an Attack on America (Paul Craig Roberts)

America has only one enemy–the Democrat Party, an anti-American party, an anti-white party, a party of national destruction and replacement of America with a Tower of Babel, a party committed to the destruction of normality and its replacement with Sodom and Gomorrah perversity, an ideological party alienated from the country it is destroying. It uses the taxpayers’ money to attack America. A $375 Billion EPA slush fund handled by John Podesta gave billions of dollars to “charities” founded to collect the money and use it to undermine the United States. The way Democrat grift works is first appropriate money for some cause; then create a bunch of “charities” to receive the money.

The “charities” pay high salaries to the Democrats and their families and friends who created the “charities,” and they use the taxpayers’ money to advance woke issues such as transgender advocacy and operations, drag queen shows for school kids, early sexualization of children, teaching white kids they are racists, and to support media lie machines. Corrupt Democrat judges are rushing to prevent Trump from ending the use of taxpayers’ money to attack taxpayers’ beliefs, values, and lives. NY Post reports that Democrat John Podesta handed out $375 billion in this way. Trump’s efforts to stop this blatant robbery of the US taxpayer is what Democrat judges like Amir Ali, a last minute Biden DEI appointee and a dual citizen, are issuing injunctions to kill.

When we have judges who are dual citizens, whose legal system are they representing? Dual citizenship judges and government officials erode national sovereignty. Under Democrat misrule, what sense does it make to have a military to protect the borders when they are kept wide open for immigrant-invaders? Under the corrupt anti-American Biden regime our country was overrun by millions of invaders while taxpayers were forced to spend trillions of dollars on “national defense” that was used to protect the borders of Ukraine and to expand the borders of Israel. Everywhere in the Western world governments are not only equating illegal immigrants with citizens but also elevating immigrant-invaders above citizens. For example, a Chinese Immigrant-invader became mayor of Boston, Massachusetts. She now tells illegals that Boston is your home. “You belong here.”

And still American citizens vote for Democrats. How can a population this stupid be made great again? The Starmer government in the UK is hatching laws that punish immigrant-invaders with lighter sentences than given to white British citizens, thereby creating privileges for immigrant-invaders in place of equality under law. Skin color trumps equality under law. How can white British citizens accept such insults from “their” government? Clearly, it is not their government. It is their enemy. In the UK there is the scandal of both Labour and Conservative governments refusing for 30 years to stop the gang rape of white British children by immigrant invaders.

In Sweden, Norway, Germany women are not safe from rapists, and the governments do nothing about it because it would be “racist” to hold immigrant-invaders accountable to law. In no European country other than Hungary does the government represent the people. The EU is a joke. NATO is a joke. Whatever is being protected, it is not the ethnic citizenships of the countries. The EU and NATO are in fact enemies of the ethnic populations that comprise Europeans. The facts are hidden by governments and media. As George Orwell said, the purpose of the media is “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Western governments have spent decades creating The Camp of the Saints. And their insouciant populations have voted for them. How can a mess this large be cleaned up?

“When you are hating someone, you lose all perspective, you lose all feeling, you’re consumed.”

• Bill O’Reilly Reveals the Dark Future Trump Created for the Democrats (MN)

Bestselling political author Bill O’Reilly says Donald Trump has driven the Democratic Party to the edge of total collapse. On Wednesday night’s episode of Cuomo, O’Reilly laid out exactly why the Democrats are in freefall — comparing their current situation to the collapse of the Republican Party in 1931, when Herbert Hoover’s response to the Great Depression left Americans furious. “I think the Democratic Party is on the verge of collapse. And I liken it to 1931, when Herbert Hoover and the Republican Party basically said to the very suffering American people in the Depression, ‘We’re not helping you. You got to do it on your own. It’s all about self-reliance. We’re not going to give you any safety nets.’ That led to five consecutive Democratic wins. Five,” O’Reilly stressed.

“[It wasn’t] until Dwight Eisenhower, 20 years later, did the Republicans recover. I see the same scenario for the Democrats.” What’s the driving force behind the Democrats’ collapse? O’Reilly pointed to their obsessive hatred of Trump, explaining that it has clouded their judgment so much that they’ve lost all sense of reality and purpose. “What happened [to the Democratic Party]?” O’Reilly asked. “What happened was Trump hatred,” he explained. “And that’s what the headline is of the speech [Tuesday] night. When you are hating someone, you lose all perspective, you lose all feeling, you’re consumed.”

O’Reilly even tied this kind of blind hatred to historical evil. “And I wrote a book, it’s going to be out in September, called Confronting Evil. And these people who did all these terrible things, they all had one thing in common. They hated. They were just haters across the board. That’s what you saw in that chamber last night.” If O’Reilly is right, Democrats could find themselves locked out of the White House for 20 years or longer. It turns out that when your entire platform revolves around hating and opposing Trump, you no longer have a platform worth running on. Good riddance.

“I would say I’m more optimistic about the economy and the country than I have been in a long time..”

• Bill Ackman Says Democrats Need “Complete Reboot” (ZH)

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman called for a “complete reboot” of the Democratic Party, insisting that many of its officials must “resign in disgrace.” Ackman, founder of the hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management, made the sharp remarks during a recent interview with Jonathan Boyar on The World According to Boyar podcast. “They really put themselves in a hole. Democratic Party needs a complete reboot,” Ackman said bluntly when asked about the poor state of the party. “The problem is that leadership and people in power generally don’t like to give up power. But this is a case where a lot of people need to resign in disgrace. Party needs a complete reboot. They continue to double down on all of the mistakes and policies that were made before.”

“If I were a member of the Democratic Party, the leadership, I would be saying we love this effort to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in our government. DOJ is great,” the Wall Street titan added. We just want to make sure there are some checks and balances. Please keep us informed as opposed to marching and opposing and telling staff members not to respond to emails, stuff like that. That’s just sort of one of many. I don’t think of myself ever really as a member of a party. I don’t think of myself as a member of the Republican Party. I have had to check a box in order to vote in New York City on occasion. I’ve always been kind of a centrist.” “The Democratic Party has not done itself a service in the last four years and probably longer than that. In terms of the best candidates,” he concluded.

Ackman broke with the Democrats in the 2024 election by endorsing President Donald Trump and has since expressed optimism about the U.S. economy under the new Republican administration. “I’m very bullish on America. I’m kind of bearish on Europe,” the hedge fund manager recently told CNBC. “And I think they need to make some fairly dramatic changes politically and otherwise. One of the more powerful charts, look at the market cap of companies, the number of companies above $500 billion or whatever here versus Europe.” “I would say I’m more optimistic about the economy and the country than I have been in a long time,” he added.

Ackman’s criticism of the Democrats aligns with growing voter dissatisfaction, as many within the party hold it in low esteem. A plurality of voters (40%) believe the Democratic Party has no clear strategy for countering Trump, according to a survey by the liberal firm Blueprint, first reported by POLITICO. Another 24% said the party does have an ineffective plan. “Voters correctly identified that the Democratic Party has lost its way,” said pollster Evan Roth Smith. “The Democratic response [Tuesday] night was more or less a continuation of what we’ve seen from Democrats so far. Which is, there was nothing overtly wrong about it, but it didn’t actually do anything to ameliorate this core issue Democrats face, which is voters aren’t quite sure what we stand for and would like us to get back to the basic principles of the party.”

“Why be a Democrat if you can’t retire with millions of dollars? Hell hath no fury like a politician exposed!” —Dinesh D’Souza

• Dems and Blob Together (James Howard Kunstler)

If the Jacobins of Paris, 1794, had not been bum-rushed to the “national razor,” perhaps they would have acted-out as clownishly in defeat as America’s Democratic Party does right now after their election debacle of 2024. Imagine Robespierre in Harlequin drag riding backwards on a goat over the Pont Neuf to do handsprings and a juggling act in the Parvis de Notre-Dame. Alas, foiled by the guillotine. . . . Now imagine Rep. Al Green (9th Texas Dist) shaking his cane and hollering curses at the rostrum in Tuesday night’s joint session of Congress. Two days later, he carried on again in the well of Congress as Speaker Johnson read out his bill of censure and a motley mob of Mr. Green’s fellow Dems gathered ‘round to sing We Shall Overcome — the once stately Civil Rights movement reduced to abject farce. Such things are really happening.

The Dems’ game has been revealed. The revenue stream for their national wrecking operations is suddenly cut off and it’s game-over. Everybody can see how this worked now. You funnel vast amounts of US taxpayer dollars into Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, spin off more NGOs below them, and add extra layers of subsidiary NGOs, and all of them pay their staffs of Dem Party foot-soldiers for do-nothing jobs — leaving plenty of time for riots and real-estate investing — a splendid racket that worked for years to support the insane antics of the Woke-Jacobin revolution. (And you paid for it.) The catch is: an org that gets government money is hardly non-governmental. Wouldn’t you think there’s some law against that? Thus, Exhibit A: in September 2022, Dem luminary John Podesta was put in-charge of a $369-billion fund out of “Joe Biden’s” so-called Inflation Reduction Act, tagged for climate change action.

Conceptualize further: that’s three-hundred-sixty-nine-thousand-million dollars (!), a lot of millions, disbursed among tens of thousands of NGOs and their contractors. It boggles the mind that the government could even manage to cream-off such a fortune out of our nation’s alleged aggregate productivity. It was, in reality, money conjured out of thin air: debt. Before long, you are going to find out where it all went, and the picture will not be a pretty one: Into the NGO laundromat and straight out to Democratic Party members’ bank accounts, one of the greatest grifts in our history. Of course, your grandchildren are on the hook for all the debt behind it. Do you think our DC Federal District judges would serve better presiding over these matters than spending years hunting down J-6 “paraders”?

Without that bonanza of conjured money for laying trips on the rest of us, the Democratic Party has nothing, not a single credible idea, not any plausible leadership, really no reason to exist. It has been for years nothing more than a gigantic grift engine extracting the remaining wealth out of our republic. So, what you are seeing acted out on the DC streets and the well of Congress and on the angst-filled cable news networks is the kind of ghost-dance that attends the death of a great political machine. Buh-bye. . . .

“This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’ speech in the European Parliament at an event titled “The Geopolitics of Peace,” hosted by former U.N. Assistant Secretary General and current BSW MEP Michael von der Schulenburg, on Feb. 19, 2025. The transcript has been edited for clarity and annotated.”

• The Geopolitics of Peace (Jeffrey Sachs)

I’ve watched the events very close-up in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine, very closely for the last 36 years. I was an adviser to the Polish government in 1989, to President Gorbachev’s economic team in 1990 and 1991, to President Yeltsin’s economic team in 1991 to 1993 and to President Kuchma’s economic team in Ukraine in 1993 to 1994. I helped introduce the Estonian currency. I helped several countries in former Yugoslavia, especially Slovenia. After the Maidan, I was asked by the new government [in Ukraine] to come to Kyiv, and I was taken around the Maidan, and I learned a lot of things firsthand. I’ve been in touch with Russian leaders for more than 30 years. I also know the American political leadership close-up. Our previous secretary of treasury, Janet Yellen, was my wonderful macroeconomics teacher 52 years ago. We have been friends for a half century.

I know these people. I say this because what I want to explain in my point of view is not second-hand. It’s not ideology. It’s what I’ve seen with my own eyes and experienced during this period. I want to share with you my understanding of the events that have befallen Europe in many contexts and I’ll include not only the Ukraine crisis, but also Serbia 1999, the wars in the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, the wars in Africa, including Sudan, Somalia, Libya. These are to a very significant extent the result of deeply misguided U.S. policies. What I will say may well surprise you, but I speak from experience and knowledge of these events. These are wars that the United States has led and caused. And this has been true for more than 30 years now. The United States came to the view, especially during 1990-91, and then with the end of the Soviet Union, that the U.S. now runs the world, and that the U.S. does not have to heed anybody’s views, red-lines, concerns, security viewpoints, international obligations, or any U.N. framework. I’m sorry to put it so plainly, but I do want you to understand.

I tried very hard in 1991 to get *financial help for Gorbachev who I think was the greatest statesman of our modern time. (*This became part of a project led by Professor Graham Allison at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government with Gorbachev economic advisor Grigory Yavlinsky and published in the book Window of Opportunity: The Grand Bargain for Democracy in the Soviet Union, Pantheon Books, 1991.) I recently read the archived memo of the National Security Council discussion of my proposal on June 3, 1991, reading for the first time how the White House completely dismissed it, and essentially laughed off the table my plea for the U.S. to help the Soviet Union with financial stabilization and with financial aid to make its reforms. The memo documents* that the U.S. government decided to do the very minimum to prevent disaster, but just the minimum.

(*Richard Darman, at the OMB, put it this way. “In defining the U.S. interest, we need to be somewhat Machiavellian. What is the minimum amount necessary to mollify a regime with which we wish to work on other ma]ers? In other words, what is the bare minimum to keep things moving? I don’t believe we need to worry about the U.S.S.R.’s decomposition. If this is our internal understanding, then we can go ahead publicly.” Later, Darman adds, “I want to seem serious while not fooling ourselves. We have enough ingredients already for a good PR package.” Emphasis in original.) They decided that it’s not the U.S. job to help. Quite the contrary. (See my paper “How the Neocons Chose Hegemony Over Peace in the Early 1990s.”)

When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, the view became even more exaggerated. And I can name chapter and verse, but the view was we [the U.S.] run the show. [Dick] Cheney, [Paul] Wolfowitz, and many other names that you will have come to know literally believed this is now a U.S. world, and we will do as we want. We will clean up from the former Soviet Union. We will take out any remaining Soviet-era allies. Countries like Iraq, Syria, and so forth will go. And we’ve been experiencing this foreign policy for now essentially 33 years. Europe has paid a heavy price for this because Europe has not had any foreign policy during this period that I can figure out. No voice, no unity, no clarity, no European interests, only American loyalty.

There were moments where there were disagreements and, I think, very wonderful disagreements. The last time of significance was 2003 in the lead-up to the Iraq war when France and Germany said we don’t support the United States going around the U.N. Security Council for this war. That war was directly concocted by Netanyahu and his colleagues in the U.S. Pentagon. (See Dennis Fritz’s book, Deadly Betrayal: The Truth about why the United States Invaded Iraq, OR Books, 2024.)

I’m not saying that it was a link or mutuality. I’m saying it was a war carried out for Israel. It was a war that Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith coordinated with [Israeli leader] Benjamin Netanyahu. And that was the last time that Europe had a voice. I spoke with European leaders then, and they were very clear, and it was quite wonderful to hear their opposition an unacceptable war. Europe lost its voice entirely after that, but especially in 2008. What happened after 1991, and to bring us to 2008, is that the United States decided that unipolarity meant that NATO would enlarge somewhere from Brussels to Vladivostok, step by step.

Atlanticism=Deep State=Blob.

• Trump v. Atlanticism: Understanding Russiagate (One-Legged Parrot)

Last month, President Trump bypassed Europe, NATO, and the entire postwar order and opened a conversation directly with Russia. In doing so, he defied Washington’s established foreign policy paradigm that had been in place since the 1940s. “They” always feared he would go there, and “they” tried to prevent it by a never-ending string of investigations, prosecutions, and impeachments. The “they” Trump defied is called on X “the Deep State” which is a colorful nickname. It has a real name, too: “Atlanticism,” after the Atlantic Charter entered by Roosevelt and Churchill. It is the “A” in “North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” In high-toned treatises, Atlanticism described a form of empire built upon American hegemony. The moral justification was ostensibly based on American benevolence, a projection of virtue that relied on propaganda. It’s closest historical analog, though, was colonialism.

The lands occupied by Atlanticist ideology traded in American currency. NATO existed to deter the Soviet threat. But it was also an occupying army. There were not colonial governments. There was, instead, strict control of information, puppet governments, and election interference. When Trump questioned the continuing need for NATO in 2016, institutions with a financial stake in Atlanticism performed a Cold War soft power operation against him. Western intelligence agencies mobilized to connect Trump to Russia, leading to a series of political dirty tricks. Russiagate was not merely bureaucratic haplessness masquerading as foreign intrigue. It was, instead, the sclerotic postwar spy apparatus targeting an American presidential candidate and then president.

In 2024, Trump won the presidency again, in part out of the electorate’s disgust over the dirty tricks. Upon returning to the Oval Office, he deliberately refocused foreign policy on the American hemisphere. He Truth Socialed aggressively about Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Panama, sending his new Secretary of State on his first diplomatic mission to negotiate better rates on passage through the Panama Canal after threatening to take it back by force. President Trump was steering the ship of state back to the foreign policy of The Monroe Doctrine, in which America’s focus was on problems in its own hemisphere – and not on “democracy” movements abroad. The new Trump administration made clear that Ukraine would not be invited into NATO, which would have obligated the United States to send troops half a world away to fight Russia. There is credible reporting that President Trump has also started to deny the NATO proxy warriors in Ukraine encryption codes needed to attack Russia with drones and missiles.

With no American cavalry coming to save the day and President Trump cultivating an independent diplomatic relationship with Russia, the most rational path in Ukraine is to negotiate a ceasefire. Whatever its intentions – and they were arguably altruistic – Atlanticism became a Frankenstein monster that took its initial design to its rational conclusion that threatened existence. We scratched the surface of what that means in USAID, Soft Power, And How Solzhenitsyn Predicted This Crisis. The following is based on a compilation of essays written between 2016-2020 connecting Russiagate to Atlanticism. It includes links to original sources and some updates. To understand the malevolence of Atlanticism, it is essential to grasp the wild details of the putsch it attempted in President Trump’s first term. Following is the craziest story ever told in the history of American politics. Now that President Trump has closed the circle by embarking on a new foreign policy, it is relevant to revisit the story from beginning to end with the benefit of additional context.

“I have to know that they want to settle [the conflict]..” “If they don’t want to settle, we’re out of there, because we want them to settle.”

• ‘We’re Out Of There’ If Ukraine Doesn’t Want Peace – Trump (RT)

Washington will cease all assistance to Kiev if it fails to demonstrate its commitment to reaching peace with Moscow, US President Donald Trump has said. Trump also stated that Russia has been more cooperative than Ukraine when it comes to a potential settlement of the conflict. “I have to know that they want to settle [the conflict],” Trump told journalists on Friday in response to a question about US military aid to Kiev. The president said that he did not currently know if Kiev was truly committed to peace. “If they don’t want to settle, we’re out of there, because we want them to settle.”

Washington has so far had more productive communication with Moscow on a potential resolution of the conflict, even though Russia “has all the cards” and Ukraine has none, the president said. Trump added that he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin does want peace. “I think we’re doing very well with Russia,” the US president said, adding that he was “finding it more difficult … to deal with Ukraine.”

“Trump is angry that they [Europe] appear to be pushing for war..”

• Trump Mulls Pulling US Troops Out Of Germany – Telegraph (RT)

US President Donald Trump is considering withdrawing American troops from Germany and redeploying them to Hungary, The Telegraph reported on Friday, citing a person close to the White House. The US has more than 35,000 personnel stationed in dozens of bases in Germany. The NATO member also hosts American nuclear weapons. Trump reportedly could remove the troops or move them elsewhere, as his administration has split with many of its allies in Europe over how to deal with Russia and resolve the Ukraine conflict. While the US president stressed the need to reach a ceasefire as soon as possible and blamed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for the hostilities, the UK and many EU members reaffirmed their commitment to back Kiev.

“Trump is angry that they [Europe] appear to be pushing for war,” a source told The Telegraph. US national security spokesman Brian Hughes told the newspaper that “while no specific announcement is imminent, the US military is always considering the redeployment of troops around the world to best address current threats to our interests.” Trump has repeatedly accused Germany of not spending enough on its own defense, while his adviser, tech billionaire Elon Musk, openly endorsed the opposition Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in the recent parliamentary election. Vice President J.D. Vance also ruffled feathers last month when he criticized Germany’s free speech laws during a high-profile conference in Munich.

Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor-designate, has argued that Trump deliberately escalated his contentious February 28 meeting with Zelensky in the Oval Office. After winning the election last month, Merz stated that Germany could no longer rely on the US for its defense. “We must now show that we are in a position to act independently in Europe,” he said. Earlier this week, Hungary blocked a joint EU statement promising more military aid for Ukraine. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban sided with Trump during his public spat with Zelensky. “Today, President Donald Trump stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for many to digest,” he wrote on X.

“..US companies lost more than $300 billion by leaving the Russian market..”

• US Business Wants Easing Of Russia Sanctions (RT)

The American Chamber of Commerce in Russia (AmCham) has called on the US government to ease the sanctions on Russia, according to its chief, Robert Agee. He argued that restrictions in aviation, investment, and banking are harming both American and Russian businesses. In an interview with the Russian business daily RBK on Friday, Agee welcomed the dialogue between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, after a three-year hiatus in ties due to tensions over the Ukraine conflict. In light of US signals that it is willing to normalize relations with Moscow, the AmCham is preparing a report for the US government outlining challenges for American businesses in Russia, as well as exploring possibilities for lifting some of the sanctions, Agee said.

One of the AmCham’s main requests is to remove sanctions in the aviation sector, including the supply of spare parts and technical support, with Agee stressing that the restrictions in this field mostly affect ordinary citizens. He also called for the lifting of investment restrictions, which he said have prevented American companies from expanding their operations in Russia. Banking sanctions remain another key concern, as they have made cross-border transactions increasingly difficult and costly, the AmCham head said. He also criticized the sanctions on imports of luxury goods, including American cosmetics, to Russia, calling them counterproductive and harmful to US companies that have lost market share.

While these represent the chamber’s top priorities, Agee noted that other issues also require attention. He did not rule out the return of US businesses to Russia, adding that companies which maintained a skeleton presence in the country or retained buy-out options would have an easier time re-entering the market compared to those that completed an asset sell-out when emotions were running high. Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, earlier estimated that US companies lost more than $300 billion by leaving the Russian market. Agee suggested that this figure could be correct, depending on the metrics that were taken into account.

Agee’s comments come after Reuters reported earlier this week that the White House had directed the State and Treasury departments to draft proposals for easing certain restrictions on Russia. The potential relief could reportedly apply to specific Russian entities and individuals, including some business leaders. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said Moscow has yet to receive official statements from Washington regarding sanctions relief, while stressing that Russia has always viewed Western sanctions as “illegal.”

“..more nations are beginning to realize that there are no available funds..”

• EU ‘Can’t Afford’ To Support Ukraine – Orban (RT)

The EU does not have the financial capacity to continue aiding Ukraine, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warned in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Thursday. He argued that the bloc’s budget will be stretched too thin if it moves forward with all its planned initiatives, including another support package for Kiev, financing its EU membership bid, and ramping up European defense spending. Orban’s remarks came after he vetoed the EU’s proposed €30 billion ($32 billion) military aid package for Ukraine at an emergency European Council meeting earlier in the day. Despite support for the proposal from the other 26 EU leaders, Orban argued that it effectively greenlighted the continuation of the conflict.

In his interview, the prime minister outlined the mounting financial burdens the bloc faces if it does not change course. First, he said, the EU would be responsible for funding Ukraine’s military, as “the Ukrainians don’t have a penny for that.” Second, Brussels would have to bankroll the Ukrainian government, including salaries and pensions, because “Ukraine, as a state, is not functioning.” Third, the bloc would need to fund Ukraine’s EU membership bid, with no clear estimate of how much it could cost. Lastly, Orban pointed out that the EU has approved the ReArm Europe initiative, which calls for up to €800 billion in new defense spending. “If I add all this up, there isn’t that much money in the bloc. So this won’t work like that… I think the bottom line is that we can’t afford this,” Orban stated, urging EU leaders to reconsider their stance on Ukraine.

The bloc’s Ukraine support package is expected to be revisited at the next EU leaders’ summit later this month. However, Orban suggested that even then, the proposal is unlikely to pass, as more nations are beginning to realize that there are no available funds. Orban’s remarks come as EU leaders grow increasingly concerned over the impact of US President Donald Trump’s recent policy shift on Ukraine. According to media reports, the White House has frozen new military aid to Kiev, a move Trump had been warning about for weeks. He also urged European nations to take on greater responsibility for Ukraine’s war effort and their own defense, repeatedly stating that he wants the conflict to end as soon as possible so he can focus on domestic policy.

Orban

The war in Eastern Europe
Is a stupid war that only benefits those who aren’t willing to fight. Those willing to fight only benefit when they see the end of war. Those who see the end of war are dead.

ORBAN:
“If in three years the pro-war party could not defeat Russia and… pic.twitter.com/Q0XRPD1luT

— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) March 7, 2025

“We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

• Trump Calls For ‘Getting Rid’ Of Nuclear Weapons (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said all countries should abandon nuclear weapons instead of engaging in an arms race. “It’d be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, according to Anadolu. “Russia and us have by far the most. China will have an equal amount within four or five years, and it would be great if we could all denuclearize, because the power of nuclear weapons is crazy. It’s crazy.” “I would very much like to start those talks,” Trump added. “Denuclearization would be incredible.” Last month, Trump argued that a nuclear arms race would be wasteful and that the US has “no reason” to build new weapons. “We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

The comments come amid tensions between Russia and NATO, as well as Trump’s trade war with China. In a speech earlier this week, French President Emmanuel Macron labeled Russia “a threat to France and Europe” and suggested that France could extend its nuclear umbrella to protect other EU member states. The Kremlin has condemned his words as “highly confrontational.” During Trump’s first term in office, the US withdrew from the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Russia has condemned the withdrawal and denied Washington’s accusations that it was secretly violating the accord.

In 2023, Russia announced the deployment of its nuclear weapons in Belarus, citing tensions with NATO. A year later, President Vladimir Putin revised Russia’s official nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Moscow also warned that it could resume nuclear tests if the US does it first. In January, the US announced the deployment of upgraded nuclear bombs in its bases in Europe. According to media reports, the Pentagon also plans to station nuclear weapons in the UK. Russia has urged all nuclear powers to act responsibly. “We have never started discussions on what to do with nuclear weapons or whether they can be used,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in December. “There can be no winners in a nuclear war, which is why it should never happen.”

“..Tusk also called for Poland to withdraw from international treaties banning anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions.”

• Poland Should Have Its Own Nukes – PM Tusk (RT)

Poland should pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons, possibly through participation in France’s nuclear umbrella initiative, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said. On Friday, Tusk told the Polish parliament that the country needs to access advanced military capabilities to bolster national defense. His remarks come after French President Emmanuel Macron proposed earlier this week extending France’s nuclear deterrent to other EU members in order to address the supposed “threat” posed by Russia. According to Tusk, Warsaw is already having “serious discussions” with Paris about the nuclear umbrella idea. “Poland needs to pursue the most modern capabilities related to nuclear weapons as well as modern unconventional weapons,” he stated.

Warsaw does not care about being criticized over its military buildup and will take whatever steps it deems necessary to strengthen its defense, the prime minister declared. Tusk also called for Poland to withdraw from international treaties banning anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. If enacted, this would allow the Polish military to reintroduce such weapons into its arsenal, despite widespread international opposition to their use. On Wednesday, Tusk urged the EU to ramp up military spending in order to outpace Moscow in an arms race, suggesting on X that “Russia will lose it like the Soviet Union 40 years ago.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also recently called for a significant increase in EU defense spending, further reinforcing the trend toward military expansion.

Moscow has vehemently condemned Tusk’s recent statements, stressing that Russia will not engage in any sort of arms race. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said that the “confrontational, even militaristic” rhetoric coming out of Paris and Warsaw was regrettable. Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it poses a military threat to any European countries. President Vladimir Putin has dismissed such suggestions as “nonsense” being perpetuated by EU leaders to scare their populations and justify larger military budgets. Calls for more defense spending in the EU come as US President Donald Trump has urged European NATO members to play a larger role in ensuring their own defense. At the same time, he has also criticized the idea of an arms race and suggested that all countries should completely get rid of their nuclear weapons.

“Rescission offers a means by which presidents can collaborate with Congress to cancel previously-appropriated spending..”

• Musk Fired-Up About Rand Paul’s Rescission Idea To Slash $500 Billion (ZH)

Seeking to codify spending cuts pursued by his Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk held a closed-door lunch with Republican senators on Wednesday. Musk was said to be “elated” with Sen. Rand Paul’s recommendation to make the cuts stick with a relatively expeditious budget-slashing technique called “rescission.” The approach could guide DOGE cuts around federal judges who consider executive-branch-initiated spending cuts as exceeding constitutional authority. Rescission offers a means by which presidents can collaborate with Congress to cancel previously-appropriated spending. Enabled by Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the rarely-used process starts with the president sending a special message to Congress, providing specific details about which budgetary authorities he wants to rescind.

With Republicans holding a narrow 53-47 Senate majority, one of the most attractive aspects of rescission is that it doesn’t require 60 votes — a simple majority suffices to grant the president’s wish. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told reporters that Musk was “elated” with Paul’s proposal: “I think he didn’t realize it could be done at 51.” According to South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham, it was the first time Musk had heard of the rescission process. He said Musk reacted by triumphantly lifting his arms into the air. The approach promises to immunize DOGE spending cuts from federal judges who are skeptical about the executive branch’s power to cut spending that was duly authorized by Congress. This week has seen two major developments that demonstrate the strength of that judicial headwind:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected the administration request that it negate a lower court’s temporary injunction against Trump’s freezing of almost $2 billion in foreign aid. In effect, the ruling compels the White House to re-open the spigots, as directed by Judge Amir Ali. On Thursday, a Rhode Island US District Judge indefinitely blocked President Trump’s freeze on federal grants and loans, arguing in his ruling that the White House had “put itself above Congress” and undermined democracy. Rescission is an alternative to “impoundment,” by which presidents unilaterally delay Congressionally-directed spending. First used by Thomas Jefferson, the method was restricted by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) after Democrats felt President Nixon was abusing it. Trump has called ICA “a disaster of a law” and vowed to “do everything I can to challenge [it] in court, and if necessary, get Congress to overturn it.”

However, as noted above, the same law provides the opportunity for rescission, which means Trump can use ICA to his advantage. Up to this point, Trump has pursued impoundment, but Paul says that increasingly looks like a dead end. Pointing to the Supreme Court’s fresh ruling against the administration, Paul said, “My message to Elon was, let’s get over the impoundment idea. Let’s send it back as a rescission package, because then we’ll get … 51 senators, or 50 senators [plus the tie-breaking vote of Vice President JD Vance] to cut the spending.” That’s not to say rescission will be a layup. The move was attempted once during Trump’s first administration, only to be derailed by two nay votes from Republican senators. One of them, Maine’s Susan Collins, now chairs the Appropriations committee (the other, Richard Burr, left office.) Last time around,

Collins said she felt rescission took too much power from Congress — despite the fact that the rescission process itself springs from an act of Congress. Paul suggested that Trump will need to push harder than he did in 2018: “We lost that battle. But I don’t think they tried very hard. I don’t think they came and lobbied us. I don’t think they came and talked to us.” Paul told reporters that the lunch discussion with Musk focused on the concept rather than nailing down dollar amounts. However, Paul said the White House and Republican legislators should strive to slash at least $100 billion and perhaps up to $500 billion from a budget that’s currently around $7 billion — or about 23% of GDP.

Talking to Reason last month, leading deficit-Hawk Paul scoffed at critics who claimed DOGE’s initial several-billion-dollar saving opportunities were insignificant against the backdrop of such a huge budget: “Why would we still not start with the most egregious stuff and get rid of it? Ultimately, how do you get to better spending? You get better people in government, or you give them less money. I don’t think we can really expect to get better people, less bureaucrats in government….The only way you get less waste is to give them less money to spend.” Now, Paul is working hard to put up numbers that will silence critics on the right — and trigger wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left. More power to him.

Been obvious for 3 years. But make impossible demands, and you keep the war going…

• Putin Ceasefire Conditions Unacceptable To Ukraine (ZH)

The game of headline pong is firing on all cylinders this morning, because moments after stocks slumped and oil spiked after Trump threatened new tariffs on Russia (even though virtually every possible product and service out of Russia is already sanctioned and tariffed by Western nations), Bloomberg reported the opposite, claiming that Putin is “willing to discuss a temporary truce in Ukraine, provided there is progress toward a final peace settlement” citing Russian sources. Algos read “temporary truce” and immediately slammed oil, the same oil they had spiked just an hour earlier after Trump’s threat. The only problem is that they did so before reading the rest of report which basically said… well, nothing new at all, to wit:

In the first signal of a positive response from President Vladimir Putin to US counterpart Donald Trump’s call for a ceasefire, the offer was conveyed at last month’s talks in Saudi Arabia between top Russian and American officials, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing internal policy. In order to agree to a cessation of hostilities, there would have to be a clear understanding about the framework principles of the final peace accord, two people with knowledge of the matter said. … and the punchline: Russia will insist in particular on establishing the parameters of an eventual peacekeeping mission, including agreement on which countries would take part, said another person familiar with the issue.
…

Russia has said it won’t accept the presence of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, rejecting a proposal by European countries to put together a “coalition of the willing” to help monitor any peace accord. It doesn’t object to countries such as China that have been neutral in the conflict deploying forces to Ukraine, the two people said.In other words, this is about as actionable as Zelensky saying he will resign as president the moment Ukraine enters NATO, which of course is a non-starter to Russia. Likewise, Russia’s “conditions” for a ceasefire are completely unacceptable (at least as of this moment) to Europe. And just to underscore this, Russia on Thursday rejected a Franco-British plan for a partial one-month truce covering air and maritime operations including a halt to strikes targeting energy infrastructure.

The details emerged as the US and Ukraine plan to meet in Saudi Arabia next week for their first direct talks since Trump’s Oval Office bust-up with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last week. US special envoy Steve Witkoff said the meeting aims to reach “a framework for a peace agreement and an initial ceasefire.”Since his Jan. 20 inauguration, Trump has overturned US policy on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to try to bring a rapid end to the three-year-long war that’s Europe’s worst conflict in 80 years. He held phone talks with Putin last month and the pair agreed to hold a summit, though no date has been set yet. Trump abandoned US support for Ukraine’s eventual entry into NATO, and his top officials said it was unrealistic to expect a return of all Ukrainian territory seized by Russia since 2014.

After the confrontation with Zelenskiy at the White House, Trump paused military aid to Ukraine and has suspended some intelligence-sharing with Kyiv, shocking European allies who say the US risks rewarding Russia’s aggression in starting the February 2022 invasion. Putin has repeatedly brushed aside Trump’s bid for a quick halt to the war. During his annual news conference in December, he said: “We don’t need a truce — we need peace: long-term, durable, with guarantees for the Russian Federation and its citizens.”

Earlier: US and Russian delegations have in the last three weeks had two rounds of ‘successful’ face-to-face talks, but President Trump is trying to keep up the pressure on Moscow, also as preparations are reportedly moving fast toward a landmark Trump-Putin bilateral meeting. Trump sent a strong warning and message on Friday, writing on Truth Social, “Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.” Of course, there are already far-reaching sanctions on Russia’s banking sector, but the threat of more punitive action to come on top of what Biden put in place was accompanied by a warning to get to the table before it’s “too late”. “To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late,” Trump added. This message seemed also geared toward building or maintaining leverage. These “large-scale” sanctions would be on top of an already significant and unprecedented sanctions regimen applied as a result of the Ukraine war.

After spending a month working on economic rapprochement with Russia and flirting with lifting sanctions, Trump now says he is close to imposing more sanctions on Russia instead pic.twitter.com/pM77AM0u5G

— max seddon (@maxseddon) March 7, 2025

Yet Trump plainly spoke the reality during last Friday’s meeting with Zelensky at the White House – stressing multiple times that Ukraine has “no cards” to play. Indeed as far as battlefield momentum goes, Russia holds all the cards. Much of the international media has been focused on back-and-forth statements on the diplomatic front, but the Kremlin has continued proclaiming consistent gains in the Donbass area. As for the latest TASS reports Friday:Russian troops liberated four communities in the Donetsk region over the week of March 1-7 in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Friday. “Battlegroup Center units improved their tactical position and liberated the settlement of Andreyevka in the Donetsk People’s Republic… Battlegroup East units kept advancing deep into the enemy’s defenses and liberated the settlements of Skudnoye, Burlatskoye and Privolnoye in the Donetsk People’s Republic,” the ministry said in a statement.

Overnight also saw more major Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. This included more drone assaults. Russia’s defense ministry newly states that “Last night, the Russian Armed Forces delivered a combined strike by air-launched, sea-and ground-based long-range precision weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles on facilities of gas and power supply infrastructure of Ukraine’s military-industrial sector. The goal of the strike was achieved. All the targets were struck.” As for potential new Russia sanctions, the timing is a bit ironic and Moscow is likely to pass over it in silence, seeing in it a ‘bluff’ toward building up negotiating leverage. After all Trump actually started the week by drawing up options for sanctions relief on Russia. He’s doing a carrot-and-stick approach for both the Moscow and Kiev sides, it appears. The Kremlin is unlikely to take this new threat very seriously.

“..the restriction had been introduced “in response to an administrative request.”

• Ukraine Cut Off From US Satellite Imagery – Media (RT)

Ukraine has lost access to US satellite imagery after American space technology company Maxar blocked Kiev’s use of its services, a local media outlet reported on Friday. The move follows Washington’s recent decision to freeze military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Ukrainian media outlet Militarnyi has claimed that several anonymous Maxar users have confirmed that they have been denied access to the service. The company has reportedly explained that the restriction had been introduced “in response to an administrative request.” The outlet noted that the limit appears to apply to both government and private users, adding that the request cited by the company likely refers to US President Donald Trump’s order to cease all intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

Maxar, according to Militarnyi, has been one of the leading providers of high-resolution commercial satellite imagery to Ukraine’s armed forces who used it to track the movements of Russian troops, assess battlefield conditions and damage to key infrastructure. The US company has not yet confirmed the alleged restriction of services. The report comes as Washington has halted the delivery of billions of dollars worth of military aid to Ukraine, while the CIA has confirmed that intelligence sharing with Kiev has been suspended. The decision to freeze military support for Ukraine follows last week’s heated meeting between Trump, US Vice President J.D. Vance and Zelensky at the White House. During the exchange, Trump accused Zelensky of ingratitude and “gambling with World War III” by refusing to seek peace with Russia.

The Ukrainian leader was asked to leave the US capital and return only when he was ready for serious negotiations. On Wednesday, during his address to the US Congress, Trump claimed that he had received a letter from Zelensky in which he had apparently agreed to come to the negotiating table in the near future in order to work towards a peace agreement. Moscow has welcomed Washington’s suspension of military aid to Kiev, noting that such steps could potentially encourage Ukraine to seek a peaceful resolution to the conflict. At the same time, the Kremlin has expressed cautious optimism about Zelensky’s supposed U-turn on negotiations with Moscow, noting that the Ukrainian leader has yet to lift his legal ban on such contacts.

“..Macron claimed on Wednesday that Russia poses a direct threat to France and the entire EU. He echoed von der Leyen’s calls for a significant increase in defense spending..”

• EU Militarization A Deep Concern – Kremlin (RT)

The Kremlin has condemned the EU’s plan to increase defense spending across the bloc, calling it a path towards confrontation that hinders peace efforts with Ukraine. During an emergency summit in Brussels on Thursday, EU leaders endorsed a €800 billion plan to “rearm Europe” proposed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. ”The European Union is actively discussing its militarization, specifically in the defense sector,” the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Friday. The measures are “primarily aimed at Russia, which is, of course, a matter of deep concern,” he added.

French President Emmanuel Macron claimed on Wednesday that Russia poses a direct threat to France and the entire EU. He echoed von der Leyen’s calls for a significant increase in defense spending to counter perceived danger posed by Moscow. Macron’s comments adhered to the conventional Western narrative portraying Russia as the unprovoked aggressor in the Ukraine conflict and claiming that Moscow has ambitions of conquest in Ukraine and beyond into EU and NATO states. Russia has repeatedly and categorically denied the claims. Moscow will however, take measures to safeguard its security in response to the bloc, Peskov has warned.

“The kind of confrontational rhetoric and confrontational plans that we are now seeing in Brussels and in European capitals strike a seriously discordant note with intentions to find a peaceful resolution in Ukraine,” Peskov added. Russia and the United States launched negotiations last month to try and settle the Ukraine conflict, sidelining the EU. The move sparked condemnation from the bloc. Moscow has argued the EU’s aggressive stance made it unfit to take part in peace talks. Trump has also reportedly halted American military aid to Ukraine, leaving Brussels jostling for funds to support Kiev. Moscow maintains that Western aid prolongs the war without altering its outcome.

Borrow ¢800 billion for warfare, and then make life much more expensive. Golden.

• New EU Carbon Market Set to Hit Households and Small Businesses (Kennedy)

The European Union’s new emissions trading system, expected to take effect in 2027, is set to hike prices for home heating and transportation, research firm BloombergNEF says in a new report. The new EU Emissions Trading System for buildings, road transport, and small industry, dubbed ETS2, is scheduled to become fully operational in 2027. ETS2 will cover and address the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion in buildings, road transport, and additional sectors, mainly small industry not covered by the existing Emissions Trading System – EU ETS. “So far, emission reductions in those sectors have been insufficient to put the EU on a firm path towards its 2050 climate neutrality goal. The carbon price set by the ETS2 will provide a market incentive for investments in building renovations and low-emissions mobility,” the European Commission says.

Although it will be a ‘cap and trade’ system like the existing EU ETS, the ETS2 will cover emissions upstream. This means that it will be fuel suppliers, rather than end consumers such as households or car users, that will be required to monitor and report their emissions. User may not pay directly, but fuel suppliers are likely to pass on the higher costs due to the carbon emissions trading. Two years after the 2027 launch, the price of CO2 could jump to as much as $161 (149 euros) per metric ton in 2029, according to BloombergNEF’s analysis. This would be more than double the current price of CO2 under the existing EU ETS trading system for emissions from industry and power plants.

The carbon price in EU ETS2 could hike costs for road transportation by 27%, while bills for home heating could spike by as much as 41%, BNEF’s analysis has found. “Ambitious targets and high costs risk making households and small businesses the losers,” the report reads.

Statins

Do statins really work ? Who benefits? Who has the power to cover up the side effects ? I’ve REALLY had enough of this bullshit. When you understand the whole truth I think you will too. Live Q&A this Sunday.Let’s collectively fight back against corporate psychopathic tyranny pic.twitter.com/JqV04MT3Z9

— Dr Aseem Malhotra (@DrAseemMalhotra) March 7, 2025

Kory

Dr. Pierre Kory: "It's hard to overstate what this mRNA vaccine campaign has done. You have depressed… immune systems, so a huge rise in infectious illnesses; we're seeing explosions in cancer; we're seeing [the Yale paper] describing…post-vaccination syndrome…"

"All of my… pic.twitter.com/zxhTPLUdPz

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) March 7, 2025

Wifi

RFK Jr Shocks Joe Rogan…WiFi Causes 'Leaky Brain.'

It Degrades Your Mitochondria & Opens Up Your Blood Brain Barrier.

The US Gov't Silenced, Halted & Shut Down The Research.

WiFi Radiation Damages The Blood Brain Barrier.

Wireless radiation affects the permeability of the… pic.twitter.com/t9n4vQjEGf

— Valerie Anne Smith (@ValerieAnne1970) March 7, 2025

Paws

pic.twitter.com/UhxpsG86sQ

— Posts Of Cats (@PostsOfCats) March 6, 2025

Parrot
https://twitter.com/i/status/1897986664590348732

Gazelle

This giraffe noticing a gazelle having trouble with a tree branch stuck in its horn, helping remove it.pic.twitter.com/eh4dzPZjqz

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) March 7, 2025

Fountain

Every day this little pup barks at the fountain waiting for someone to turn on the water so he can play pic.twitter.com/cmPROlLEMg

— B&S (@_B___S) March 6, 2025

Kaprekar
https://twitter.com/i/status/1897991996620370205

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 4 2025

Mar 042025

March 4, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 11:07 am Finance Tagged with: Bessent, Bondi, ceasefire, cyber ops, DOGE, Europe, NATO, tech war, Trump, Zelensky 38 Responses »

Edouard Manet The absinthe drinker 1859

• Europe’s Reckless Warmongering Pushes Trump Toward NATO Exit (Sp.)

• Why Is Europe Making Itself Irrelevant? (Paul Craig Roberts)

• Europe is Falling & Needs War with Russia – Martin Armstrong (USAW)

• Attitude Adjustment (James Howard Kunstler)

• US Halts All Military Aid To Ukraine – Media (RT)

• The Three Conditions For Zelensky’s Departure (Ryumshin)

• Trump-Zelensky Clash Shows Ukraine Doesn’t Want Peace – Kremlin (RT)

• Musk Slams Zelensky For Rejecting Ceasefire (RT)

• Tulsi Gabbard Questions If Ukraine Is ‘Aligned’ With US Values (RT)

• Scott Ritter: US Had Its fingers in Every Aspect of Ukrainian Pie (Sp.)

• Zelensky Rejects Calls For Immediate Ceasefire & Won’t Apologize To Trump (ZH)

• US Reportedly Halts Offensive Cyber Ops Against Russia (ZH)

• Trump Tells Americans To Worry About Migrants Not Putin (RT)

• Bessent “Shocked” By Scale Of Fraud Already Uncovered By DOGE (ZH)

• Economist Says DOGE Checks Are ‘Exactly The Right Incentive To Find Waste’ (JTN)

• AG Pam Bondi Received “Truckload” Of Hidden Epstein Documents From SDNY (ZH)

• Democrats Go Full McCarthy in Attacks on Musk (Turley)

• Chinese Models Are Stunning Americans In The Tech Catwalk (Pepe Escobar)

Elon Musk on wars: "A lot of people dying for basically almost no changes in land, young boys who don't know each other, killing each other on behalf of old men who do know each other, there's lot of sons not coming back to their parents, most of them don't hate the other side" pic.twitter.com/uo7QVt2y0B

— Camus (@newstart_2024) March 3, 2025

Failings

BRAVO!!!! This is Incredible common sense from this British woman

pic.twitter.com/ajnyqA59wd

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) March 2, 2025

Hegseth 5 bullets
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896279104535904726

Dellinger

NEW – Judge rules against President Trump, preventing the Trump administration from removing Biden-appointed Office of Special Counsel head, Hampton Dellinger—Case now likely headed to the Supreme Court pic.twitter.com/dSgtcjGilP

— Overton (@overton_news) March 3, 2025

Tucker

Tucker Carlson says Texas Republicans are corrupt

This may explain why there’s a 60 square mile city of illegal aliens called Colony Ridge in Texas or why a 402-acre plot of land is being subsidized exclusively for a Muslim community pushing Sharia Law

“What is it with Texas… pic.twitter.com/oJSsLHXdsS

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 2, 2025

Just for reference, this is the Texas Congressman calling Tucker Carlson a “Russian Agent”

Congressman Michael McCaul Insider Trading $576 million dollars, makes $20 million per month and owns a $20 Million Dollar Private Jet

– He makes an average of $24,000,000 every single… pic.twitter.com/1lO5jsUxuz

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 3, 2025

Time to talk Europe. Why do they insist on antagonizing Trump by sabotaging his peace efforts? Martin Armstrong says Europe is so far gone, the only thing they can think of doing is go to war with Russia. Von der Leyen today presented a $1 trillion EU rearmament plan. Which they can’t afford, but they could blame Putin for all consequences, not themselves. Consequences such as widespread and deep poverty across the continent.

• Europe’s Reckless Warmongering Pushes Trump Toward NATO Exit (Sp.)

So long as the US provides an expensive and robust support for Europe’s defense, oligarchs based in Europe can continue business as usual, living their lavish lifestyles and provoking their nuclear neighbor, Wall Streest analyst Charles Ortel says. “Our European ‘partners’ seem to want ‘war at all costs,’ believing that America will do the paying and Americans will do the dying,” Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel told Sputnik, commenting on Europe’s demonstrative support for Volodymyr Zelensky, who rejected a Trump-brokered ceasefire in Ukraine. The UK and EU feel free to provoke Russia – a nuclear power – because they believe their security is guaranteed by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which would obligate the US to come to their defense, according to the analyst.

Europe’s proxy, Zelensky, “is behaving like an old-fashioned mafia goon, demanding protection money,” Ortel says. US involvement in the Ukraine conflict would mean increased protection for Europe and further US taxpayer money flowing into European coffers. But that won’t happen under Donald Trump and JD Vance, Ortel underscores. As Europe’s reckless warmongering continues, the US may have no choice but to leave the transatlantic alliance, he believes. “The US has no business subsidizing Europe and defending it,” Ortel says. “Indeed, I believe we have a duty to our own citizenry to significantly reduce our defense commitments to Europe and rescind NATO treaty assurances — if not exit NATO altogether under present circumstances.”

“Trump has given us an opportunity we have not had for a long time. Be thankful for it.”

• Why Is Europe Making Itself Irrelevant? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Readers want to know why the UK PM and European leaders–really, non-readers, misleaders, bad leaders–want war with Russia over Ukraine. My answer is that they don’t. What would they go to war with? According to the European “leaders,” they already have given all their weapons to Ukraine and have nothing with which o fight a war. The only way Europe can send any money to Ukraine is to get the EU central bank to print euros to send to Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO force structure depends on the United States. Without the US, Europe lacks a force structure that can support a war. Trump has ruled out war with Russia and read Zelensky the riot act. Unless Putin makes a fantastic mistake, I expect the conflict to end.

Perhaps what is going on with Europe’s is that EU governments, after sending so much money and weapons to Ukraine backed by claims that Ukraine was winning and would win, want to be able to say that Trump sold out Ukraine in order to avoid accountability to the deceived populations of Europe. They can blame Trump for denying Ukraine and NATO a victory. The European talk of sending “peacekeepers” to Ukraine is nonsense. Putin intends a settlement, an over-and-done-with event, not a ceasefire with European “peacekeepers.” Trump can’t get a settlement if he sides with the EU against Putin. If Trump and Putin don’t accept “peacekeepers,” it can’t happen.

Here is a thought. Trump sees economic growth as fed by opportunity. He sees more opportunity in business deals with Russia, India, China, the rest of Asia, and Africa than he sees in Europe. Trump understands that it was sanctions and the weaponization of the dollar that produced BRICS and the search for an alternative for central bank reserves and international payments. To save the dollar’s role as reserve currency, Washington needs to stop bullying. Trump, like Putin, wants deals that work for everyone, not wars. In a world in which the dollar is not used as a weapon against other countries, BRICS is not necessary. Trump sees tariffs in a different way than indoctrinated free-market economists. Tariffs don’t prevent trade. They ensure that countries have something with which to trade.

Moreover, tariffs are a tax on consumption, not a tax on factors of production such as labor and capital. And as I emphasize, tariffs in place of income tax eliminates the resurrection of a form of slavery established in 1913 when government was given partial ownership of the labor of every working citizen. We have little to lose by supporting Trump and keeping him focused on his agenda. We should not add to problems for Ukraine’s sake, or for Israel’s sake, or some other non-American interest. There are sufficient unaddressed threats around, such as AI and the creation and release of another virus, to knock Trump’s agenda off balance. Life is a challenge. Making good decisions is a difficult thing to do. Let’s try for a change to meet the real challenges and to make good decisions. Trump has given us an opportunity we have not had for a long time. Be thankful for it.

“Right now, I am concerned from about May 15th on. . . . Our computer (Socrates) says Europe is going into war, and I put it into this report, Europe will lose. . .”

• Europe is Falling & Needs War with Russia – Martin Armstrong (USAW)

Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong is back with a new warning about war coming to Europe. You may have seen the heated exchange between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine on Friday. If not, you should. Some of the Trump highlights are: “President Zelensky is not ready for peace. . . (Zelensky is) gambling with WWIII, and You either make a deal or we are out.” It looks like Zelensky intentionally started a fight with Trump in the White House. It also looks like every country in Europe is backing more war in Ukraine. And now, there is renewed talk of an EU army. Armstrong says, “Why?” ” Because they all are facing the collapse of the European Union. The debt is just unbelievable. They never consolidated. Between Covid, Climate Change and sanctions on Russia, the German economy has shrunk . . . 3% to 5%. The economic growth (of the EU) is appalling. Europe is falling, and this is why they need war. So, they are backing Zelensky.”

In a new report released yesterday, Armstrong lays out the case why war in Europe is coming and coming soon. Armstrong points out: “In this report, I gathered a bunch of headlines: London Financial Times, what’s the headline? ‘America is Now the Enemy of the West.’ This is why Trump is saying ‘We are out.’ Zelensky has admitted that 58% of the $350 billion the US gave him is missing. You cut the funding, and you are going to find out the truth. Trump should cut every single penny. Bring it all out. Zelensky is counting on Europe to replace the United States. This is why he’s so arrogant. . . . Trump should get the hell out of NATO–ASAP.”

So, why are all these reports coming out in the last few months about gold coming to America from Europe? Armstrong says, “Last week, I was on the phone, and I can’t tell you how much, but when you are about to go into war, capital moves…” “Right now, I am concerned from about May 15th on. . . . Our computer (Socrates) says Europe is going into war, and I put it into this report, Europe will lose. . . . This is why the gold is coming to America.” Armstrong also contends you can forget about predictions of the US dollar collapsing anytime soon – it won’t.

Armstrong says, “The Euro will become extinct.” Armstrong also predicts, “I published what the computer “Socrates” put out on Ukraine. It’s a flatline, and I have never seen that on any other country. It’s a flatline. It’s going dead. That’s it.” Did the election of President Trump stop a thermonuclear exchange with Russia? Armstrong says, “Absolutely! You had Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala. . . . Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were on the J6 Committee. Both of them are Neocons. Adam Kinzinger said ‘We could defeat Russia in three days.’ They put out nothing but propaganda all the time.”

“Because Ukraine is mostly a flat plain, it has served historically as the doormat for invasions into Russia, so you may see why Russia was not comfortable with the prospect of NATO perched there..”

• Attitude Adjustment (James Howard Kunstler)

See if you can get this straight: So, Kier Starmer says: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wants to “put boots on the ground and planes in the air” in Ukraine so as to lead a “coalition of the willing” (NATO) against Russia. Sounds a little like the British PM is holding seances at No. Ten Downing Street to channel the spirits of bygone European leaders who launched doomed bear hunts into the vast and mysterious Eurasian east. (Who comes to mind?) Why is Europe so avid for war? After eighty-odd years of serving as the world’s tourism theme park, languishing in their cafes, maybe they forgot what war is like. The New York Times reports: Ursula von der Leyen said the European Union would fortify Ukraine with economic and military aid, aiming to turn it into “a steel porcupine that is indigestible for potential invaders.”

This requires you to fall for the fake idea that Russia seeks to invade western Europe. Notice how much the EU acts like America’s Democratic Party — projecting its own hostile fantasies on its adversaries. Also, like our Democratic Party, Europe is sinking into oblivion. The animating ethos of the ruling parties in Germany and France is to punish their own citizens with censorship, tyranny, and sponsoring an alien invasion that aims to demolish European culture. Their economic wizards are taking the continent medieval, to a global backwater of defeated peasants eating bugs. I will boldly predict that the likes of Starmer, von der Leyen, and Friedrich Merz will be swept out of power by angry mobs before next Christmas. In the meantime, Europe has made itself preposterous. Europe does not have the mojo to do a darned thing about Ukraine or Russia.

The British army has 74,296 active-duty troops, comparable to Algeria. The UK’s North Sea oil production has declined by approximately 73-percent since 2000. Germany produces around 23,000 barrels-a-day, enough to meet two percent of its domestic oil demand. Anyway, exactly a year ago, Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared, “There will be no ground troops, no soldiers on Ukrainian soil sent there by European countries or NATO states.” So, who’s kidding whom? Circumstances are driving the USA and Russia into an alliance of necessity. The immediate goal is to stop the insane war provoked by previous non-Trump administrations (and the EU) going back to George W. Bush, that repeatedly promoted “color revolutions” (regime change) in Ukraine so as to drag it into NATO — putting a hostile forward base on Russia’s “front porch.” The idea all along among the most fervidly delusional neocons has been to bust-up Russia in order to seize its oil and mineral assets.

That project never panned out because after a decade of post-Soviet chaos, Mr. Putin put his country back in order, turned it into what used to be the definition of a normal European nation and — too ironically even for Russian literature — made it a bastion for defending Western Civ while the other nations of Europe launched their campaign of collective suicide. History is ever a trickster and the zeitgeist is its consigliere. Mr. Trump and his wingmen apparently recognize the obvious: that Ukraine is exactly what its name signifies in its Slavic root, (Ukraina): frontier, borderland, periphery, outskirts. Ukraine is on the edge of Russia. Most of all, it is geopolitically within Russia’s sphere-of-influence in the same way that Mexico is in ours, with similar implications for national defense as laid out explicitly in our Monroe Doctrine.

Because Ukraine is mostly a flat plain, it has served historically as the doormat for invasions into Russia, so you may see why Russia was not comfortable with the prospect of NATO perched there, especially in a new age of drones and missiles. As Europe now flounders impotently and wrecks itself, America and Russia are motivated to avoid being snookered into an unnecessary world war over Ukraine. Mr. Zelenskyy is but an anachronistic artifact of the color revolutions that finally sputtered out with “Joe Biden,” who was himself in the vanguard of a colossal money-grubbing operation in that sad-sack country.

“This guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing..”

• US Halts All Military Aid To Ukraine – Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump has instructed the Defense Department to pause all military aid to Ukraine following his public spat with Vladimir Zelensky, news agencies reported on Monday, citing American officials. According to Bloomberg, the freeze affects the equipment already designated for delivery, including weapons in transit on aircraft and ships or waiting in transit areas in Poland. The suspension will stay in place until Trump sees that the Ukrainian leaders “demonstrate a good-faith commitment to peace,” Bloomberg said, citing a senior Pentagon official. According to the New York Times, the order takes effect immediately and affects more than $1 billion in “arms and ammunition in the pipeline and on order.”

“The president has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well. We are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution,” a White House official told Reuters. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Monday that Washington has stopped funding new weapons sales to Ukraine and was considering freezing weapons shipments. Trump has repeatedly accused Zelensky of undermining his effort to broker a peace deal between Kiev and Moscow. Their public feud culminated in an unprecedented shouting match during a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday, after which Trump said that Zelensky was disrespectful to the US.

Zelensky has insisted that a ceasefire must be tied to security guarantees provided by the US and other Western countries. Trump, however, has refused to commit to specific guarantees and has ruled out making Ukraine a NATO member or contributing American troops to a potential peacekeeping mission. On Sunday, Zelensky told reporters that “an agreement to end the war is still very, very far away, and no one has started all these steps yet.” Trump condemned his statement on social media, promising that “America will not put up with it for much longer.”

“This guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Zelensky told reporters last month that Ukraine had a “low chance” of survival without American aid. The US is one of Kiev’s principal suppliers of weapons, including M1 Abrams tanks, Bradley armored vehicles, M777 howitzers, HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, and artillery rounds. As of December 2024, the Pentagon has committed more than $66 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 2022. Russia has stressed that no amount of Western aid would stop its troops in Ukraine.

Just take the arms away.

• The Three Conditions For Zelensky’s Departure (Ryumshin)

For a long time, discussions about elections in Ukraine were hypothetical, a distant prospect. But recent developments – including Russian-American negotiations and the growing friction between Washington and Kiev – have thrown the question of Vladimir Zelensky’s future into sharp focus. The emerging détente between Russia and the US has activated what one might call a “Chekhov’s gun” scenario – an inevitability set in motion long ago. Both Moscow and Washington now seem to agree that Zelensky, whose legitimacy is increasingly in question, must face elections before making any binding agreements. Public statements from Russian and American officials indicate that if Zelensky were to exit following an election, both parties would welcome the outcome.

However, Zelensky’s departure is far from certain. For him to resign, at least two of three critical conditions must be met:
• The key players in the Ukraine conflict – Russia, the US, and the European Union – must want him to go.
• The Ukrainian political elite must push for his resignation.
• Zelensky himself must see a reason to step down.
• At present, none of these conditions are fully in place.
The US and Russia have seemingly converged on a three-stage process: ceasefire, elections, peace talks. Reports indicate that an informal consensus is emerging in both capitals. However, neither side has explicitly acknowledged a unified stance, likely because the negotiations are still in their early stages and have yet to formally address Ukraine.

The European Union remains the wildcard. Brussels is adamant that Ukraine must be supported, regardless of Washington’s position. This provides Zelensky with an alternative power base, meaning that even if Russia and the US agree on his departure, he could still count on support from Europe to justify staying in power. Public sentiment within Ukraine is difficult to gauge accurately. While polls indicate that Zelensky’s approval ratings have been steadily declining since 2023, recent attacks from US President Donald Trump and other Western critics have paradoxically caused his numbers to rebound. Whether this surge in support is genuine or a manufactured crisis response from his administration remains unclear. Polling during wartime is notoriously unreliable, making it difficult to assess whether the Ukrainian people truly want Zelensky to step down.

Ukrainian political opposition also remains fragmented. Many figures within the ruling elite bear grudges against Zelensky, but their ability to effectively challenge his authority is questionable. The Ukrainian parliament recently embarrassed Zelensky by failing to pass a resolution reaffirming his legitimacy at the first attempt – an incident that took place in front of EU representatives. But this is hardly a coordinated coup attempt; rather, it underscores the lack of unity among his detractors. A unifying figure for the opposition remains elusive. Former Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny, once seen as a potential rival, has so far refrained from making any overt political moves. Without him, Zelensky’s adversaries appear more interested in minor disruptions than in mounting a serious challenge.

Despite his declining popularity, Zelensky is not without influential allies. His inner circle, particularly Andrey Yermak, head of the Ukrainian Presidential Administration, has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Yermak, often seen as the power behind the throne, has built his career on his proximity to Zelensky. Any shift in leadership could threaten his influence and that of his associates, making it likely that they will fight to keep Zelensky in office. The simplest answer is no. Zelensky appears convinced that his leadership is indispensable to Ukraine’s survival. He has consistently rejected any suggestion of early elections or stepping down voluntarily. His statements on the matter are often deflective, saying he would consider resignation only if Ukraine was admitted to NATO – an impossible condition. This suggests he will cling to power for as long as possible.

While Zelensky currently holds his ground, shifting battlefield dynamics could force his hand. Ukraine’s military situation continues to deteriorate, its resources are stretched thin, and Western support is no longer guaranteed. The new US administration is unlikely to display the same patience as the Biden White House. If Ukraine fails to turn the tide, Zelensky may face a stark choice: hold elections before the situation becomes catastrophic or risk being overthrown in a palace coup orchestrated by Ukrainian elites desperate to preserve their own futures. The latter scenario would not be unusual in history. Leaders who refuse to acknowledge military defeat often find themselves ousted by their own ranks. If Zelensky continues to insist on leading Ukraine down an unwinnable path, he may well meet the same fate.

“The argument at the White House was “a rather unprecedented event,” during which the Ukrainian leader “at the very least, demonstrated a complete lack of diplomatic skills..”

• Trump-Zelensky Clash Shows Ukraine Doesn’t Want Peace – Kremlin (RT)

The public dispute between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky at the White House last week is further evidence that Kiev is not genuinely interested in a diplomatic resolution to its conflict with Russia, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has stated. Zelensky’s visit to the White House on Friday was abruptly cut short after a heated exchange with the US president and vice president in front of the media. During the tense meeting, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War III” by refusing to negotiate peace with Russia. They also criticized him as ungrateful and disrespectful despite the significant military aid Washington has provided to Kiev. During the intense argument, Zelensky once again ruled out talks with Moscow, demanded security guarantees from the US, and denied that Ukrainian forces are facing manpower shortages.

“The Kiev regime and Zelensky do not want peace,” Peskov told journalists on Monday. “In this situation, Washington’s efforts and Moscow’s readiness alone will clearly not be enough [to stop the fighting] as a very important element is missing.” The Ukrainian leader’s behavior at the Oval office “demonstrated how difficult it will be to get on the path of a settlement around Ukraine,” he said. According to the spokesman, Russian President Vladimir Putin is aware of the details of the clash between Trump and Zelensky. “It was available for the entire international community to see… Therefore, of course, the president knows all the nuances,” he confirmed. The argument at the White House was “a rather unprecedented event,” during which the Ukrainian leader “at the very least, demonstrated a complete lack of diplomatic skills,” Peskov noted.

The Kremlin spokesman also stressed that “the collective West has partially begun to lose its collectiveness” when it comes to the Ukraine conflict, as some nations or groups of nations are beginning to work out their own more nuanced stances. There remains “a party of war” in the West, which declares its readiness to continue backing Ukraine and ensuring the continuation of the fighting, he said, adding that “at the same time, some first drafts of eventual peace plans are also appearing.” Peskov emphasized, however, that “it is too early to speak about some kind of a coordinated, detailed peace plan being on the agenda.” Overall, the situation surrounding the resolution of the Ukraine conflict remains complex, he stressed. Peskov reiterated that Russia remains committed to achieving all the objectives outlined at the start of its special military operation.

“The EU leaders and Zelensky having fancy dinners while men die in trenches. How many parents will never see their son again?”

• Musk Slams Zelensky For Rejecting Ceasefire (RT)

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has lashed out at Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky in a series of X posts, accusing him of prolonging the conflict with Russia by refusing to negotiate. Musk’s comments follow a tense White House meeting on Friday between Zelensky, US President Donald Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance. The meeting ended abruptly without a planned minerals agreement. During a heated exchange, Zelensky resisted Trump’s demand to negotiate with Moscow, leading Trump to accuse him of ingratitude, “gambling with World War III,” and lacking the willingness to end the conflict. After Zelensky’s “fiasco” in Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called an emergency summit in London on Sunday to discuss Western support for Ukraine. Some European leaders raised the possibility of sending ground troops.

Early Sunday, Musk reposted a statement made by Balazs Orban, political director of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, calling for “direct negotiations with Russia” and an “immediate ceasefire and peace.” He then re-shared his 2022 peace proposal, suggesting referendums in Russian-controlled territories, the recognition of Crimea as Russian, and Ukraine’s neutrality. The Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Kherson Region and Zaporozhye Region—formerly part of Ukraine—became federal subjects of Russia after referendums in 2022. Crimea and Sevastopol had previously voted to join the country in 2014. However, Kiev continues to assert sovereignty over these territories.

“What I said over 2 years ago was that Ukraine should seek peace or suffer severe loss of life for no gains. The latter was Zelensky’s choice. Now, he wants to do that again. This is cruel and inhumane,” Musk wrote in a pinned post. Musk followed up with a meme of a tram running over people, with Zelensky at the control lever. Another post showed a blood-stained chessboard next to a dining table, captioned: “The reality of war.” He later reposted the image, adding: “The EU leaders and Zelensky having fancy dinners while men die in trenches. How many parents will never see their son again?” Musk’s remarks come as Zelensky demands more funding from Western backers while resisting talks with Moscow. Reports indicate Washington is unwilling to approve further aid unless Ukraine agrees to negotiations.

During the summit, Starmer urged the EU and other sponsors to take a leading role in supporting Kiev. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau backed the idea, stating that “everything’s on the table.” French President Emmanuel Macron said deployment would only be possible “when the peace is signed.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has expressed strong opposition to the potential deployment of Western peacekeeping forces. He emphasized that NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders is perceived as a threat, and deploying the bloc’s troops in Ukraine, even under a different guise, does not alter this perception.

Ukraine is aligned with EU/Biden values.

• Tulsi Gabbard Questions If Ukraine Is ‘Aligned’ With US Values (RT)

Ukraine and many of its European backers may not be aligned with the US values of freedom, peace, and democracy shared by President Donald Trump, according to Washington’s director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Gabbard was asked about last week’s heated exchange at the White House involving Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance. The tense meeting ended with Zelensky abruptly leaving the White House after being accused by Trump of ingratitude, “gambling with World War III,” and refusing to seek peace with Russia. The incident has sparked a backlash from Trump’s critics, including several EU leaders, who have accused him of “bullying” Zelensky.

However, according to Gabbard, anyone who has criticized Trump over his interaction with the Ukrainian leader is merely showing that they are “not committed to peace.” “Many of these European countries, and Zelensky himself, who claim to be standing and fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy” are actually acting contrary to these values, Gabbard stated. “When we actually look at what’s happening in reality in these countries, as well as with Zelensky’s government in Ukraine, it is the exact opposite,” she added. Gabbard pointed to the lack of elections in Ukraine, Kiev’s criminalization of opposition parties, the shutting down of Orthodox churches, and the complete government control over media outlets.

“It begs the question. It’s clear they’re standing against [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. But what are they actually really fighting for, and are they aligned with the values that they claim to hold in agreement with [the US], which are the values of freedom, peace and true security,” Gabbard said. The DNI chief further criticized Washington’s EU partners, recalling Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he accused European countries of implementing policies that “undermine democracy” and show that they “don’t actually believe in the voices of the people.”

“We’re seeing this in the United Kingdom, we’re seeing this in Germany, we saw it with the tossing out of the elections in Romania,” Gabbard said, suggesting that this shows a “huge divergence” between US values and those of the European nations that have backed Zelensky. Russia has also suggested that last week’s clash between Zelensky and Trump once again proved that Kiev is not genuinely interested in peace. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stressed that the Ukrainian leader’s behavior in the Oval Office “demonstrated how difficult it will be to get on the path of a settlement around Ukraine.”

“A hammer doesn’t know the intent of an architect. America was the architect of Ukrainian project. Ukraine is just the hammer, just like Europe..”

• Scott Ritter: US Had Its fingers in Every Aspect of Ukrainian Pie (Sp.)

Aside from preparing Ukraine for guerrilla warfare and conducting anti-Russia propaganda operations, the US and the CIA built 20 bases throughout the country, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter told Sputnik. Hunter Biden’s position on the board of the major Ukrainian energy company Burisma also shows that “the United States had its fingers in every aspect of the Ukrainian economic pie.” Ukraine, Ritter explained, is just a tool US tried using to defeat Russia – a tool that wasn’t even aware of “every aspect of this grand plan.”

“A hammer doesn’t know the intent of an architect. America was the architect of Ukrainian project. Ukraine is just the hammer, just like Europe,” he said. Commenting on the recent clash between JD Vance and Zelensky, Ritter noted that Vance is “the vice president of the United States, who has received some of the best intelligence there is about the reality of Ukraine.” “Zelensky is an actor who reads from a script as part of a play that’s being controlled by others,” he remarked.

“This is a new president, and we are determined to take a new approach towards peace.”

• Zelensky Rejects Calls For Immediate Ceasefire & Won’t Apologize To Trump (ZH)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has remained defiant in the wake of Friday’s explosive confrontation with President Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office. He said from London Sunday that he will not apologize and that his country’s freedom is “not for sale”. He acknowledged that the public spat “didn’t bring anything positive or additional to us as partner” – however he also said “This relationship will continue because this is more than a relationship in one moment.” “If you don’t have an end to the war and you don’t have security guarantees, no one is able to control a ceasefire,” he told reporters while preparing to leave the UK, following a meeting with European leaders to agree on continued support for Ukraine.

Financial Times has underscored that Zelensky is not only rejecting calls from the US to apologize to Trump and Vance, but he’s now openly pushing back against ceasefire. The Ukrainian leader…rejected calls for Ukraine to agree an immediate ceasefire in its war with Russia, saying it would be “failure for everyone” if a cessation of hostilities were not accompanied by detailed security guarantees. “If you don’t have an end to the war and you don’t have security guarantees, no one is able to control a ceasefire,” Zelensky stressed in these latest remarks. He still proclaimed that he remains “ready” to sign a US-Ukraine minerals deal, confirming that his aides are now speaking to Trump’s team about ways to move forward on it. Zelensky says he is prepared to sign a mineral rights deal with the US and thinks the relationship with Washington can be salvaged. —NBC

But the mood from the White House appears to be one of willingness to cut Zelensky off altogether. There are reports that President Trump is mulling cutting off all continuing defense aid to Ukraine. Administration officials have sought to clarify that this was no ambush which played out before media cameras on Friday, but that Zelensky was rude and confrontational the whole time, and never satisfied with what the US was providing to Ukraine. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz told the Sunday news shows that President Trump “was frustrated and angry because it’s unclear if Zelensky truly wants to stop the fighting. The President and VP said enough is enough.” Walz added: “This [lecturing] was the wrong approach, wrong time, and the wrong president to try to do this kind of a thing. This is not Joe Biden. The entire world saw that, crystal clear.”

And this segment from Walz’s account in a Fox News interview is hugely revealing:
Q: How did Zelensky react after press left? Was he surprised?

Waltz: No. His team was. His ambassador, and adviser were practically in tears, wanting this to move forward. But Zelensky was still argumentative. I said “Mr. President, time is not on your side here, on the battlefield, and in terms of the world situation. And most importantly, USAID, and the taxpayers’ tolerance, is not unlimited”.

Waltz: I think Zelensky is used to hearing that “as long as it takes” and blank check from Biden. He has not gotten the memo that this is a new sheriff in town. This is a new president, and we are determined to take a new approach towards peace.

European leaders are meanwhile trying to absorb the blowback and fallout, now talking about an alternative peace plan backed by “boots on the ground and planes in the air”. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is leading the way on plans for a ‘stabilization force’ to back a Ukraine ceasefire, likely involving France – and which the Europeans hope Trump can sign on to. But the Kremlin is likely to immediately reject it, given the Western ‘boots on the ground’ aspect to the plan.

“If this was a Democrat that was doing this, everyone would be saying, well, he’s on his way to the Nobel Peace Prize…”

• US Reportedly Halts Offensive Cyber Ops Against Russia (ZH)

In the latest indication that we’re entering a new, less adversarial era of US-Russia relations, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a suspension of offensive cyber operations against Russia. The length of the pause is uncertain but the purpose seems clear: To demonstrate good will as the Trump administration earnestly seeks a negotiated end to the three-year-old war in Ukraine, which has been costly not only to the two warring countries, but to the United States and Western European countries that first precipitated that conflict, and then perpetuated it. The pause will continue as long as negotiations move forward, according to the Washington Post’s sources. US officials tell various media outlets that the stand-down order was issued to US Cyber Command in late February.

Headquartered at Ft Meade, Maryland and commanded by Air Force Gen. Tim Haugh, the mission of Cyber Command’s two to three thousand employees is to “plan and execute global cyber operations, activities, and missions to defend and advance national interests in collaboration with domestic and international partners across the full spectrum of competition and conflict.” “I have seen many times when we are in some type of negotiation with another nation, especially if it’s one that is considered an adversary, that we stop operations, exercises, we even cancel speeches sometimes,” retired Cyber Command deputy commander Lt. Gen. Charlie Moore told the Post. The pause in offensive cyber-operations was first reported by The Record. The precise nature of the adjustment in activity is unclear, but the outlet’s sources say it does not apply to the National Security Agency and its signals intelligence-gathering.

Right on cue, hawks squawked over the deescalation move. “Russia continues to be among the top cyberthreats to the United States,” James A. Lewis, a Clinton administration diplomat and former U.N. cyber negotiator told the Washington Post. “Turning off cyber operations to avoid blowing up the talks may be a prudent tactical step. But if we take our foot off the gas pedal and they take advantage of it, we could put national security at risk.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Trump of giving Russian President Vladimir Putin “a free pass…to launch cyberoperations and ransomware attacks against critical American infrastructure.” Appearing on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back on leftist hysterics about Trump’s eagerness to reach a negotiated ceasefire and lasting peace in Ukraine — consistent with his campaign pledges:

“If this was a Democrat that was doing this, everyone would be saying, well, he’s on his way to the Nobel Peace Prize. This is absurd. We are trying to end a war. You cannot end a war unless both sides come to the table, starting with the Russians, and that is the point the president has made. And we have to do whatever we can to try to bring them to the table to see if it’s even possible.” In another recent sign of easing tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, the United States approved Russia’s selection of a new ambassador to Washington. Aside from the Ukraine peace overtures, current bilateral US-Russia dialogue has been focused on fully restoring relations and putting back in place all embassy staff in Washington and Moscow, respectively. As relations deteriorated during the Biden era, there had been several rounds of hostile, mutual booting of diplomats. Meanwhile, a summit between Trump and Putin is in the works.

“We should spend less time worrying about Putin, and more time worrying about migrant rape gangs, drug lords, murderers, and people from mental institutions entering our Country – So that we don’t end up like Europe!”

• Trump Tells Americans To Worry About Migrants Not Putin (RT)

President Donald Trump has stated that the US should prioritize domestic issues, such as migrant crime, rather than focusing on Russian President Vladimir Putin. Recent Russia-US talks initiated by Putin and Trump, followed by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s disastrous White House appearance, have triggered concern among Kiev’s backers that the US president’s approach could benefit Russia more than Ukraine. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has commended Trump’s approach, noting that it “largely aligns with our vision.” The American leader has dismissed concerns about his relationship to Putin, emphasizing that Washington has more pressing matters to address. “We should spend less time worrying about Putin, and more time worrying about migrant rape gangs, drug lords, murderers, and people from mental institutions entering our Country – So that we don’t end up like Europe!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday.

EU nations are meanwhile facing a migration-related security crisis. France has seen a rise in extremist attacks linked to radicalized asylum seekers, while Germany grapples with migrant-related violent crime. Italy continues to struggle with mass arrivals via the Mediterranean, prompting stricter border controls. In Sweden, studies have highlighted a high percentage of sex crimes committed by foreign-born individuals, fueling debates on immigration policy. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has underscored these concerns, stating, “There is a very clear link between terrorist acts and migration.”The US has faced a surge in illegal border crossings, increased cartel-linked drug trafficking, and crime in migrant-populated areas. In response, Trump has threatened tariffs on Mexico if it does not take stronger action. Since taking office in January 2025 Trump has signed executive orders tightening immigration policies.

One expanded expedited removal, denied federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, and increased border enforcement hiring. Another declared a national emergency, allowing the deployment of the armed forces to secure the border. The administration is expanding detention facilities to house up to 30,000 migrants. Former President Joe Biden had made Ukraine one of the key focuses of his administration, a decision that drew strong opposition from conservatives. Critics argued he should have prioritized domestic issues instead of sending billions in aid overseas. Biden’s visit to Kiev in 2023 and other foreign trips sparked backlash from Republicans who accused him of neglecting crises at home. Following Trump’s inauguration in January, the White House reaffirmed his ‘America First’ policy – first introduced in 2016 – by outlining plans to “make the country safe again” through stronger border security and a renewed focus on “American values.”

President Trump and Elon Musk [..] are planning to visit Fort Knox in the near future to “audit” the gold stocks and make sure all of the gold is where it’s supposed to be. I’m certain that visit will be the mother of all photo-ops.”..

• Gold’s Historic Rally (Jim Rickards)

Even casual observers know that gold has been trading near all-time highs lately. The dollar price of gold has been trading around $2,955 per ounce, quite close to the all-time closing high and near the recent intraday high just below $3,000 per ounce. Since November 1, 2022, gold has rallied from $1,650 per ounce to $2,955 per ounce, an 80% gain in 28 months. Since the U.S. dollar is also near interim highs based on leading indices, gold’s performance when measured in euros, sterling or Swiss francs is even stronger. We expect this trend to continue and to push gold solidly above the $3,000 per ounce level on its way to even higher levels in the months ahead. That’s news in its own right but there’s a lot more going on in the gold space than just the price action. President Trump and Elon Musk (head of the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, and the world’s richest man) are planning to visit Fort Knox in the near future to “audit” the gold stocks and make sure all of the gold is where it’s supposed to be. I’m certain that visit will be the mother of all photo-ops.

Of course, Trump and Musk will not be conducting a real audit in the financial sense. They’ll just look around and show that the gold is actually there. This should lay to rest the rumors and ill-founded theories that the gold is somehow missing or has been shipped to JPMorgan. It hasn’t been. Even this publicity visit has not captured all of the gold news lately. On a more serious note, Scott Bessent the U.S. Treasury Secretary said recently that “within the next twelve months, we’re going to monetize the asset side of the balance sheet for the American people. We’re going to put the assets to work.” There has been so much focus on the liability side of the balance sheet (basically the $38 trillion in national debt) that it’s refreshing to hear a senior official talk about the asset side.

The liberal critics will wail that Bessent plans to sell Yosemite National Park to real estate developers. Nothing like that will happen but the U.S. does have ample assets it can sell, lease or otherwise monetize without invading national parks or wilderness areas. These include mineral and mining rights, intellectual property, airwaves, rights of way, flight paths, and, yes, property development rights and land sales in non-sensitive areas. No one has any idea what all of this is worth, but it’s certainly worth in the trillions of dollars and can be monetized for the benefit of the American people including paying down the national debt.

Gold dealers and gold bugs immediately focused on one particular U.S. asset that could be monetized – gold. The U.S. has 8,133 metric tonnes of gold bullion in three locations – Fort Knox, West Point and the Denver mint – that could be sold. That gold has a current market value of $771 billion. Of course, any effort to sell more than a small fraction of that would drive the price of gold straight down. It would be an immense blunder to sell any of it anyway. The Treasury should be buying gold to maintain confidence in the dollar, not selling it.

Another take on monetizing gold revolves around the fact that the Federal Reserve currently holds a gold certificate issued by the U.S. Treasury in 1934 in compensation for the transfer of gold bullion from the Fed to the Treasury on orders of Franklin Roosevelt (backed up by legislation). That certificate is valued on the Fed’s books at $42.22 per ounce. If the Treasury ordered the Fed to write-up the value to market, that would add $760 billion to the Treasury’s general account, which could be used to finance the U.S. government without adding new debt.

Trump definitely wants new revenue streams for the government. I wouldn’t count marking-up the price of gold as a revenue stream. It does produce cash with no addition to the national debt but it’s not really a revenue stream; it’s just an accounting entry. It does produce cash but only on a one-time basis. In principle, you could repeat the process if gold went higher in the future but that’s uncertain and not completely reliable like taxes, leases and tariffs.

Despite the gold bug claims, there is no particular connection between marking up the price of gold (accounting) and selling gold reserves for cash (monetizing). One has nothing to do with the other. The government could sell the gold today at the market price without having to wash the accounting through the Treasury general account at the Fed. There’s nothing about marking up the price of gold on the Fed’s books that affects the government’s ability to sell the gold one way or the other.

Scary numbers.

• Bessent “Shocked” By Scale Of Fraud Already Uncovered By DOGE (ZH)

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent did the mainstream media press tour this weekend, clarifying two critical bullshit talking points to the propagandists: first, DOGE is doing a good job; and second, the US economy faces some significant headwinds as a hangover from ‘Bidenomics’ spendfest. Speaking in a Feb. 28 interview on Bloomberg Podcasts, Bessent was asked whether DOGE’s cost-cutting measures would have a “material” impact on deficit reduction. “I think we can make a pretty big hit here,” he replied, explaining that if DOGE identifies $300 billion in savings – which he suggested is possible – it could reduce the annual deficit by approximately 1 percentage point as a share of GDP. Even if the savings total only $150 billion, he said, this is still “moving us back toward the target, and we’re determined to get this down.”

As The Epoch Times’ Tom Ozimek reports, Bessent emphasized that DOGE, which was tasked by President Donald Trump with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending, has already uncovered substantial inefficiencies—and a surprising amount of outright fraud. When in comes to “waste, fraud, and abuse, I think most of us think in terms of waste and abuse,” Bessent said. “I’ve got to tell you that I’m slightly shocked at some of the fraud we’re finding, and you’re going to be hearing about more of that over the next couple of weeks.” As for the ultimate savings that DOGE will deliver, Bessent said: “We’ll see.”

DOGE, led by Elon Musk in a special government role, has an 18-month mandate to slash $2 trillion in federal spending before its scheduled dissolution on Independence Day 2026. Musk has acknowledged the ambitious nature of this goal, saying that even cutting half that amount would be a major step toward reducing inefficiency and lowering deficits. Over the past month, Musk and DOGE staffers have moved aggressively to pursue reforms across federal agencies, reporting $65 billion in savings through canceled grants, asset sales, workforce reductions, and terminated contracts and leases. Trump recently urged Musk to push even harder to root out waste and fraud. He also signed an executive order directing federal agencies to work with DOGE to eliminate costly or duplicative regulations, further accelerating its deficit-cutting mission.

“We either solve the deficit, or all we’ll be doing is paying debt,” Musk said in a recent interview with Fox News. “It’s not optional. America will go bankrupt if this is not done.” According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal deficit is projected to average $1.9 trillion per year between 2025 and 2034, or approximately 5.4 percent of GDP over that period. If DOGE’s projected $300 billion in savings materializes—a figure Bessent said was not out of the question—it would lower the deficit to $1.6 trillion and reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio by nearly 1 percentage point, improving fiscal sustainability. The CBO has warned that persistently high debt could slow economic growth, increase interest payments to foreign creditors, heighten the risk of a fiscal crisis, and limit policymakers’ ability to respond to future downturns. It has stressed that lawmakers must pursue comprehensive fiscal reforms, including spending cuts, revenue increases, or a combination of both, to put the budget on a sustainable long-term path.

Meanwhile, DOGE’s aggressive efforts have drawn criticism from Democrats in Congress, who accuse the agency of overstepping its authority and operating without sufficient oversight or transparency. The agency also faces multiple lawsuits, some challenging its access to federal data and others questioning its constitutional legitimacy. Despite the legal and political battles, DOGE appears to have significant public support. A recent poll of Epoch Times readers found overwhelming backing for DOGE and the Trump administration’s push to curb waste, fraud, and abuse. At the same time, respondents called for greater visibility into DOGE’s findings, with some demanding greater accountability—including the prosecution of individuals found to have engaged in fraud. Bessent’s remarks suggest that such accountability may be on the horizon.

“Trump will turn it around. We’re going to get inflation back down at 2% but it’s going to take a little while.”

• Economist Says DOGE Checks Are ‘Exactly The Right Incentive To Find Waste’ (JTN)

Since news broke last week that Elon Musk wants to send $5000 as a waste reduction dividend to every taxpaying household, outlets like CNN and Forbes are repeating DNC talking points that it could make matters worse. National Economic Council (NEC) Director Kevin Hassett defended the plan to CNBC, noting that if the government spends the money on a program or sends it back to the American people — who will spend it back into the economy or save it — the outcome is the same. But in the latter scenario the American people get some money back. “Imagine if we don’t spend government money and we give it back to people, if they spend it, you’re even but they’re probably going to save a lot of it in which case you’re reducing inflation” he told the press during a briefing at the White House last week. Notwithstanding fears about inflation being heightened by another stimulus-type check to Americans, the economy has a major renovation job ahead.

Many blame that stimulus spending for the inflationary surge during Biden’s term in office. Moore, who served as President Trump’s senior economic advisor told the “Furthermore with Amanda Head” podcast that for Trump to overhaul Biden’s economy, “he needs a big pooper scooper to clean up the mess that was left behind… everything that Trump is doing is deflationary; whereas, everything that Biden did raised the cost of businesses and led to runaway inflation.” It can be done, however. Moore gives a timeline of six to nine months for Trump to undo the damage and for the American people to start feeling relief. “Trump will turn it around. We’re going to get inflation back down at 2% but it’s going to take a little while.” A significant contributor to that economic recovery is reducing the cost of oil and gas. In 2024, 82% of energy consumption was sourced from traditional means like oil, gas and coal.

The Biden administration, through vehicles like the Green New Deal, allowed for regulations and standards that stymied or halted altogether domestic energy production. The “Green New Deal,” introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey in 2019, has not passed legislatively, but its core principles have been implemented throughout industry and used as a template for blue state policies like California’s push to eliminate gas-powered cars. Speaking to the seeming intentionality of Biden damaging energy production, Moore cited the first-day-of-office action by Biden to shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline, and asked, “why would anybody do that? Why would they try to destroy American infrastructure?” While legacy media outlets ran coverage for Biden and stuck to DNC talking points, Biden ultimately admitted in January of 2023 that the cancellation of the natural gas resource in fact cost thousands of jobs and revenue in the billions.

Other contributors to the rebounding economy are government spending and the tax bill Americans must pay to satisfy that spending. The budget resolution passed by Congress on Tuesday provides a framework for what needs to be done. Each of the House’s committees are now tasked with finding tax cuts and opportunities to reduce spending. The resolution passed 217 to 215 with all Democrats and one Republican voting against it. Digging into the alternative had it not passed, Moore indicates Americans dodged a bullet: “Republicans voted to stop the biggest tax increase in the history of this country” that would’ve hit taxpayers next January. When asked what a $4 trillion tax increase would have cost the average, middle-income household, Moore said, “The average family would pay somewhere between $2000 and $3000 a year more on taxes.”

Looks like she gets a second chance. Use it wisely. And yes, get DOGE involved. You don’t have 6 months.

• AG Pam Bondi Received “Truckload” Of Hidden Epstein Documents From SDNY (ZH)

After last week’s botched Epstein files release, many are calling for Attorney General Pam Bondi to be fired over the lame binders given to right-wing influencers and journalists that contained old information. On Monday, Bondi appeared on Fox News, where she told host Sean Hannity that she received a truckload of files on Friday morning containing additional Epstein files which were hidden away in the Southern District of New York. “FBI handed over a couple hundred pages of documents, but you know Sean, I gave them a deadline of Friday at 8am to get us everything, and a source had told me where the documents were being kept – southern district of new york (shock), so we got – hopefully all of them, Friday at 8am. Thousands of documents,” said Bondi.

“I have the FBI going through them … Now that we have Kash here it’s a game changer of course, and Director Patel is going to get us a detailed report as to why the FBI withheld all of those documents.” Sean Hannity: “I want to be clear, because I think people are frustrated. You were expecting more, and you didn’t find out – less than 24 hours before the release, you got a whistleblower that confirmed that there were way more documents that they were supposed to turn over, and then you found out just before that.” Pam Bondi: “Well sure, you’re looking at these documents going ‘these aren’t all the Epstein files!’ – and we’re going ‘where’s the rest of the stuff?’ and that’s what the FBI had turned over to us. And so a source said, whoa – all this evidence is sitting in the Southern District of New York. So based on that I gave them the deadline – Friday at 8. A truckload of evidence arrived.

It’s now in the possession of the FBI. Kash is going to get me – and himself a detailed report as to why all these documents and evidence had been withheld. And, you know, we’re going to go through it – go through it as fast as we can, but go through it very cautiously to protect all the victims of Epstein, because there are a lot of victims.” “Now, is that the only thing that would be redacted,” Hannity replied, referring to the names of the victims. Pam Bondi: “Yeah, the FBI hasn’t had, obviously, they haven’t looked at the thousands of pages of documents that they just received Friday. Kash has a team going through them – and it’s always about protecting the victim … We believe in transparency, and America has the right to know.”

The Biden administration sat on these documents. No one did anything with them, and why are they sitting in the Southern District of New York? I want a full report on that. Sadly these people don’t believe in transparency, but I think more than that – I think they don’t believe in honesty,” she continued. “Everything is going to come out to the public.” Watch (via Collin Rugg):

BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi says a "truckload" of Jeffrey Epstein files arrived on Friday, says FBI Director Kash Patel is looking through them now.

"We got them all Friday at 8AM. Thousands of pages of documents. I have the FBI going through them."

"It's now in the… pic.twitter.com/rxABwmO5p2

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 4, 2025

Maybe they can ask Elon Musk and DOGE to scan and redact the documents by the end of the week, vs. stringing us along for what could now take months?

“..this is a naturalized citizen who not only could be the next Elon Musk. He is Elon Musk.”

• Democrats Go Full McCarthy in Attacks on Musk (Turley)

This month, 75 years ago, Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisc.) gave his infamous speech denouncing disloyal Americans working at the highest levels of our government. It was the defining moment for what became known as McCarthyism, which attacked citizens as dangerous and disloyal influences in government. Some of us have criticized the rising “rage rhetoric” for years, including that of President Trump and Democratic leaders, denouncing opponents as traitors and enemies of the state. In the 2024 election, the traditional red state-blue state firewalls again collapsed, as they had in 2016. The response among Democrats has been to unleash a type of new Red Scare, questioning the loyalty of those who are supporting or working with the Trump administration in carrying out his promised reforms.

Elon Musk is the designated disloyal American for many on the left. That rage has reached virtual hysteria on ABC’s “The View.” This is the same show before the election on which hosts warned that, if Trump were elected, journalists and homosexuals would be rounded up and “disappeared.” After the election, democracy seemed to stubbornly hang on, so the hosts had to resort to attacking as disloyal anyone joining the government or supporting Trump’s policies. This week, co-host Joy Behar followed many others in questioning Musk’s loyalty and attacking him over being a naturalized American citizen: “The guy was not born in this country, who was born under apartheid in South Africa. So, [he] has that mentality going on. He was pro-Apartheid, as I understand it.”

Behar was then forced, perhaps by panicked ABC lawyers, to walk back the comment — such retractions having become a regular feature on “The View“. What came out was the type of jumbled confusion that results when you interrupt a lunatic on the metro in mid-rave. Behar stated: “I’m getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid. I don’t really know for sure if he was … He was around at that time, but maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t—he might have been a young guy, too. So, don’t be suing me, okay Elon?” This anti-immigrant attack on Musk, however, has worked its way into many Democrats’ talking points, even though their party had previously claimed to defend immigrants against racist Republicans seeking to close the Southern border and deport criminal illegal immigrants.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) launched a xenophobic tirade that should have shocked the conscience of the nation. She warned citizens that Musk could not be trusted because he is an immigrant who has been a citizen for only a couple of decades: “Mr. Musk has just been here just 22 years and he’s a citizen of three countries. I always ask myself the question: With the damage he’s doing here when push comes to shove, which country is he loyal to? South Africa, Canada, or the United States? And he’s only been a citizen, I’ll say again, 22 years.” Former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney was another joining in to attack Musk for being an immigrant. “You may be unfamiliar with that part of our history since you weren’t yet an American citizen,” she wrote on Musk’s social media platform, X.

These attacks are straight out of McCarthy’s playbook. It was McCarthy who insisted that “there are no degrees of loyalty in the United States — a man is either loyal or he’s disloyal…” Of course, McCarthy (and the earlier Red Scare) attacked government employees, writers and others on the left. It is now the left that is employing the same tactics, including censorship, blacklisting and public vilification. Throughout the 2024 campaign, the Democrats, including President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, painted Republicans as either aspiring or actual fascists. That continued recently with Minnesota Gov. and former Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz (D), who referred to Republicans as “fascists and Nazis.” Even journalists and civil libertarians have been reviled using the same terms.

After a hearing on censorship two years ago, MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) attacked journalists and members who had spoken in favor of free speech. She denounced the member witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson and former Rep. Gabbard) as “Putin apologists” and Putin-lovers. Stacey Plaskett, the Democratic delegate representing the Virgin Islands in the U.S. House, even suggested arresting respected journalist Matt Taibbi, who, along with Michael Shellenberger, testified on their investigation into a massive censorship system developed under the Biden administration. The attack on Musk is particularly disgraceful, given his contributions to his adopted country. Ironically, filmmaker Michael Moore denounced the deportations of criminal illegal immigrants last week by noting that Trump was deporting someone who might cure cancer or be the next Steve Jobs. Well, this is a naturalized citizen who not only could be the next Elon Musk. He is Elon Musk.

Americans are so addicted to the idea of being No. 1 that they’ve completely forgotten it’s just an idea.

• Chinese Models Are Stunning Americans In The Tech Catwalk (Pepe Escobar)

When President Xi Jinping hosted a recent – rare – meeting with an array of Chinese tech superstars, including a “rehabilitated” Jack Ma, Alibaba’s founder, he urged them to “show their talent”, code for going for broke in the tech war with the U.S. It was no wonder that young Liang Wenfeng, founder of AI sensation DeepSeek, was among the guests. DeepSeek threw not only Silicon Valley but the whole somewhat paranoid U.S. national security ecosystem completely off balance. Yet Beijing’s emphasis is not subversion, but a sound drive towards building an AI system totally independent from U.S. monopolistic pressure and Nvidia products. Alibaba, Huawei and Tencent will likely align their infrastructure with DeepSeek. This process is perfectly synchronized with the Made in China 2025 project, which has already propelled China to the leadership position in several sectors – from electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels to smart grids and advanced manufacturing.

The final breakthroughs will be on top semiconductors and aerospace. It’s now common knowledge that DeepSeek’s development was not a product of Silicon Valley labs showered with billions of dollars of research funds. Liang Wenfeng himself revealed it: “I won’t lie, our AI was created on the basis of Soviet developments – the OGAS system of Academician Glushkov.” The wonders of History: a Soviet marvel auctioned off for a pittance, $15,000 in 1995 possibly because it was considered worthless, is now the backbone of China’s new digital revolution. Physics heavyweight Quantum Bird, formerly with the CERN in Geneva, is adamant: “The Americans lost the plot. It’s all about models employing less computing power and less data. Nvidia high-performance GPUs costing $40,000 consume too much energy.

Then there’s financial speculation. Raspberry Pi [a small single-board computer], the size of a credit card and with a simple processor, costing $50 for students, they may run DeepSeek, consuming less energy than a cellphone.” And that’s just the beginning, Quantum Bird adds: “When Russia and China come up with their first lithographic machine… It was Silicon Valley that pushed the world to this.” Russia-China scientists have already accelerated scientific computing on conventional Nvidia graphics cards by 800 times, creating a new algorithm using reverse engineering. That was pulled off by a joint group of scientists from MSU-PPI University in Shenzhen (MSU-BIT University), established in 2014 by Lomonosov Moscow State University and Beijing Polytechnic Institute. In parallel, researchers using Made in China GPUs have already boosted 10 times their performance over U.S. supercomputers relying on Nvidia hardware. U.S. tech sanctions? Who cares?

Chinese scientists are not intimidated by any challenges. On hardware, production of advanced GPUs like the A100 and H100 is a foreign monopoly. On software, Nvidia has restricted its CUDA software ecosystem from running on third-party hardware; that’s a serious problem for those working on independent algorithms. These may not be insurmountable problems when a rolling wave of Chinese scientists is coming back home to China mostly from the U.S.. Take Tsinghua University chip superstar Sun Nan. Tsinghua’s social media recently revealed that Sun Nan came back in 2020 after many years in the U.S. to “train chip professionals for China and solving the manufacturing problems of mid- and high-end chip technology”. The key sectors, once again, are semiconductors and quantum computing. Nothing Trump 2.0 will throw at China in terms of “tech containment” will alter the Chinese drive.

Sun Nan and his team have already come up with high-performance circuit design tech they integrated into more than 50 chips used in the Chinese power grid, high-speed rail, industrial measurement and control, instrumentation and electric vehicles. Countering the American drive to derail China’s development in AI and chipmaking equipment, interconnected Sun Tzu maneuvers paint the picture of a Chinese transformation of current supply chains, fomenting a tech crisis in the West itself. That is a key reason for Trump’s obsession with Greenland and Ukraine’s rare earth potential. Sanctionmania has been going on since 2017, when Trump started to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese imports. The Cadaver in the White House administration then slapped a 100% tax on Chinese EVs, and dozens of export controls on China, via coercion of its own “allies” such as Holland’s ASML and South Korea’s Hynix and Samsung.

Trump 2.0 will come up with a renewed charge of the heavy brigade quite soon. By 2018, China was entirely dependent on Western tech. That was a time when telecom towers came from Ericsson, GPUs and chips for neural networks from Nvidia, and cars from the European giants. Now it’s a completely different ball game: a blowback game. Huawei leads in global telecom equipment. BYD is the world’s top producer of electric vehicles – ahead of Tesla since last year. Huawei is ahead of Google in smartphone processor shipments, also since last year. Xiaomi will launch its own smartphone processor this year. Huawei’s Ascend 910B chip is already just 5% behind Nvidia’s AI products – and 70% cheaper. Huawei is vertically integrated with its own chip design and manufacturing supply chain – offering mobile operating systems (Harmony OS NEXT), electric vehicles, streaming services, and autonomous driving.

Apart from DeepSeek, ByteDance, Baidu, Alibaba, and 01.ai have all developed their own sophisticated LLM models. China not only already leads in industrial AI applications from robotics and drones to autonomous driving; it is also metastasizing its industrial, technological and economic breakthroughs into military power. Example: the recently launched world’s first 6th generation fighter prototypes – not only one but two, simultaneously; the world’s first drone-carrier; the first hypersonic stealth unmanned airplanes for strike and reconnaissance; the first stealth unmanned warship; and the most powerful long-range air defence systems. China is advancing at breakneck speed in directed energy weapons, military 5G, atomic timing, and space warfare systems.

[..] “China’s nuclear fusion device Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), Physics World wrote, ‘produced a steady-state high-confinement plasma for 1,066 seconds, breaking EAST’s previous 2023 record of 403 seconds’. This last development is an advance for the potential of a fusion power plant, a promise of almost limitless clean energy without significant radioactive waste.” China trades mostly with the Global South: more than 50% of total. Trade with the U.S. is less than 3% of its GDP – as of last year.

Nosey

Elephants help each other in distress, grieve for their dead, feel emotions like us.

This is Nosey making her first new friend at her sanctuary after working in a circus for 29 years.pic.twitter.com/vGyJsNmh2w

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) March 3, 2025

Water
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896231517065785524

Bobcat

When Lions rub their face against yours like that. That’s the highest affection and love. pic.twitter.com/2TjlH6uU14

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) March 2, 2025

Rhinos
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896233790294327794

2
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896481106687639791

Pack
https://twitter.com/i/status/1896536408346788183

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle March 3 2025

Mar 032025

March 3, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 11:02 am Finance Tagged with: ambassador, ceasefire, demotion, elite degeneracy, Hollywood, NATO, peace plan, public trust, Starmer, Trump, Zelensky 50 Responses »

Gustave Courbet The village maidens 1852

• Europe Unveils Rival Ukraine Peace Plan (ZH)

• UK, France, Ukraine Agree To Work On Cease-Fire Plan To Present To US (ZH)

• We Won’t Give Kiev Money Until Zelensky Seeks Peace – Lutnick (RT)

• US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz Suggests Zelensky May Need To Go (RT)

• Trump, Vance, and the New New World Order (Soukup)

• Musk Backs US Withdrawal From UN and NATO (RT)

• Without The US There Is No NATO And No Ukraine (ZH)

• NATO Chief Urges Zelensky To Make Peace With Trump (RT)

• Hollywood Celebrities Were Paid Millions To Back Ukraine – Orban (RT)

• Ukraine’s Future Now Rests With A New President, After White House Fiasco (Jay)

• US Approves New Russian Ambassador As Part of Major Reset Underway (ZH)

• Trump Impressed By Vance’s Handling Of Zelensky – WSJ (RT)

• Putin Ally In Secret Talks With Trump Admin To Restart Nord Stream 2 (ZH)

• Top DOJ Attorneys Involved In Biden-Era Prosecutions Demoted (JTN)

• Exposing Elite Degeneracy – Mr. and Mr. Macron (Karganovic)

• The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust (Turley)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1896167156863381762

Rubio

RUBIO: “What is the United Nations for? Is it not a forum to promote peace in the world? And shouldn't we all be happy that we have a President who's trying to stop wars and prevent them instead of start them?” pic.twitter.com/GG94BoGMAe

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) March 2, 2025

.@SecRubio tells it exactly like it is: "No one here is claiming Vladamir Putin is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize … We need to figure out — is there a way to get them to stop the war? And the only way you're going to do that is to get Russians engaged in negotiations." pic.twitter.com/h6f04sI2gR

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 2, 2025

Schiff

NEW: Adam Schiff releases Dan Bongino panic video.

"That's Dan Bongino, right-wing conspiracy theorist podcaster. He will be the number two at FBI… known for conspiracy theories."

Bongino spent years debunking Schiff's Trump-Russia collusion lies.pic.twitter.com/ao352ndQxi

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 1, 2025

Kolomoisky

As the Zelensky worship reaches fever pitch, it's worth looking back at how this "Churchill" became President.

Here's a 2019 video from RFERL on then candidate Zelensky and his oligarch backer, Ihor Kolomoisky. Don't expect our media to ever cover this.

Ihor Kolomoisky is a… pic.twitter.com/ENotCvZRTl

— MAZE (@mazemoore) March 1, 2025

Georgescu
https://twitter.com/i/status/1895891169407877562

Rogan Elon

Elon Musk opens up about corruption and the risks he faces: 'It’s more than just insider trading… The way they’re acquiring wealth? This is really gonna get me assassinated. I’m not lengthening my lifespan by explaining this stuff.' He reflects on the danger of pushing too… pic.twitter.com/iWN0hGcMiC

— Camus (@newstart_2024) March 1, 2025

LEFT: Tim Burchett says if anyone leaks where the money goes when The Pentagon fails audits, they’d be murdered

RIGHT: Elon Musk says if he were to reveal the real ways Congress gets rich, its “going to get me assassinated”

So expose money laundering or fraud and you get killed pic.twitter.com/AI8irQCtWi

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) March 2, 2025

pic.twitter.com/6kreKPOn0N

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 2, 2025

Mearsheimer 2015

This man was repeatedly slammed as a "Putin apologist," yet his analysis from a decade ago remains undeniably accurate…

(John Mearsheimer) pic.twitter.com/XHbfO0bu0D

— Richard (@ricwe123) March 1, 2025

Sachs

Last year, Jeffrey Sachs delivered a most important history lesson at the European Union.
This is why Ukraine is at war.
Ask yourself, who actually is the aggressor in this conflict? pic.twitter.com/8dPkv1EC5b

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) March 2, 2025

For three years, Europe has done nothing to establish peace in Ukraine, quite the opposite. They want to keep the war going. But now that Trump acts, they do too. Or they at least want to give that impression. Still, they don’t want peace, they want the fight to continue. That’s why they inject their voice at this point in time, when Trump threatens to get results. They call it a peace plan, but it’s a war plan. Given a chance, they will simply add some point(s) they know Putin cannot accept. That’s all it takes to provide a forever war. The idea of boots on the ground might be enough.

Perhaps the only way out for Trump is to leave NATO.

• Europe Unveils Rival Ukraine Peace Plan (ZH)

Is the UK trying to pull Trump into starting WW3? During Sunday’s security summit of European leaders to find an alternate peace plan to Washington’s, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a “coalition of the willing” to step up efforts in support of Kiev. Starmer said he hopes this coalition will gain support and leadership from the Trump White House. “We are at a crossroads in history today,” Starmer said after the summit of 18 leaders – which included Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Starmer unveiled a four point agreed-to ‘peace plan’ (..though not agreed to by the US):
• to keep military aid flowing into Ukraine, and to keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia
• that any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and security and Ukraine must be present at any peace talks
• in the event of a peace deal, to boost Ukraine’s defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion
• to develop a “coalition of the willing” to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee peace afterwards

But one crucial line in his remarks detailing the plan caught many people’s attention – the expressed willingness to put Western/NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine: “The UK are prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air,” Starmer said. He also announced a £1.6bn missile deal for Ukraine, saying this “support for Ukraine is unwavering.” His rationale was that “We have to learn from the mistakes of the past, we cannot accept a weak deal… which Russia can breach with ease, instead any deal must be backed by strength.” He further in the wake of the disastrous Trump-Zelensky meeting said Europe will have to do the “heavy lifting” – and that’s when he said it would be backed by boots on the ground:

The PM said his coalition “will intensify planning now, with real urgency” and reiterated that the “UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air”. He said: “Together with others, Europe must do the heavy-lifting but to support peace in our continent and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing. We’re working with the US on this point.” Speaking to journalists after the summit, the PM said he did “not accept that the US is an unreliable ally”, and that the discussions formed a plan that would see the US as allies. Of course, being this antagonistic to Russia – at the very moment the US is trying to forge ahead on peace – is in reality a scenario that eventually forces Trump’s hand to react. It also appears a deliberate effort by Europe to keep the US on a hawkish path, and to sabotage US-Russia talks in the process.

***
After essentially being kicked out of the White House on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went to London where British Prime Minister Keir Starmer immediately offered a warm embrace: ‘we stand with you’ – was the message after the major public clash with President Trump and Vice President Vance in the Oval Office. “You have full backing from the United Kingdom and we stand with you with Ukraine for as long as it may take,” Starmer, who was also just at the White House on Thursday, said in a presser with Zelensky on Saturday. “And I hope you’ve heard some of that cheering in the street, that is the people of the United Kingdom coming out to demonstrate how much they support you, how much they support Ukraine, and our absolute determination to stand with unwavering determination,” the UK leader added.

Zelensky is also meeting with the UK’s King Charles on Sunday. CNN and other are presenting this moment as a consolation of sorts after the “nightmare Trump meeting”. Currently, European leaders are meeting at Lancaster house, hosted by the UK’s Starmer, reportedly to work with Ukraine on a peace plan. The leaders in attendance include NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, French President Emmanuel Macron, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. Starmer said Sunday before the meeting that Kiev and Europe will work together toward a plan to “stop the fighting” with Russia before presenting it to the White House.

The British PM told BBC: “We have agreed that the UK, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting. Then we will discuss that plan with the US.” The fact that these European leaders are now talking about urgently drawing up an official new peace plan is without doubt due to the pressure of the Trump presidency as well as the controversial mineral deal and Zelensky’s apparent rejection of it. While these leaders may still not actually be interested in peace, given many of them have urgently called for the West to keep transferring weapons to Ukraine’s military, they are at least making a show of it as an alternative approach to Washington. This older interview clip of Zelensky is making the rounds again after Friday’s fireworks at the White House…

https://twitter.com/i/status/1891830368459792863

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has bluntly acknowledged that the Western allies appear weaker and more divided than ever at this point, per FT: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has warned that fractures in the traditional transatlantic alliance will “leave us all weaker”, while suggesting that the UK and Italy can together “play an important role in bridge-building”. “We are all committed to the goal that we all want to achieve — which is a just and lasting peace in Ukraine,” Meloni told Starmer at the start of a bilateral meeting before the summit. “It is very very important that we avoid the risk that the west divides.”

The Kremlin will meanwhile likely bypass engaging these European leaders altogether, in preference of continuing to deal with Trump on the cause of achieving ceasefire in Ukraine. Russian leadership also understands that Europe will ultimately fall in line based on whatever Washington finally achieves on the peace negotiations front, as has been the historic pattern, and given the US shoulders the bulk of defense funds and hardware for NATO. The US has continued to pursue bilateral talks with Moscow, yet without European or Ukrainian representatives in the room.

Note: all these guys have terrible polling numbers domestically. Scholz, Macron, Starmer, Trudeau, Zelensky. The only one who does not is Trump.

• UK, France, Ukraine Agree To Work On Cease-Fire Plan To Present To US (ZH)

[..] perhaps in response to the latest toothless European summit, which Poland’s PM summarized best as follows…
*TUSK REITERATES POLAND WON’T SEND ITS TROOPS TO UKRAINE
*TUSK: SECURITY GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE NOT DISCUSSED IN SUMMIT
… or in other words, once again nothing of significance was agreed upon, Donald Trump posted in his Truth Social account a quote from Gartner analyst Michael McCune, according to whom Zelensky now has “no choice but to back down and accept Trump’s terms” suggesting that Trump clearly is content with the outcome of the Friday debacle in the White House.

Earlier, from Jacob Burg of the Epoch Times:

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on March 2 that Europe must continue to provide funding for Ukraine to sustain its position during peace negotiations, while also committing to roughly $2 billion in export financing to supply Ukraine with 5,000 air defense missiles. Starmer hosted a security summit in London on Sunday with other European and world leaders as Britain, France, and Ukraine work on a cease-fire plan to present to the United States as an effort to end the Russia–Ukraine war. Starmer emphasized that despite the breakdown in talks at the White House on Feb. 28, the United States remains an important ally to Britain. “The U.S. has been a reliable ally to the U.K. for many, many decades and continues to be,” Starmer said. “There are no two countries as closely aligned as our two countries.” Starmer said he is working on a Ukraine peace plan intended to receive U.S. backing and warned that Europe must do the heavy work of defending itself.

Starmer’s March 2 summit of leaders stands in contrast to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s meeting in the White House on Feb. 28, during which U.S. President Donald Trump scolded him for not being ready for peace and not being grateful for America’s support in his nation’s defense against Russia’s three-year-long invasion. Starmer said he’s working on restoring discussions of peace and is using the breakdown on Feb. 28 as an opportunity to reengage with Trump, Zelenskyy, and French President Emmanuel Macron rather than “ramp up the rhetoric.” “We’ve now agreed that the United Kingdom, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, and then we’ll discuss that plan with the United States,” Starmer told the BBC, adding that he and Macron have both spoken to Trump since the latter’s meeting with Zelenskyy.

At the Feb. 28 summit, European leaders will look toward shoring up the continents’ defenses in defending Ukraine, including discussions to create a European military force to send to the war-torn country to cap a cease-fire. Starmer suggested the military force would include a “coalition of the willing.” While he does not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin, Starmer said he trusts Trump. “Do I believe Donald Trump when he says he wants lasting peace? The answer to that is yes,” he said. Starmer added that “intense discussions” to obtain a security guarantee from the United States are one of the three components of lasting peace. “If there is to be a deal, if there is to be a stopping of the fighting, then that agreement has to be defended, because the worst of all outcomes is that there is a temporary pause, and then Putin comes again,” Starmer said. “That has happened in the past. I think it is a real risk, and that is why we must ensure that if there’s a deal, it is a lasting deal, not a temporary pause.”

The summit, which will be held at Lancaster House—a 200-year-old mansion near Buckingham Palace—will also include leaders from France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Canada, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, and Romania. Other attendees include the Turkish foreign minister, NATO secretary-general, and the presidents of the European Commission and European Council. Zelenskyy received support from European leaders after the contentious Feb. 28 meeting at the White House in which a rare earths deal was abandoned and Trump told Zelenskyy to come back when he was ready for peace. After the Ukrainian president arrived in Britain on March 1, Starmer embraced him. “As you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom,” Starmer said. “We stand with you, with Ukraine, for as long as it may take.”

Starmer also pledged to boost military spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027. Other European nations might follow suit. On Saturday, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said European countries must increase military spending to at least 3 percent of GDP as the continent faces a historic test in defending itself. “If we don’t increase our effort fast enough and let the aggressor dictate its conditions, we won’t end up well,” he said. In calling for unity among his European neighbors, Macron embraced more defense spending after saying it was legitimate for the United States to shift its military focus to China and Asia. “We should have woken up earlier,” Macron said. “I’ve been saying for years that we need a more sovereign, more united, more independent Europe.”

“Zelensky needed to hear it directly from the funding mouth of the United States of America: We’re not going to give you money unless you’re here for peace..”

• We Won’t Give Kiev Money Until Zelensky Seeks Peace – Lutnick (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky was given a clear message during his meeting with US President Donald Trump on Friday, that further financial support hinges on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate peace, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said. His comments follow Zelensky’s heated confrontation with Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Zelensky visited the White House on Friday, intending to finalize a minerals agreement. However, the discussion deteriorated when he insisted that Trump back Kiev rather than act as a neutral mediator in talks with Moscow. In response, Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III” and showing reluctance to pursue peace with Russia, portraying him as ungrateful despite the billions in US military assistance.

In a Sunday Fox News interview, Lutnick stressed that US president made clear he “just wants to make peace.” However, he said that Zelensky did not come for that, and made “ridiculous” requests to Trump and Vance. “Zelensky needed to hear it directly from the funding mouth of the United States of America: We’re not going to give you money unless you’re here for peace,” Lutnick stressed. He added that Trump had tried to reason with Zelensky, stressing that the Ukrainian leader can’t say “[Russian Presiden Vladimir] Putin’s a terrorist and then call the guy up and try to make peace with him.” During the Friday meeting, Zelensky insisted on US security guarantees while fighting is still ongoing with Moscow. Trump dismissed these requests as “ridiculous.” The confrontation ultimately led to Trump cutting the meeting short.

Not only did the visit conclude abruptly without signing the minerals agreement, but it also raised concerns about the future of US military assistance to Ukraine. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration is now reconsidering its financial and military commitments to Kiev. US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz also hinted at a possible shift in Washington’s stance, suggesting that Zelensky may need to step aside if he refuses to pursue a diplomatic solution. Speaking to CNN, Waltz stated, “it’s unclear whether President Zelensky, particularly after what we saw on Friday, is ready to transition Ukraine to an end to this war and negotiate a compromise.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that while Washington seeks peace for Ukraine, some European allies seem to prefer prolonging the conflict to further weaken Russia. As of January 2025, the US had provided $65.9 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since February 2022.

“Waltz compared Zelensky to an “ex-girlfriend that wants to argue everything that you said nine years ago, rather than moving the relationship forward.”

• US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz Suggests Zelensky May Need To Go (RT)

Washington is unsure whether Vladimir Zelensky is the right man to lead Ukraine at this juncture, the US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has told CNN. The official argued that Friday’s tumultuous spat between the Ukrainian leader, President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance indicated that Zelensky may not be ready to talk peace. When asked by Dana Bash on Sunday to share his view of Zelensky, Waltz said that “it’s unclear whether President Zelensky, particularly after what we saw on Friday, is ready to transition Ukraine to an end to this war, and to negotiate and have to compromise.” He noted that it is President Trump’s conviction that both Kiev and Moscow would have to make concessions in order to stop the bloodshed. According to the national security advisor, during the US president’s meeting with Zelensky on Friday, “it did not appear to us that [he] was ready to go to peace.”

When pressed by a CNN presenter as to whether the White House wanted Zelensky to step down, Waltz clarified that “we need a leader that can deal with us, eventually deal with the Russians, and end this war.” The official added that “if it becomes apparent that President Zelensky’s either personal motivations or political motivations are divergent from ending the fighting in his country, then I think we have a real issue on our hands.” In an interview with Breitbart Radio on Saturday, Waltz compared Zelensky to an “ex-girlfriend that wants to argue everything that you said nine years ago, rather than moving the relationship forward.” Speaking with ABC news on Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he had not “had any contact with [Zelesnky] since Friday.” The diplomat stressed that the Trump administration’s goal is to bring Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table, with the US head of state being the “only person on Earth who has any chance whatsoever” of accomplishing this.

“Don’t do anything to disrupt that, and that’s what Zelensky did unfortunately – he found every opportunity to try to Ukraine-splain on every issue,” Rubio stated, recounting Friday’s shouting match at the White House. Commenting on Zelensky’s demeanor at the White House on Friday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News later that day that his altercation with Trump and Vance represented a “missed opportunity.” Addressing the Ukrainian people, the lawmaker added, “I don’t know if Zelensky can ever get you to where you want to go with the United States. Either he dramatically changes or you need to get somebody new.” The senator, who hailed Zelensky as the “ally I’ve been hoping for all my life” during the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, wrote in a post on X on Saturday that the Ukrainian leader’s “behavior was beyond unacceptable and [his] lectures are wearing thin.” Graham also lauded President Trump for standing up to him in defense of American interests.

“Wilson’s goal, of course, was “global governance” under the League of Nations, a goal that the U.S. Senate, mercifully, denied him..”

• Trump, Vance, and the New New World Order (Soukup)

This past week, the venerable Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for The Financial Times, used his column to declare the Trump administration and, by extension, the United States “the enemy of the West.” “Today,” Wolf wrote, “autocracies [are] increasingly confident,” and “the United States is moving to their side.” According to the subhead on the column, “Washington has decided to abandon…its postwar role in the world.” Meanwhile, Wolf cites the (in his estimation) august Franklin Roosevelt, as he complains that the United States “has decided instead to become just another great power, indifferent to anything but its short-term interests.” The ironies here—as well as the historical ignorance—abound.

To start, one would imagine that Wolf, an educated man with two degrees from Oxford, might know that it was his countryman (and two-time Prime Minister), Henry John Temple (i.e. Lord Palmerston), who declared in a speech in the House of Commons that “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Wolf might also be expected to know that this statement was repeated—more famously and more pithily—by Henry Kissinger, perhaps the quintessential American diplomat in the supposedly vaunted postwar order. Kissinger, like Palmerston and Trump (apparently) understood that a nation that pursues anything other than its interests is foolish, faithless, and, in time, doomed.

What bothers Wolf, it would seem, is that American interests are diverging from British and continental European interests. That is unfortunate, but it is also more than likely the case that this divergence is the result of Britain and Europe’s abandonment of the principles, values, and ambitions the allies once shared, rather than the other way around. For example, Wolf criticizes the speech given by J.D. Vance in which the vice president defended the traditional American dedication to free speech and attacked the British and European rejection of that principle. Yet again, Wolf might be expected to know that the American preoccupation with this and all other negative rights is something the nation’s Founders inherited from their British forefathers. If the two nations now differ on the importance of this fundamental right, then that’s hardly Vance’s, Trump’s, or any other American’s fault.

More ironies are found in Wolf’s praise of the now-dying postwar order and his citation of FDR as the architect of that order. While Wolf is correct that Roosevelt was one of two Americans most responsible for the creation of the postwar order, he is wrong in believing that the order was virtuous by design and that it played out precisely as Roosevelt intended. Indeed, he couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.

Almost from the moment the United States entered World War II, Roosevelt was planning how best to achieve the goal he inherited from his former boss and Progressive predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s goal, of course, was “global governance” under the League of Nations, a goal that the U.S. Senate, mercifully, denied him. Regrettably, Roosevelt shared Wilson’s dream. The political scientist and historian of the Cold War, Amos Perlmutter, wrote that Roosevelt’s “vision for a postwar world was neo-Wilsonian, totally at odds with reality. He would help create a new international order, presided over in an equal partnership by the two emerging superpowers, the United States and the USSR, and buttressed by the newly created world organization, the United Nations.” Like Wilson, Roosevelt sought to fix the world by bringing the whole of it under the control of a handful of its most benevolent and brilliant men—himself included, naturally.

The catch, of course, was that in order to believe that he could effectuate his plan for the postwar global order, Roosevelt also had to believe that it would be received positively by the man who turned out to be the most proficient mass murderer in the war, Josef Stalin. Remarkably, Roosevelt did, in fact, believe just that. He repeatedly told his staff and others that he was convinced that the man he affectionately called “Uncle Joe” would eagerly welcome his friendship and American entreaties to share governance of the world jointly. They would, he believed, be the closest of allies and the best of friends. In 1943, before ever even meeting Stalin, FDR told his first ambassador to the USSR, William Bullit, that “I have just a hunch that Stalin doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world democracy and peace.”

First, set the DOGE guys on them?!

• Musk Backs US Withdrawal From UN and NATO (RT)

Billionaire Elon Musk has publicly endorsed the idea of the US withdrawing from both the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Responding to a social media post advocating such a move on Sunday, Musk, who leads the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), commented, “I agree.”US President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers have vowed to reconsider Washington’s participation in the UN, as well as in the US-led military bloc. In February, Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act, proposing a complete US withdrawal from the UN. Lee criticized the UN as a “platform for tyrants” that attacks America and its allies, arguing that despite significant funding, the organization has failed to prevent wars, genocides, human rights violations, and pandemics.

Echoing Lee’s sentiments, Musk wrote on X that “America provides way too much funding to the UN and associated entities.” During his 2016 campaign, Trump described the UN as weak and incompetent, stating it was “not a friend of democracy… freedom… the United States.” Last month, the Trump administration opposed a UN General Assembly resolution demanding Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine. Musk, now a key advisor to Trump, has taken the lead in looking for ways to cut costs and reduce the federal workforce. In February, DOGE released its first savings report, claiming an estimated $55 billion in savings through cost-cutting measures.That same month, Elise Stefanik, Trump’s nominee for US Ambassador to the UN, advocated the global adoption of Musk’s DOGE initiative.

She criticized the UN’s financial practices and called for a “Global DOGE” effort to reform international governance. Stefanik also pledged to push for defunding and dismantling UN-affiliated organizations accused of corruption and antisemitism. Musk has also voiced skepticism about NATO. In February, he labeled the alliance “anachronistic” and called for a full review, questioning its relevance in the post-Cold War era. He also questioned the rationale behind American taxpayers covering a significant portion of Europe’s defense costs, highlighting that the US pays for approximately 67% of NATO’s military expenses, despite spending only 3.5% of its GDP on defense. His position aligns with Trump, who has frequently criticized NATO, urging members to increase defense expenditure and threatening to withdraw, arguing the US bears an unfair financial burden for European security.

“The western split over Ukraine is a profound event in history. Some will say it was the moment the US “abandoned their allies” and let Russia win. Those with sense will say that this was the moment the US stopped contributing to the problem..”

• Without The US There Is No NATO And No Ukraine (ZH)

Well before the fireworks at the White House between the Trump team and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky European governments were increasingly discussing the possibility of an “EU army” and a NATO without US involvement. UK officials along with those in Germany and France have been playing with the notion of boots on the ground in Ukraine, an action which would no doubt precipitate WWIII with Russia. Political leaders and media proponents have been flooding social media to show support for Zelensky as the new savior of the EU and many have suggested that Europe can easily fill the void that the US leaves behind. This is dangerous delusion. For example, the US represents around 70% of the entire annual combined defense spending of NATO countries. No other nation comes close.

In 2023-2024, this expenditure amounted to over $860 billion. The closest NATO member in terms of budget for the alliance is Germany with $68 billion. NATO funding is included in America’s total defense spending package. According to RAND Corporation’s Defense Spending Index, the US carries 47% of the burden share, vastly outweighing any other NATO member. While NATO’s official budget is $3.5 billion, this does not represent the burden share if NATO goes to war. Members with the largest armies and spending the most on defense will be expected to expend the most resources in a conflict. The media consistently misrepresents the NATO spending imbalance by comparing NATO fees as a percentage of GDP. This is nonsense. The sheer amount of defense spending is what matters, not the ratio to GDP. When examined in true terms there is no argument to be made – The US is essentially the military cash cow for the entire western world. Without the US there is no NATO.

When it comes to Ukraine the waters are more muddy but the conclusions are the same; the US is expected to bear the brunt of the burden. US aid to Ukraine so far ranges from $120 billion to $180 billion depending on the source. Zelensky claims that $100 billion of this money “never reached Ukraine”. There is no verification of this either way. For now let’s assume Zelensky is misinformed. A graph of total expenditures between the US and other western nations shows the EU with a large amount of aid, but take a closer look at military commitments and it’s clear that the EU has spent a minimal amount on Ukraine’s actual defense. The US is the primary provider of weapons, ordnance and other equipment used to actually fight the war. Without the US, Ukraine’s defenses will suffer an expedited collapse.

To be clear, Ukraine is not entitled to US tax dollars or US military aid. Europe insists that the war must continue even without US help, but their ability to fund and fight the war is limited. They would trigger WWIII in the process, and they would lose. The belief that more money or more armaments will prevent a Ukraine loss or land concessions to Russia is irrational. Ukraine’s biggest problem is manpower, not money, and no amount of money is going to triple Ukrainian forces on the eastern front. A peace deal should have been negotiated a long time ago. For now it appears that the European elites are frantically trying to rally public support around extending the conflict and forming a centralized EU military. This will take them years and it will never come close to the same funding levels that the US provided. Not to mention, younger native born Europeans have no interest in joining to fight. The western split over Ukraine is a profound event in history. Some will say it was the moment the US “abandoned their allies” and let Russia win. Those with sense will say that this was the moment the US stopped contributing to the problem and offered a solution while Europe foolishly refused to listen.

Too late.

• NATO Chief Urges Zelensky To Make Peace With Trump (RT)

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has called on Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to mend ties with US President Donald Trump following a heated exchange at the White House. The meeting between Trump and Zelensky on Friday, which Rutte described as “unfortunate” in an interview with the BBC on Saturday, was originally set up to finalize a minerals agreement. It escalated into a tense exchange. The Ukrainian leader maintained that Washington should increase its support for Kiev rather than position itself as a neutral mediator with Moscow. Trump criticized Zelensky for what he perceived as a lack of gratitude for American assistance and an unwillingness to make concessions to resolve the conflict with Russia. The confrontation led to the day’s events being cut short, with the US president reportedly dismissing his guest from the White House.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the encounter as a “fiasco,” with Trump telling Zelensky to return when he was “ready to pursue peace.” “I said: I think you have to find a way, dear Vladimir, to restore your relationship with Donald Trump and the American administration. That is important going forward,” Rutte said, referring to a call he had with Zelensky on Friday. He reminded Zelensky of the support provided by the Trump administration, particularly the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons in 2019, which were crucial in Ukraine’s defense when the conflict escalated in 2022. Without the Javelins, “Ukraine would have been nowhere,” Rutte stated. The NATO chief emphasized the importance of acknowledging the assistance from the US, which remains Kiev’s biggest donor. The US has provided $65.9 billion in military aid since 2022, according to a US Department of State posting on January 20, 2025.

“We really have to give Trump credit for what he did then, what America did since then and also what America is still doing,” Rutte said. The heated Trump-Zelensky exchange has drawn diverse international reactions. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, reaffirmed their support for Ukraine. Conversely, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban endorsed Trump’s stance, praising his peace efforts. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the meeting a “complete political and diplomatic failure” by the Ukrainian side.

New Oscars category? “..Jolie had received $20 million for her trip to Lviv in April 2022, and that Penn, Stiller and Bloom were written checks of $5 million, $4 million and $8 million, respectively, by USAID.”

• Hollywood Celebrities Were Paid Millions To Back Ukraine – Orban (RT)

The Hollywood celebrities who visited Ukraine to ‘support’ the country during its ongoing conflict with Russia didn’t do it out of sympathy, but because they were paid millions, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. Stars’ trips to Kiev were paid for with money from USAID, Washington’s primary mechanism for funding political projects abroad, Orban said in an interview with Hungarian broadcaster TV2 on Saturday. “People were given money for their opinions. I am talking about big celebrities and movie stars. They were given money to go to Ukraine, so they did not do it from the heart or out of sympathy for the Ukrainians – which could have actually been the case – but because they were given money,” he said. The payments received by the stars amounted to “millions of euros or dollars,” the prime minister claimed, without providing any names.

Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Orlando Bloom were among the most prominent Western celebrities to have visited Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev three years ago. In early February, reports emerged on social media claiming that Jolie had received $20 million for her trip to Lviv in April 2022, and that Penn, Stiller and Bloom were written checks of $5 million, $4 million and $8 million, respectively, by USAID. Back then, Stiller rejected the accusations, calling them “lies coming from Russian media.” The actor insisted in a post on X that his visit to Kiev was “self-funded.” Penn’s lawyer also said that reports of his client being paid by USAID to meet with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky were “completely false, misleading and reckless.”

Several Western media outlets, including AFP and Reuters, said that their fact checking teams had found that the claims of stars getting USAID money originated from a fabricated video and that there were no available records of the agency paying the celebrities. Shortly after taking office, US President Donald Trump launched a clampdown on USAID, accusing it of widespread corruption and inefficiency. He imposed a 90-day funding freeze on the agency and transferred oversight of its programs to the direct control of the US State Department.

Orban said in his interview that the activities of USAID in recent decades could be “the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the Western world.” “I have never seen anything like this before – when billions of dollars are being transferred from the US budget to foundations and various forms of support, and then they are being distributed around the globe and given to those who represent the ideals, spirituality, programs and specific interests demanded by the Americans, and they receive money for that,” he stressed.

“Ukraine needs a new cookie monster.”

• Ukraine’s Future Now Rests With A New President, After White House Fiasco (Jay)

Rarely do we see such a showdown in the White House between a leader of an allied country and the president of the U.S. For many, it was surreal to the point where they questioned its authenticity. But if we were ever looking for a crystalized example of what is wrong with Ukraine and how the West got into this quagmire, it was all there in a tense, live exchange where Trump and JD Vance wanted to essentially use the moment to put Zelensky in his place. But he resisted. He believed he was a player and had many moves ahead of him. “You don’t have enough cards,” Trump exploded. Zelensky responded by “this is not a game.” And yet it is a game and Zelensky just proved himself to be the main, if only obstacle to peace in the country. The arrogance and delusion was stunning but understandable given that a number of western leaders have been rallying even more support for him.

Does Zelensky and his support base actually believe they can just ignore Trump and Putin and continue with their game? When watching the sensational crossfire, all becomes clear. The dictator is pumped up on something which carries him and leads him to believe that he is there to negotiate when in reality he is just there to be Trump’s bitch and sign whatever is given to him. The delusion was amazing. And like so many dictators, you can see the lack of preparation; where are the advisors and media experts to prepare him? Doesn’t need ‘em. The result, which could have worked out for him if he was smarter, was a bloodbath, a slaughter which in many ways made everything now clearer and simpler for Trump. He can’t work with Zelensky and so therefore, he will have to go as he is really the obstacle to anything being achieved in Ukraine. Perhaps the Russians already knew this and were just biding their time for the Trump camp to work it out.

Of course, the resentment was so thick you could cut it with a knife. The way JD Vance spoke to him was like you talk to your 12-year old boy who has been expelled from school. Trump and JD saw Zelensky as a creation of Biden and Obama of course and gave him one last chance to cross a divide and say ‘no, actually I’m with you guys’. But he couldn’t. Europe is of course to blame for making him feel so unique and irreplaceable and no doubt this will just make Trump more determined than ever that a quick fix to Ukraine will simply come in pushing for early presidential elections. Critical now will be how Zelensky’s cabal will stay with him or be peeled off one by one by a sweeter deal offered by Trump. Most likely, Trump and JD are already looking for their own replacement although it may well be that no interfering will be necessary as many Ukrainians will be disappointed with Zelensky’s performance.

Politically within Ukraine, the White House stunt will cost him a lot which he might not understand fully if his European support base is telling him not to worry. We’ve got your back. What Zelensky did in 2022 with Boris Johnson – to reject a very favourable peace deal – was foolish and will go down in history as a mistake which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who were fed into the meat grinder and sent to the front lines. But what he then did in the White House with Trump and JD was stupid beyond belief as not only did it enrage Trump – to the point where he actually asked Zelensky to leave the Oval Office – but it amalgamated support for him from EU leaders even more – the very gesture which will push Trump into an even more belligerent position.

sHe will put Zelensky and the EU in its place and now show the whole world how ineffective Europe is when it wants to play at being a superpower but doesn’t want to pick up the tab. Can Europe go it alone in Ukraine is not the question. The question is whether Trump will let it. This might have been one scenario which could have been bandied about and might have been given some oxygen, but now the EU position has to be tackled head on. Trump will be thinking ‘I have to teach the EU a lesson.’ ‘America is running the show and I call the shots,’ will be Trump’s thinking now. It is hardly a great act of prescience now to predict that Zelensky will now have, at the very least, lost all the U.S. support he had before; and at the very best a new political dynamic which will emerge in the coming weeks which will have a support infrastructure probably more than the puny 5 billion dollars that Victoria Nuland blew on the 2014 elections which installed Poroshenko. Ukraine needs a new cookie monster.

I think the restoration of direct commercial flights will be a BIG step.

• US Approves New Russian Ambassador As Part of Major Reset Underway (ZH)

The two rounds of high level US-Russia talks in Riyadh and Istanbul in the last two weeks appear to already be bearing fruit, as Russia’s Foreign Ministry has announced it’s received approval from Washington to send Aleksandr Darchiev as Moscow’s new ambassador to the United States. Current bilateral US-Russia dialogue has been focused on fully restoring relations and putting back in place all embassy staff in Washington and Moscow, respectively. There had been several rounds of hostile mutual booting of diplomats as relations deteriorated under Biden. According to Russian media, “Darchiev, a senior diplomat with more than 30 years of experience, currently heads the Foreign Ministry’s North Atlantic Department. He previously served as Russia’s ambassador to Canada from 2014 to 2021 and has held several high-ranking positions within the ministry, including deputy director of the North America Department and counselor at the Russian embassy in Washington.”

This is no doubt part of the “concrete initial steps” being taken by both sides toward resuming regular contacts and diplomatic engagement, with a higher aim of finding a permanent peace solution to the Ukraine war. Darchiev’s predecessor, Anatoly Antonov, served as Russia’s ambassador to the US throughout much of the Ukraine crisis and the entirety of the war until now. He ran the Russian embassy in D.C. for seven years, and just recently returned to Moscow. Just as Moscow is poised for a reset with the US under the new Trump administration, Washington relations with Ukraine are at a low point after Friday’s Zelensky fireworks in the Oval Office. Russian media has been busy hailing and welcoming these developments, which may soon result in the following:

US President Donald Trump’s administration is considering ending all ongoing shipments of military aid to Ukraine, The Washington Post wrote citing sources. Military supplies could be halted “in response to remarks” by Vladimir Zelensky at a meeting with Trump in the White House and “his perceived intransigence in the peace process,” according to the publication. The decision, if made, would apply “to billions of dollars of radars, vehicles, ammunition and missiles awaiting shipment to Ukraine through the presidential drawdown authority,” an official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic, was quoted as saying. Ukraine frontlines have already been steadily collapsing, so without a future flow of American heavy weapons, this collapse will only accelerate, and the war would likely reach finality within a few months or less.

President Putin has meanwhile been touting the chance for “major” cooperative economic and diplomatic initiatives with the US under Trump, and as bilateral talks progress. Russia has even offered its own minerals access deal as a possibility of closer cooperation, and as Trump floats potentially dropping sanctions in the future. The next step may be the restoration of direct commercial flights between the two countries.

After the fiery clash between Trump and Zelenskyy, Russia said the Ukrainian leader got what he deserved. In another sign of easing tensions, Russia has named career diplomat Alexander Darchiev as the new ambassador to the US, filling a role vacant since last year. pic.twitter.com/lmzzWki1Gc

— CGTN Global Watch (@GlobalWatchCGTN) March 1, 2025

JD got himself some new fans, not just Trump.

• Trump Impressed By Vance’s Handling Of Zelensky – WSJ (RT)

US President Donald Trump was impressed with how Vice President J.D. Vance handled himself during a tense Oval Office exchange with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, unnamed administration officials told the Wall Street Journal. The politicians met on Friday in the White House Oval Office ahead of what was expected to be a celebratory signing of a minerals deal between Washington and Kiev. The WSJ dubbed Vance a “MAGA champion” after the confrontation in a piece published on Saturday. Vance sat mostly silent as Trump and Zelensky answered questions. But then a reporter asked the US president if he aligned with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Vance, a critic of US aid to Ukraine, interjected to praise Trump’s diplomatic efforts and criticize past policy under President Joe Biden.

The conversation escalated when Zelensky pushed back. During the intense discussion, Vance highlighted Ukraine’s challenges in conscripting additional troops and said that Zelensky should be “thanking” Trump for efforts to resolve the conflict. Vance criticized his recent public appearances highlighting war devastation, accusing him of hosting “propaganda tours,” and labeled the Ukrainian leader “disrespectful.” The confrontation led to the day’s events being cut short.Trump has reportedly told White House staff that his former vice president “would have never done that.” Former Indiana Governor Mike Pence was vice president during Trump’s first term. Their political alliance ended acrimoniously over the January 2021 riots at the US Capitol, after Pence refused to comply with Trump’s demands to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 US presidential election.

The White House later circulated statements of support from Republican lawmakers and administration officials. “I was very proud of J.D. Vance, standing up for our country,” US Senator Lindsey Graham said. While Senator Mike Lee called Vance the “GOAT,” an acronym for “greatest of all time.”The 40-year-old Vance is the third-youngest vice president in US history. His relationship with Trump has evolved significantly since the president’s first term. Once a vocal critic of Trump, Vance opposed his candidacy in 2016, calling him “cultural heroin” for conservatives and questioning his character. However, he later shifted his stance, securing Trump’s endorsement in his successful 2022 Senate bid, a move that cemented his place within Trump’s inner circle.

Last month, during his first foreign trip as vice president, Vance sent shockwaves with a speech criticizing European leaders at the Munich Security Conference, accusing them of censoring free speech and neglecting public concerns over migration.Vance’s relationship with Trump remains strong, though the president has so far demurred on naming him his successor. Trump told Fox News in February that he considers Vance “very capable” but noted that “there are a lot of very capable people.” However, tech billionaire and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk referred to Vance as “our future President” on Saturday.

It’s easy to get confused, but “restart” is not the correct term here. Nord Stream 2 was never activated. Neither of its 2 arms.

• Putin Ally In Secret Talks With Trump Admin To Restart Nord Stream 2 (ZH)

A close friend of Vladimir Putin – and like the Russian president, also a spy – has been engineering a restart of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Europe with the backing of US investors, a once unthinkable move which according to the FT, shows the breadth of Donald Trump’s rapprochement with Moscow. According to the Nikkei-owned publication, the efforts on a deal were the brainchild of Matthias Warnig, an ex-Stasi officer in East Germany who until 2023 ran Nord Stream 2’s parent company for the Kremlin-controlled gas giant Gazprom. Warnig’s plan involved outreach to the Trump team through US businessmenas part of back-channel efforts to broker an end to the war in Ukraine while deepening economic ties between the US and Russia. If this was just some unilateral attempt to get the pipeline that was bombed by Western intelligence agents and assorited Ukrainian hangers-on back online, it would hardly be a surprise.

However, according to the report it appears that at least several “prominent” Trump administration figures are aware of the initiative to bring in US investors, and they see it as part of the push to rebuild relations with Moscow. While there have been several expressions of interest, one US-led consortium of investors has drawn up the outlines of a post-sanctions deal with Gazprom. Meanwhile, senior EU officials have become aware of the Nord Stream 2 discussion only in recent weeks, and leaders of several European countries are concerned and have discussed the matter, although it is unclear what the prevailing sense on the ground within the corridors of Brussels. It is far easier, for example, to guess what Germany thinks about a return of much cheaper and far more abundant Russian energy if virtue signaling and politics were not an issue.

One of Nord Stream 2’s two pipelines was blown up in what now appears to have been a US attack in September 2022 that destroyed both pipelines of its older sister project Nord Stream 1. The other Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has an annual capacity of 27.5bn cubic metres of natural gas, is undamaged but has never been used. The latest plan would in theory give the US unparalleled sway over energy supplies to Europe, after EU countries moved to end their dependence on Russian gas in the aftermath of the invasion. That said, the obstacles are considerable: a deal would require the US to lift sanctions against Russia, Russia to agree to resume sales it cut off during the war, and Germany to allow the gas to flow to any potential buyers in Europe.

“The US would say, ‘Well, now Russia will be dependable because trustworthy Americans are in the middle of it’,’” said a former senior US official, who was aware of some of the dealmaking efforts. The US investors would collect “money for nothing”, he added. The talks come as the Trump administration races to seal a peace deal through bilateral discussions with Russia that have excluded Europe and Ukraine, spooking deep-state apparatchiks in European capitals who fear a US détente with Moscow could threaten the continent. Trump has promised deeper economic co-operation with Russia if a peace agreement can be reached. Putin has talked up the economic benefits he says the US could reap with the Kremlin in the event of a settlement in Ukraine, claiming that “several companies” were already in touch over potential deals.

Nord Stream 2 AG, the pipeline’s Swiss-based parent company, received an exceptional stay on bankruptcy proceedings in January by at least four months. According to a redacted court document, Nord Stream 2’s shareholder — Gazprom — argued that the new Trump administration, as well as the German election in February 2025, “presumably can have significant consequences on the circumstances of Nord Stream 2” to warrant a delay. The submission pointed to “complex geopolitical affairs” and the sanctions regime.

“Martin, a Trump ally, previously worked to help Jan. 6 defendants and [DOGE] in their respective legal fights..”

• Top DOJ Attorneys Involved In Biden-Era Prosecutions Demoted (JTN)

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney in charge of the Justice Department’s Washington office, reportedly reassigned several senior leaders to entry-level positions. Among those demoted were Kathryn Rakoczy, Reuters reported, who secured convictions of several members of the Oath Keepers for their roles in the Jan. 6 riots on Capital Hill. Among those convicted was the founder of the group, Stewart Rhodes, who Trump pardoned along with 13 others previously convicted in the riot.

Elizabeth Aloi, who prosecuted former Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro for defying a congressional subpoena, was another prosecutor demoted in the Justice Department shakeup. Martin told Reuters that he needed to assign attorneys where he believed they could best contribute. The reassignments to misdemeanors, he noted, are not temporary. Martin, a Trump ally, previously worked to help Jan. 6 defendants and the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in their respective legal fights, including by helping to orchestrate the pardons of hundreds of people convicted for their actions on January 6.

“Mr. and Mr.” I’ve been following Candace’s latest on X a bit, and it seems she may now be ready for prime time. But who will stand up against Macron/Rothschild with her?

• Exposing Elite Degeneracy – Mr. and Mr. Macron (Karganovic)

It goes almost without saying that the “elite” referenced here is located in the collective West. It would be exceedingly difficult to associate the leading segment of any other society or civilisation, as a class, with degeneracy. Our archetypal case study are the Macrons, the French power couple situated at the apex of their country’s political pyramid. Our French sources assure us that in France anomalies concerning the birth gender of the allegedly female member of that pair have been suspected for a long time. Those suspicions, however, have had to be voiced sub rosa, because of the establishment’s extreme hostility to any speculations on that subject. The few investigative journalists and investigators who had ventured to question those anomalies, many of which are obvious even to the naked eye, have been hounded by the media and persecuted by the French judicial system in a variety of vicious ways.

That plainly gives the lie to what remains of France’s historical reputation of being a haven of enlightened tolerance for diverse views. American journalist Candace Owens has assembled evidence that compellingly (and almost conclusively) demonstrates that the individual passed off to the public under the identity of Brigitte Macron, the official wife of the French President, is neither Brigitte nor a biological woman. Candace Owens’ professional trajectory parallels in many ways that of her colleague Tucker Carlson. Like Tucker, Candace laboured for many years in the ranks of establishment media until her conscience became so conflicted by the constraints on truthful reporting and honest commentary that for her remaining within the system was no longer an option. Like Tucker, Candace was able to parlay the respect and trust that she had built up over the years into an independent investigative journalism platform.

There, without censorship, she can discuss topics and articulate opinions that are off limits in the discourse of the pseudo liberal democratic world of mainline journalism that had expelled her, as it did Tucker, from the ranks of its licenced professionals. Intrigued by the rumours swirling around France’s “first lady,” Candace Owens made the bold decision to dig into the story and share the findings with her audience, which by now numbers in the millions. The result was Becoming Brigitte: Gaslighting the public, a series of investigative reports that for the first time brought to the attention of the Anglophone world the tangled web of lies and misrepresentations surrounding not just the true identity of Emmanuel Macron’s putative spouse, but also his own vertiginous (and it appears unmerited) rise to prominence and ultimately the Presidency of a major European country.

In essence, Candace’s disclosures are that “Mme. Macron” has been, so to speak, misgendered, but by deliberate design, having been born a male and subsequently undergoing surgical procedures to alter her sex. But by degraded contemporary criteria that revelation is standard fare compared to the really sleazy part of the story. It turns out that most of what we have been told about the inception of their relationship is provably false. Even the assertion in the official account that at seventeen Emmanuel was almost of legal age when he and his teacher, the allegedly thirty-six year-old Brigitte, “fell in love” is as false as “Mrs.” Macron’s official gender identity. Meticulous research has revealed that at the critical stage when he succumbed to the charms of his middle school literature teacher, Emmanuel was in fact a child of fourteen, whilst his seductress (or perhaps more precisely, seducer) was thirty-nine.

Not only does that significantly increase the age difference between the lovers, but more importantly it places the affair within the legal ambit of statutory rape, even by the notoriously permissive French standards. That, of course, is just the bare bones of the polemical contentions that Candace Owens corroborates with ample proof, leaving little room for reasonable doubt. No summary of the details can do justice to what Candace calls “a look back at the murky, hidden background of Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron,” so viewing the entire series of six episodes, culminating with the just posted incisive recapitulation, Epilogue, is highly recommended to all wishing to savour the particulars of this sordid tale of debauchery, deceit, paedophilia, and betrayal of the public trust.

“Objectivity has got to go.”

• The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust (Turley)

We have previously discussed polling showing the media at record lows in public trust. Well, the latest survey from Gallup shows that the media hit another all-time low. What is most impressive is that plummeting readers, revenues, and layoffs have done little to convince the mainstream media that the problem is not the public but themselves. The only institution with a lower level of public trust is Congress, and that says a lot. It is like beating Ebola as the preferred communicable disease.Some 69 percent of Americans now say that they have no or little trust in the media. Only 31 percent say that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust. The trending line looks like the sales of buggy whips after the introduction of the Model T Ford. Gallop put it into sharp terms:

“About two-thirds of Americans in the 1970s trusted the “mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio” either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to “[report] the news fully, accurately and fairly.” By the next measurement in 1997, confidence had fallen to 53%, and it has gradually trended downward since 2003. Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.” In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how journalists and journalism schools have destroyed their own profession by rejecting objectivity and engaging in open advocacy journalism. The mainstream media has long echoed the talking points of the left and the Democratic Party, particularly in its one-sided coverage of the last three elections.

While Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism. We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation.

In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” The Washington Post’s former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”

Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.” Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism. Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.” This is why the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant was as much a criticism of the media as President Biden. There is clearly an effort by owners like Jeff Bezos to change this culture rather than bankroll newspapers like the Washington Post vanity projects for the left.

Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake: “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.” The response from staffers was to call for the new editors to be fired. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.

Malhotra

Dr. Aseem Malhotra: "I was pretty okay after the initial vaccine. About a year and a half after the vaccine, I developed psoriasis, an autoimmune condition linked to that depression, and I wasn't sure what was going on. And there's a brilliant doctor in Malibu, a very well known… pic.twitter.com/k096c8vVo4

— Camus (@newstart_2024) March 1, 2025

Rogan Bill Murray

Bill Murray had never heard Joe Rogan's podcast before. pic.twitter.com/TsZO5t0WbZ

— Jed I. Goodman © (@jedigoodman) March 1, 2025

Bill Murray on Bob Woodward, Richard Nixon and John Belushi:

"When I read 'Wired' by Bob Woodward about John Belushi, I read like five pages of 'Wired' and I went, oh my God, they framed Nixon. If he did this to Belushi, what he did to Nixon is probably soiled for me too."

(Joe… pic.twitter.com/v37lS734pK

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) March 1, 2025

Grizzly

‘The Boss’ is known to be the largest and most famous grizzly bear in Banff National Park.

He’s been hit by a train twice, fights other big grizzlies and is believed to have fathered up to 70% of the grizzlies in Banff.pic.twitter.com/3rywoNlYP0

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) March 2, 2025

Horsenado

Mongolian horse making a 'horsenado' around a bonfirepic.twitter.com/G6Uc8MVrEO

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) March 2, 2025

First steps

Baby elephants first steps
pic.twitter.com/5v17OxpQw4

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) March 1, 2025

Retriever

This is the best thing you'll see all day.. pic.twitter.com/xvTAJTC7ot

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) March 1, 2025

Gong

It called Water Gong 93, also nicknamed Gongzilla.

The sound it emits is so powerful that it resonates like the vibrations of the universe and is said to rebalance the energy of the human body… pic.twitter.com/4KUukeJlwI

— The Figen (@TheFigen_) March 1, 2025

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle February 17 2025

Feb 172025

February 17, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 10:00 am Finance Tagged with: AfD, ceasefire, DOGE, Fort Knox, JD Vance, Russia, self-imploding, sovereignty, Trump 53 Responses »

Vincent van Gogh Agostina Segatori Sitting in the Café du Tambourin 1887

• Trump Says Russia Isn’t A Threat To NATO (RT)

• Trump Wants Ukraine Ceasefire By Easter (RT)

• Europe & Zelensky Throw Tantrum After US Sidelines Them From Russia Talks (ZH)

• Zelensky Is In A Very Bad Position – Tara Reade (RT)

• Trump Envoy Sets Timeline For Ukraine Peace Plan (RT)

• Trump’s Envoy Signals Possible Ukraine Concessions (RT)

• Ukraine c – Kremlin (RT)

• Russian Duma Speaker Predicts ‘Serious Changes’ For EU, Its Institutions (TASS)

• AfD Candidate For German Chancellor Seeks End To Russia Sanctions (TASS)

• Vance Meets Leader Of ‘Firewalled’ German AfD Party Backed By Musk (RT)

• Germany Is Self-Imploding (Victor Davis Hanson)

• From Rockefeller to Musk: How CEOs and Presidents Shape America (Bluey)

• House GOP Drafting Impeachment Articles Against Judges Blocking DOGE (ZH)

• Judge Declines to Halt Trump’s Firing of Inspectors General (ET)

• Trump Makes First Supreme Court Appeal In Test of Power To Fire Officials (BBC)

• Democrats and Unions Launch an Existential Fight Over Buyouts (Turley)

• Rand Paul Supports Fort Knox Physical Audit (ZH)

RFK NATO

RFK Jr: The war in Ukraine is a money laundering scheme for BlackRock.

"They're doing this right in front of us. They don't even care that we know anymore, because… they have a strategy."

"And that strategy is an old, old strategy, which is they keep us at war with each… pic.twitter.com/93air2X21K

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) February 16, 2025

Kudlow

pic.twitter.com/gZT9mO5F8P

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 15, 2025

Speaker

What @ElonMusk is doing is truly revolutionary. As the DOGE algorithms find widespread fraud, waste, and abuse in the executive branch agencies that have been hidden from Congress for decades—it will allow us to restore the original intent of our Constitution: a leaner, more… pic.twitter.com/917mn60MCX

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) February 16, 2025

DOGE

Trump on DOGE: “We literally started off with 14 or 15 young geniuses. Now we have 100 young geniuses. And what’s happened…People are calling up from all over the country wanting to help Elon Musk.” pic.twitter.com/OMM89hoRn1

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) February 15, 2025

Mearsheimer

John Mearsheimer doesn't mince words:
America wields the real power, while Europe is little more than a puppet.
Washington dominates NATO, dictating terms because it bankrolls Europe's defense. Militarily, Europe is a joke, irrelevant in the eyes of Russia.
In the grand scheme,… pic.twitter.com/LwqINma4Jx

— Richard (@ricwe123) February 16, 2025

1993-2025

Bill Clinton 1993: "The White House runs on Jimmy Carter's phone system, Lyndon Johnson's switchboard, and a procurement system that'd break Einstein's brain."

Elon Musk 2025: "Federal retirement is slowed down by moving manual paperwork down a 1950s limestone mine elevator."… pic.twitter.com/N8D5sqYfPu

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) February 16, 2025

The big word is out.

• Trump Says Russia Isn’t A Threat To NATO (RT)

US President Donald Trump has dismissed Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants a temporary pause in the conflict with Kiev to regroup and launch a full-scale war against NATO. Moscow has repeatedly ruled out any short-term truce, insisting on a permanent, legally binding agreement that addresses the root causes of the Ukraine conflict. However, Zelensky has insisted that he knows “for sure” that Putin wants a brief pause to “prepare, train, take off some sanctions” before launching an attack not only on Ukraine but also on NATO states. “It can happen in summer, maybe in the beginning, maybe in the end of summer. I don’t know when he prepares it, but it will happen,” Zelensky said in an interview with NBC News’ Meet the Press on Saturday.

Trump, however, has brushed aside Zelensky’s warning, telling reporters on Sunday that he does not agree with the Ukrainian leader’s assessment at all. “No, I don’t agree. Not even a little bit,” Trump said, adding that he believes what Putin truly wants for his country is to “stop fighting.” “They’ve been fighting for a long time. They’ve done it before… They have a big, powerful machine. They defeated Hitler and they defeated Napoleon,” Trump added. “But I think he would like to stop fighting.” Trump also said he expects to meet Putin in person “very soon,” following their “long and hard” phone conversation last week, which was their first known direct interaction since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. He also called Zelensky to “inform” him of the discussion, during which the Ukrainian leader allegedly reaffirmed that Kiev is also prepared to seek a resolution to the conflict.

Russia will need to take Ukraine’s lack of independence into account in any future negotiations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday, recalling the failed 2014-2015 Minsk agreements. Trump’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, also pointed to the collapse of the two prior arrangements, stating, “We are not gonna go down that path.” NATO has long described Russia as a direct threat in order to justify the bloc’s existence after the fall of the Soviet Union, and Western officials have repeatedly claimed that if Moscow wins the Ukraine conflict, it could attack other European countries.

Putin has dismissed the idea of a Russian attack on NATO as “nonsense,” telling US journalist Tucker Carlson last February that the bloc’s leaders are trying to scare their people with an imaginary threat, but that “smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake.” Moscow has consistently opposed Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, citing the bloc’s eastward expansion as a threat to national security and describing it as a key factor behind the ongoing conflict with Kiev. Zelensky claimed at the Munich Security Conference that “right now the most influential member of NATO seems to be Putin because he seems able to block NATO decisions.” Trump has indicated that Washington will not support Kiev’s accession as part of a potential peace deal with Moscow, while his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, described Ukraine’s NATO ambitions as “unrealistic.”

False flag time?

• Trump Wants Ukraine Ceasefire By Easter (RT)

The administration of US President Donald Trump is pushing for a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict by April 20, Bloomberg wrote on Sunday, citing anonymous sources. A US peace plan could be forthcoming within weeks or even days, Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy on Russia and Ukraine, said on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Saturday. ”The Trump administration has told European officials that it wants to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine by Easter,” Bloomberg said, citing sources briefed on the talks. According to the outlet, some European officials felt the pace of the negotiations was ambitious and possibly unrealistic. Talks are reportedly set to kick off with a meeting of Russian and US representatives in Saudi Arabia in the coming days.

Europe will not be given a place in the negotiations, Kellogg told top European diplomats on Saturday. Despite this, UK and EU officials fear the US expects them to shoulder the burden of Ukraine’s post-war security, Financial Times wrote on Thursday. The envoy justified the exclusion of Europe, citing the legacy of the Minsk-2 agreement between Ukraine and now Russian Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in 2015. Germany and France stood as guarantors to the failed accord, which then German chancellor Angela Merkel later admitted was just meant to buy Kiev time to strengthen itself. “When you looked at Minsk-2, there was a lot of people at the table that really had no ability to execute some type of peace process, and it failed miserably. So we are not gonna go down that path,” Kellogg said.

Moscow has similarly underscored that it will not accept a temporary freeze of hostilities, like the Minsk accords, and insists on a permanent solution that addresses the fundamental causes of the conflict. Just days prior, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump held a phone conversation in the first such interaction since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The two leaders could meet in Saudi Arabia by the end of this month, Newsweek wrote on Sunday, citing reports. Putin has previously stressed that Moscow has never shied away from peace talks, but emphasized that they have to be based on terms previously agreed in Istanbul in 2022, modified for the territorial “realities on the ground.” Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace neutrality, demilitarize, denazify and remain free of nuclear weapons, among other points.

I’m [from] a school of realism,” Kellogg said, regarding Europe having a seat at the table during negotiations. “I think that’s not going to happen.”

• Europe & Zelensky Throw Tantrum After US Sidelines Them From Russia Talks (ZH)

Europe will not be included in peace talks for Ukraine, President Donald Trump’s Ukraine envoy said on Feb. 15 after sending a questionnaire to European capitals asking what they could offer in security guarantees for Kyiv. As The Epoch Times’ Jacob Burg reports, on Sunday, France said it will host a summit of European leaders on Monday to discuss the Russia–Ukraine war and European security after retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, didn’t include Europe in negotiations over Ukraine’s future following years of war with Russia. France President Emmanuel Macron “will convene the main European countries to discuss European security,” Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told France Inter radio. Barrot described the meeting as a working session and emphasized it should not be “overdramatized.” The office of the French presidency has not yet announced the meeting.

Macron has invited at least Britain, Germany, Poland, Italy, and Denmark, representing the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, the European Union leadership, and the NATO secretary general, according to six European diplomats. They said the purpose of the meeting is to discuss what immediate help can be given to Ukraine and the role Europe can play in providing both security guarantees to Kyiv and Europe at large. Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin last week before consulting European or Ukrainian leaders, saying peace talks had begun. The Trump administration is pushing European allies in NATO to take a primary role in security guarantees for the region as the United States prioritizes border security and counters Chinese political and military influence.

At a global security conference in Munich, Kellogg said the United States would act as an intermediary in talks between Ukraine and Russia. “I’m [from] a school of realism,” Kellogg said, regarding Europe having a seat at the table during negotiations. “I think that’s not going to happen.” In trying to reassure Europeans, Kellogg said it doesn’t mean “their interests are not considered, used, or developed.” Some European leaders pushed back on being sidelined for talks. “There’s no way in which we can have discussions or negotiations about Ukraine, Ukraine’s future or European security structure, without Europeans,” Finland’s President Alexander Stubb told reporters in Munich. “But this means that Europe needs to get its act together. Europe needs to talk less and do more.”

The questionnaire Kellogg sent to Europeans “will force Europeans to think,” Stubb said. Kaja Kallas, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, was more explicit stating that “if somebody agrees something and I mean, everybody else says ‘okay fine!’ you have agreed, but we will not follow this!” She added that EU’s position is “our importance” trumps any peace! NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte urged Europeans to get involved.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1891086302222618790

“And to my European friends, I would say, get into the debate, not by complaining that you might, yes or no, be at the table, but by coming up with concrete proposals, ideas, ramp up [defense] spending,” he said. Kellogg said that territorial concessions from Russia and targeting its oil revenues could be included in the talks over ending the war between it and Ukraine. “Russia is really a petro-state,” he said, adding that the West needs to do more in adequately enforcing sanctions against Russia. U.S. and Russian officials will meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days for continued peace talks, according to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). After meeting with Vice President JD Vance in Germany on Feb. 14, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said his nation was not invited to the talks in Saudi Arabia and that Kyiv would consult with strategic partners before engaging with Russia.

“This is the war in Ukraine against us, and it is our human losses,” President Zelensky told Meet The Press this morning. “We are thankful for all the support, unity in the USA around Ukraine support, bipartisan unity, bipartisan support,” adding that “we are thankful for all of this, but there is no leader in the world who can really make a deal with Putin without us, about us.” “I will never accept any decisions between the United States and Russia about Ukraine. Never,” he exclaimed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and White House Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff will travel to Saudi Arabia, McCaul said. The talks are meant to arrange a meeting between Trump, Putin, and Zelensky to “finally bring peace and end this conflict,” he said.

“I told Trump that Putin [is] afraid of him. Yes. And he heard me. And now Putin knows,” says President Zelensky. pic.twitter.com/K2VNmDgXPq

— Christiane Amanpour (@amanpour) February 15, 2025

“Zelensky is probably trying to figure out an exit route, among other things..” [..] “I think he wouldn’t be elected, obviously.”

• Zelensky Is In A Very Bad Position – Tara Reade (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is far from being in a winning position at the moment, RT contributor Tara Reade has said. The former aide to Joe Biden specified that Washington is no longer fighting a proxy war against Russia via Kiev, making the Ukrainian leader useless to both the EU and the US. The comment comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone conversation with his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday, the first known contact between the heads of state of the two nations since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. “Zelensky is probably trying to figure out an exit route, among other things,” Reade said, adding that running for president again was not an option for the former comedian. “I think he wouldn’t be elected, obviously.”

The Ukrainian leader’s presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to hold elections, citing martial law. Trump has also acknowledged that Kiev will eventually have to hold elections and noted that Zelensky might not serve another term, saying his domestic poll numbers “aren’t particularly great, to put it mildly.” “He’s basically sacrificed a generation of men for what? To give rare earth minerals to the US? To give 22% of the lands to Russia?” Reade said, emphasizing that Zelensky was “in a very bad position.” The comment refers to recent statements made by Trump, who demanded the “equivalent of $500 billion worth of rare earths” from Kiev in exchange for what the president estimated to be “more than $300 billion” Washington had provided in aid since the escalation of the conflict with Moscow.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented Trump’s proposal to Zelensky during their meeting in Kiev earlier this week. According to multiple media reports, the deal outlines that Washington would receive a 50% stake in Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as compensation for the American aid. On Saturday, the Financial Times reported, citing people familiar with the negotiations, that Ukraine had rejected the bid, citing the lack of security guarantees. According to Ukraine’s Institute of Geology, the country’s deposits include lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, erbium and yttrium. However, Zelensky recently admitted that a large chunk of Ukraine’s mineral-rich territories, some 20%, is currently under Russian control.

NBC reported on Saturday, citing unnamed officials, that the White House could send troops to guard Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. The deployment of military forces could reportedly come after Russia and Ukraine reached a deal to end the ongoing conflict. Reade said the reported troop deployment is unlikely. “There’s a will for there to be a different relationship with Russia.” She highlighted that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had said definitively “that there would be no US troops in Ukraine” and “US involvement in providing money and weapons was going to end.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1890845003464794254

“..I’m not talking six months, I’m talking days and weeks..”

• Trump Envoy Sets Timeline For Ukraine Peace Plan (RT)

A US peace plan for Moscow and Kiev could come within days or weeks, President Donald Trump’s special envoy on Russia and Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said Saturday on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. In January, the WSJ reported that Trump had tasked Kellogg with outlining a settlement to the Ukraine conflict within 100 days. At the same time, the US president warned of new sanctions if Moscow refused an unspecified plan, but emphasized that he was “not looking to hurt Russia.” “You got to give us a bit of breathing space and time, but when I say that, I’m not talking six months, I’m talking days and weeks,” Kellogg projected as cited by CNBC, adding that he was “on Trump time.” “He’ll ask you to do this job today and he’ll want to know tomorrow why it isn’t solved,” Kellogg emphasized.

Earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone with his US counterpart, marking their first known high-level direct contact between Moscow and Washington since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. According to the Kremlin, the US leader expressed support for the swift cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution, while Putin mentioned the necessity of addressing the root causes of the conflict, but that a long-term settlement could be achieved through negotiations. Following the conversation, Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social that Washington and Moscow were immediately beginning discussions to resolve the conflict. Trump also said that American and Russian officials might meet during the conference in Munich, adding that Ukraine was also invited to participate. However, no such meeting was reported by the conference organizers or news outlets.

This is beyond insane: Keith Kellog, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, confirms that Europe will NOT have a seat at the table in the negotiations to end the war.

When asked at the Munich Security Conference “Can you assure this audience that Ukrainians will be at the… pic.twitter.com/471t8tCQNM

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) February 16, 2025

Russia’s been very clear.

• Trump’s Envoy Signals Possible Ukraine Concessions (RT)

Territorial concessions may be part of future peace talks between Moscow and Kiev, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy on Russia and Ukraine has suggested. Speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference, Keith Kellogg emphasized that while some things are off the table, compromise could play a role in the negotiations.“Some of [the concessions] are unrealistic to expect where you’d want to go to, but it’s territorial. It could be the engagement of refusing to use force, renouncement of the use of force into the future,” Kellogg said. He added that both Russia and Ukraine might have to make concessions during talks. Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously indicated that Moscow would be open to an immediate ceasefire and peace talks if Ukraine withdrew its troops from the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions, which formally joined Russia following referendums in 2022.

However, in August 2024, Putin dismissed negotiations, citing the Ukrainian military presence in Russia’s Kursk Region. Kellogg also mentioned the necessity of “breaking alliances” between Russia and North Korea, Iran, and China, which he claims have strengthened over the past four years. Earlier this week, Putin spoke by phone with Trump, marking the first known high-level direct contact between Moscow and Washington since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

According to the Kremlin, Trump expressed support for the swift cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution, while Putin mentioned a need to address the root causes of the conflict, agreeing that a long-term settlement could be achieved through negotiations. Following the conversation, the US President wrote on his platform Truth Social that Washington and Moscow were immediately beginning discussions to end the fighting. Russia has yet to confirm any details, but according to multiple media reports, a US delegation – likely composed of national security officials – will travel to Saudi Arabia in the coming days for talks with their counterparts from Moscow. Trump also said that American and Russian officials might meet during the conference in Munich, adding that Ukraine was also invited to participate. However, no such meeting was reported by the conference organizers or news outlets.

Kellogg
https://twitter.com/i/status/1890830803657011239

“That country cannot really answer for its words..”

• Ukraine Lacks Sovereignty – Kremlin (RT)

Russia will need to take Ukraine’s lack of independence into account in any future negotiations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Given that in the past, Kiev backtracked on its promises at the behest of other countries, Moscow will need to consider this lack of autonomy in any upcoming talks, Peskov said in an interview published by Russia 1 TV journalist Pavel Zarubin on Sunday. “That country cannot really answer for its words,” the spokesman said. “Each time it is necessary to make a certain adjustment when negotiating with them, for their deficit of sovereignty and the deficit of trust in them. Which will not go anywhere,” Peskov added.

The Kremlin spokesman cited the ill-fated 2014-2015 Minsk Agreements and the failed negotiations Moscow and Kiev held in Istanbul in 2022, soon after the full-blown escalation of the Ukraine conflict. The Minsk ceasefire, which was ostensibly intended to freeze the conflict between Kiev and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, was in fact only “an attempt to give Ukraine time” to build strength, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted to Die Zeit in 2022. “Ukraine would have been whole,” if the Minsk agreements had been followed, “and there would have been no civil war, and Russian people in the Donbass would have had no desire to separate from Ukraine,” Peskov claimed. Similarly, Moscow and Kiev had already agreed on several points during the initial peace talks in Istanbul in 2022, the spokesman added.

“The [papers] were ready, they were ready to be signed. Then another side said, no, you can’t. And they were thrown out,” he said. According to Ukrainian MP David Arakhamia, who was Kiev’s chief negotiator at the talks, then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson came in person to demand that nothing be signed and that Ukraine continue fighting. Moscow has ruled out any temporary solution akin to the Minsk agreements, insisting on a permanent, legally binding solution that addresses the core causes of the conflict. Any such settlement would need to be based on the points previously agreed upon in Istanbul, adjusted for the territorial “realities on the ground,” Russia has stated.

“Democratic procedures in many EU countries have become window dressing. They have long been forgotten..”

• Russian Duma Speaker Predicts ‘Serious Changes’ For EU, Its Institutions (TASS)

State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said the Munich Security Conference suggested that the EU and its international institutions are in for serious changes. “Analyzing what happened in Munich, we can say with certainty: There are serious changes in store for the EU and its international institutions, including parliamentary ones,” he wrote on Telegram. “They will be difficult and painful.” According to Volodin, US Vice President JD Vance gave an accurate assessment of the situation in European countries at the conference. “He was not supported. Conference participants were not ready to hear the truth about themselves,” the lawmaker said.

The Duma speaker also said the institution of democracy in the EU was in a poor state. “Democratic procedures in many EU countries have become window dressing. They have long been forgotten and ignored in pan-European structures,” he said. “Therefore, the healthy forces that want to meet the public demand for the renewal of power will wage an uphill battle. They will face all kinds of hurdles meant to prevent them from going through the election procedure. Just like it happened in Romania during the presidential campaign. Or in France and Germany, when undesirable political parties won. But change is inevitable,” Volodin said.

“..the delivery of German tanks to Ukraine, which are now “being used against Russia for the first time since the Second World War,” shows that the German government has completely forgotten history.”

• AfD Candidate For German Chancellor Seeks End To Russia Sanctions (TASS)

Alice Weidel, a candidate for German chancellor from the Alternative for Germany, accused the government of stoking tensions with Russia over the recent three years with such moves as supplying arms to Ukraine, according to Bild. “What has the German government been doing with regard to Russia for the last three years? We have been intensifying the escalation spiral. We have opposed Russia verbally, financially and even with arms deliveries,” she said in an interview with the newspaper. According to the politician, the delivery of German tanks to Ukraine, which are now “being used against Russia for the first time since the Second World War,” shows that the German government has completely forgotten history.

Weidel also called for talks on the settlement of the Ukraine conflict to start swiftly and urged an end to the sanctions policy, which is crippling German economy. Germany is the second-largest arms supplier to Ukraine after the US. According to German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit, Germany has provided 44 billion euros in various assistance to Ukraine since the start of the conflict. In the 2025 budget proposal, the country allocated 4 billion euros for the support, half the amount it spent this year. However, the Bundestag has yet to greenlight the budget proposal.

For Scholz et el, that’s like meeting with the devil..

• Vance Meets Leader Of ‘Firewalled’ German AfD Party Backed By Musk (RT)

US Vice President J.D. Vance met with Alice Weidel, the leader of Germany’s ‘firewalled’ Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, on Friday. Vance was in the country to attend the annual Munich Security Conference. Their meeting reportedly lasted about half an hour and focused on the Ukraine conflict, German domestic policies, and freedom of speech, including the so-called ‘Brandmauer’, or “firewall against the right.” The term refers to a stance embraced by mainstream German parties that aims to prevent the right-wing powers from joining ruling coalitions in the country. News of the meeting came after Vance slammed European politicians for “fearing” their own voters by refusing to engage with right-wing parties in a speech on Friday. While he did not mention the AfD directly, he said European governments should drop “firewalls” and “embrace” public opinion or lose the right to be called democratic.

Vance referred to the recent endorsement of Weidel for German chancellor by Elon Musk, a close ally to US President Donald Trump, whose online presence at an AfD rally in Halle last month resulted in accusations of election interference from the German government. The vice president dismissed the allegations, painting Musk’s endorsement as an example of free speech, a core democratic value. He chided the European establishment for criticizing Musk, and said he feared free speech was “in retreat” across the continent.

The AfD denies being far-right, insisting that it promotes the interests of the German people with its anti-immigration stance. It has, however, been put under surveillance for suspected extremism by German intelligence. Despite the allegations, public support for the party has been growing, and it is currently polling in second place ahead of the German parliamentary election on February 23, with 21% of the public saying they support it. Weidel did not comment on her meeting with Vance, but praised his remarks in Munich in a post on X, saying they were “excellent” and applauding his comment regarding firewalls.

According to Reuters, citing Vance’s office, he met with leaders of all of Germany’s major political parties while in Munich, including Friedrich Merz, the head of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which is currently leading in the polls. After meeting with Vance, Merz said in a post on X that he and the vice president “reaffirmed the special importance of transatlantic relations.” However, he later described Vance’s speech in Munich as “little short of interference.” Other German politicians have also criticized Vance for his remarks targeting their policies, with incumbent Chancellor Olaf Scholz posting on X that “the extreme right should be out of political decision-making processes” in Germany and stating that Vance had no right to give the country advice on the issue.

“..we’re here 80 years after the rejection of the Morgenthau Plan and the German people, or the German leadership, have essentially updated it and inflicted it on themselves willingly..”

• Germany Is Self-Imploding (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hi, I’m Victor Davis Hanson, today I’d like to talk about the crisis facing Europe, specifically its self-implosion across the spectrum—energy, population, fertility, defense. Germany, for example, has been systematically shutting down its nuclear plants and, for a while, its natural gas electrical generation plants. It’s relying, believe it or not, more on oil and coal. But the net result of all of this deliberate turn to wind and solar, at the expense of fossil fuels and nuclear, is that it costs about four times more to use electricity in Germany than it does on average throughout the United States. That’s not the only problem. Germany is deindustrializing. And by that I mean it’s losing about 200,000 jobs in its auto industry due to these high energy prices and regulations. Its green mandates, especially electric vehicle mandates, have revolutionized the car industry, in the sense that they’re not selling abroad as they did in the past.

In addition to that, Germany’s disarmed. They only have about 125 attack aircraft. They have very few armored vehicles. Their active military is only about 180,000 soldiers. They have 84 million people in the country. The fertility rate is getting very close to 1.4. I know we have problems here in the United States at 1.6, but 1.4. And they don’t have borders. They have had a million to 2 million illegal aliens just prance into Germany, especially during the last years of the Merkel chancellorship. In terms of percentage of foreign-born, Germany has more foreign-born than does the United States, which doesn’t have a border in the south, at least until Donald Trump comes in. Twenty percent of the German population is foreign-born. Why am I mentioning all of this?

Because Germany represents the powerhouse, traditionally, of the European economy, and even culture, and it’s starting to implode. The euro, the benchmark of European financial health, is about, right now as I speak at the end of December, one dollar to one euro, and sometimes even less for the euro. That’s very strange because when I used to run a travel company to go to Europe—I remember in 2008, the euro was 1.6, almost 1.7 per the dollar. So what’s happening is that Germany is, I guess we would call it, undertaking a slow-motion suicide. But here’s the irony. In September 1944, at the height of World War II, the secretary of the treasury under the Roosevelt administration, Henry Morgenthau, had a plan for postwar Germany when it was defeated.

He didn’t want another war—the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, World War I, World War II. He said, “Enough.” So what did he do? He submitted a plan that was going to deindustrialize Germany, depopulate Germany, change its borders. It was almost as if he was trying to turn it into something like Tacitus’ description of first-century A.D. Germany, as a pastoral, agrarian society. In fact, he explicitly said that. When Joseph Goebbels heard about this, he said, “Oh my God, this is a gift. We’re losing the war. We’ll tell all of the German people they want us to be permanently pastoral. We’ll starve to death. And even if they don’t like the Nazis, as we’ve destroyed the country, you’re losing more, they’ll fight.”

Thankfully, George Marshall, chief of staff of the Army; ex-President Herbert Hoover; and others went to the Roosevelt administration and said, “If you institute this plan, they’re going to fight to the death. And we have bombed Germany. So when we get into Germany, you’ll see that it’s almost depopulated now.”The net result was they canceled the Morgenthau Plan that would have permanently made Germany depopulated, disarmed, deindustrialized. What’s my point in bringing up this historical example? We the victors of World War II thought imposing a plan of deliberate deindustrialization, depopulization, disarmament, open borders, destroyed borders would be too Carthaginian, and so we backed off. And now we’re here 80 years after the rejection of the Morgenthau Plan and the German people, or the German leadership, have essentially updated it and inflicted it on themselves willingly, not by coercion. That’s a tragic irony and it’s something we should all take a very close look at.

Trump has a much more acute sense of presidential time and how limited it is and how you need to use it quickly or you don’t maximize its value..”

• From Rockefeller to Musk: How CEOs and Presidents Shape America (Bluey)

One of America’s most successful businessmen is closely collaborating with the country’s commander-in-chief—with huge consequences for our government and economy. Elon Musk and President Donald Trump are the latest dynamic duo to showcase the role between private-sector CEO and America’s elected president. But they’re hardly alone in history. Presidential historian and former senior White House aide Tevi Troy writes about the complex relationships between corporate leaders and U.S. presidents in his latest book, “The Power and the Money: The Epic Clashes Between Commanders in Chief and Titans of Industry.” Troy spoke with The Daily Signal about the historical examples he’s studied and more recent events.

Less than a month into Trump’s second term, Troy already sees notable differences from Trump’s first term. He said Trump’s previous presidential experience is clearly shaping his leadership style and use of executive time. “It really is a remarkable opening to a presidency and shows the contrast between someone who goes into the presidency not sure what they’re to do, which included Trump’s first term, but also Bill Clinton at the beginning of his administration, and then someone who comes in with experience who says, ‘I know exactly what I’m going to do and I’m going to do it,’” said Troy, who is a senior fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute. The presidential historian and author addressed the shifting dynamics between corporate America and the presidency, particularly with tech leaders like Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, and others who had front-row seats at Trump’s inauguration.

Troy explained that while these recent CEO moves toward Trump could be viewed as political opportunism, there’s more to the story. “The other side is how hostile the Biden administration was to these entities. Joe Biden even said, ‘I don’t like Mark Zuckerberg,’” Troy said. “Elon Musk had a whole bunch of regulatory actions targeting his companies.” Trump, meanwhile, appears to recognize that these corporate leaders—and their outsized role with artificial intelligence—will have far-reaching implications for American competitiveness. “We need to encourage AI so that America is the leader in AI going forward,” Troy said, suggesting that America’s free-market system provides an advantage over competitors like China, whose AI development is “handcuffed by the censorship of the Chinese Communist Party.”

Troy’s book, “The Power and the Money,” examines the relationships between 18 different CEOs and multiple presidents, offering insights into how these dynamics have shaped American policy and business over the past 150 years. For corporate leaders navigating today’s political landscape, Troy offered this advice: “CEOs need to increase their level of engagement in Washington, but decrease their level of partisanship. And that will allow them to be more influential over the course of multiple administrations.” As for Trump’s next four years, Troy has already observed a more strategic approach to staffing and time management in his second term. “Trump has a much more acute sense of presidential time and how limited it is and how you need to use it quickly or you don’t maximize its value,” Troy explained.

Troy praised Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for maintaining discipline within the White House. “The chief of staff role is hugely important. Susie Wiles … really brooked no nonsense during the campaign. You didn’t hear a lot of leaks. You didn’t hear a lot of infighting,” he said, contrasting this with Trump’s first term when he had four different chiefs of staff in four years. This might be most visible in Trump’s selection of staff, creating more cohesion at the White House and allowing him to move swiftly to implement his agenda.“The staff seem to be much more loyal to him. The first time there were a lot of people with a lot of different ideological perspectives,” Troy said, referencing his previous book “Fight House: Rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump.”

“They can’t do that, especially when they have a serious record of Democrat activism and being hardcore against President Trump..”

• House GOP Drafting Impeachment Articles Against Judges Blocking DOGE (ZH)

House Republicans are drafting articles of impeachment against Democrat judges that have blocked various actions by the Trump administration, including those who have halted efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). According to The Hill: “Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) said he is drafting articles of impeachment against Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, who in a ruling last weekend temporarily restricted Musk and DOGE aides from accessing a Treasury Department payment system. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) is working on an impeachment resolution against Rhode Island District Judge John McConnell Jr. over his ruling halting the Trump administration’s freeze on federal funding.

And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), chair of the House Oversight Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee, pledged in a hearing this week while referencing Engelmayer that “We will hold this judge and others who try to stop the will of the people and their elected leaders accountable.” “Our case for impeaching Judge Engelmayer is basically that he’s an activist judge trying to stop the Trump administration from, you know, executing their, you know, Article 2 powers to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed,” Crane told former Rep. Matt Gaetz earlier this week. Greene, meanwhile, said that she would support Engelmayer’s impeachment – arguing that judges can’t simply take power away from Cabinet secretaries.

“They can’t do that, especially when they have a serious record of Democrat activism and being hardcore against President Trump,” said Greene, adding “So, yeah, judges like that, they definitely should be impeached.” On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that “district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump’s basic executive authority.” Engelmayer initially blocked everyone at the Treasury Department – including Secretary Scott Bessent, from accessing the agency’s database, however another judge overseeing the case later said that the order would not apply to Bessent. Rep. Clyde announced that he was working on impeachment articles, saying in a post on X that Judge McConnell Jr. is “a partisan activist weaponizing our judicial system to stop President Trump’s funding freeze on woke and wasteful government spending.”

It would take near-unanimous support from House Republicans to impeach one of the judges assuming no Democrats support the measure, while Democrat support would definitely be required to clear the 2/3 threshold to convict in the Senate. So basically, this is going nowhere. “Up till last Congress, the Speaker of the House had never been fired before,” said Crane. “I’m not a wait-and-see kind of guy — look around, hope somebody’s going to do something. I’m going to take action. And like I said, If this isn’t how we get to the, you know, the place that we need to be, I’m fine with that. But I’m not going to sit around and just, you know, watch these individuals stop President Trump from doing exactly what he told the American people he was going to do.”

“..she chastised him for making everybody rush to a TRO when the matter could have been handled with a five-minute call with the Department of Justice..”

• Judge Declines to Halt Trump’s Firing of Inspectors General (ET)

A federal judge on Feb. 14 rejected an emergency bid by eight inspectors general fired by the Trump administration to have their jobs restored. District Judge of the District of Columbia Ana Reyes forced the attorney for the inspectors general to drop the request for a temporary restraining order during a virtual hearing, opting instead for an expedited schedule to hear their request for a preliminary injunction. Reyes expressed frustration that the plaintiff’s counsel, Seth Waxman, filed suit on Feb. 12 for the order requesting emergency same-day relief, which would have included backpay 21 days after the firings occurred, stating that her court’s staff was already overwhelmed with scores of other temporary restraining order requests. Demanding only yes or no answers, the judge asked several questions of Waxman.

He confirmed to her that the eight inspectors general were fired on Jan. 24 without Congress first being given a 30-day notice or “substantial rationale” for the termination and that they were able to retrieve all of their personal belongings. These former inspectors general were employed by the Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, and Labor departments and the Small Business Administration. The judge pointed out to Waxman that there was nothing stopping Trump from issuing that 30-day termination notice to Congress five minutes after a TRO (temporary restraining order) went through, this time with a written reason for their termination. Addressing the written complaint arguing the plaintiffs faced reputational damage, Reyes proposed that a 30-day return to the office with a written reason why they were unfit for their jobs could actually cause even more reputational harm than what was already given. All the public knows is that they were fired without cause, she said. There was no harm to their reputation because no cause, say of incompetence, was given, and such a termination could be seen as preferable.

She also criticized Waxman for referencing what he called a similar case in his written complaint, pointing out that the government employee who was fired in that instance was operating independently of the White House while his clients worked for agencies that took direction from the presidency. Reyes declined to even humor the merits of the temporary restraining order during the virtual hearing, which lasted less than 13 minutes, forcing the plaintiffs to drop it. When Waxman transitioned to an expedited briefing schedule, she chastised him for making everybody rush to a TRO when the matter could have been handled with a five-minute call with the Department of Justice. The defense counsel representing the heads of the various departments employing those inspectors general remained silent and opted not to weigh in on the matter.

“..the agency finds that you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and skills do not fit the agency’s current needs..”

• Trump Makes First Supreme Court Appeal In Test of Power To Fire Officials (BBC)

President Donald Trump’s attempts to shrink the federal bureaucracy are heading to the Supreme Court, according to US media.He has filed an emergency appeal to the country’s highest court to rule on whether he can fire the leader of an independent whistleblowing agency. Hampton Dellinger, head of the US Office of Special Counsel, sued the Trump administration after he was fired by email this month. Trump has also sacked more than a dozen inspectors general at various federal agencies along with the jobs of thousands of employees across the US government. Mr Dellinger, who was nominated by Joe Biden, the former president, argues that his removal broke a law that protects leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president, “except in cases of neglect of duty, malfeasance or inefficiency”.

A federal judge in Washington DC issued a temporary order on Wednesday allowing Mr Dellinger to hold on to his position while the case is being considered. On Saturday, a divided US Court of Appeals in the nation’s capital rejected the Trump administration’s request to overrule the lower court. That has led to the justice department filing an emergency appeal to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court. It is the first case the president has taken to the justices since he took office last month. “This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” Sarah M Harris, acting solicitor general, wrote in the filing provided by the Department of Justice to the Washington Post.

“Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the president to retain an agency head,” the acting solicitor general wrote, according to the Associated Press news agency. The Republican president’s orders on immigration, transgender issues and government spending have also become bogged down in dozens of lawsuits in the lower courts. Those cases may ultimately wind up at the Supreme Court, too. Trump’s efforts to reduce and reshape the 2.3 million-strong civilian federal workforce continued over the weekend.Workers in various health agencies who are still within their probation periods received letters on Saturday evening informing them they would be terminated, sources told CBS News, the BBC’s US partner.

“Unfortunately, the agency finds that you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge and skills do not fit the agency’s current needs, and your performance has not been adequate to justify further employment at the agency,” read the letters. At least 9,500 workers at the departments of Health and Human Services, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior and Agriculture have been fired by Trump, according to a tally from Reuters news agency. Another 75,000 workers have taken a buyout offered to get them to leave voluntarily, according to the White House. The cost-cutting initiative has been led by department of government efficiency, or Doge, a task force led by Elon Musk.

“..Musk is “taking away everything we have.” That is precisely what Americans asked for in reelecting Donald Trump…”

• Democrats and Unions Launch an Existential Fight Over Buyouts (Turley)

Thomas Paine once remarked, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” With the approaching 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, much has clearly changed. President Donald Trump’s move to reduce government is now portrayed as evil in its own right. Elon Musk’s move to draw down various agencies was presented as a virtual return to the state of nature. Democratic members staged protests in front of various agencies to declare “war” and to accuse Trump of “destroying the government” by shrinking it. Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.) Rep. Kweisi Mfume, D-Ma, declared “Every time you hear DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, you just remember it is the department of government evil.”

Americans say Trump is keeping his promises
The coordinated efforts of Democratic leaders and the mainstream media have once again not resonated with the public. Trump, according to polls, is now at higher popularity levels than during his first term. And a strong majority of Americans say Trump is keeping his promises, including in his efforts to reduce government spending and waste. Those efforts include a generous buyout offer for federal employees. The Trump administration offered federal workers the chance to stay home for months while receiving full pay if they would agree to resign from government employment.It was an extremely clever move. The best way to shrink the government is to get people to leave voluntarily. But Trump and Musk also have warned that layoffs will follow if not enough federal workers accepted the buyout.

It is a type of self-deportation from government service. And it worked, with about 75,000 federal workers accepting Trump’s offer before the deal ended Wednesday. It worked so well, in fact, that Democrats rushed to stop the voluntary exodus by falsely suggesting that it was a scam. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., warned employees that Trump would “stiff you,” even though the offer comes with the authority of the federal government. His colleague, Mark Warner (D, Va.) added ominously for workers to “Think twice. Has this individual in his business world ever fulfilled his contracts or obligations to any workers in the past?” At the same time, unions (looking at a major reduction of force) have filed with Democratic groups to stop these employees from taking the offer. They found a favorable court with U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole who enjoined the program.

However, after citywide celebrations over the injunction, the court then lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward. Unions representing federal workers and liberal legal organizations are likely to now appeal O’Toole’s decision. The unions, which are facing a major reduction in dues-paying members, have a disturbing conflict of interest in trying to deny federal workers the benefits of an offer they chose to accept. The legal challenges to the buyout have relied on a plethora of arguments asserting that a president cannot allow employees to stay home and receive pay pending their departure from federal employment. Those arguments cited the Antideficiency Act, which bars agencies from spending beyond the money appropriated by Congress.

President has the authority to manage the executive branch
The counterargument is that money used for the buyouts was allocated to pay employees whose service normally continues year after year. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president is given ample discretion in running the executive branch, including the work status of federal employees. Congress clearly has a role in controlling use of the federal purse. For example, Congress can determine whether to allocate money to build certain Navy vessels. However, once the ships are built, it is the president who decides where to send them and who will serve on the crew. The commander in chief also can expand or shrink the size of the crew. Trump was well within his authority in offering to change employees’ duties while they look for new positions, and the employees had every right to agree to eight months of paid leave in exchange for their resignation from government service.

The opposition from Democrats and labor unions is the ultimate form of paternalism. In the name of protecting employees, opponents fought to prevent workers from accepting offers they believe are best for themselves and their families. Federal employees are entitled to protections in their employment. But they’re not entitled to permanent employment. Congress is entitled to appropriate money for specific purposes. But it is not entitled to manage the executive branch. Trump is very willing to fight on this hill. He holds a strong constitutional position and an even stronger political position.

For those who proclaimed themselves as defenders of democracy throughout last year’s election cycle, this is what democracy looks like. Voters made clear that they want changes in the size and the focus of government. Those voters are unlikely to be convinced by the warning of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that Musk is “taking away everything we have.” That is precisely what Americans asked for in reelecting Donald Trump.

Bigger mystery than Kennedy’s murder.

• Rand Paul Supports Fort Knox Physical Audit (ZH)

One of the biggest questions over the past 50 years is whether the gold at Fort Knox, Kentucky is really there, or if it’s been plundered. What we do know is that the last ‘audit’ of America’s gold stash was conducted on Sept. 23, 1974, when the US Treasury opened just one of its 15 vaults at Fort Knox so politicians and reporters could swarm the site for a two-hour photo-op with roughly 6% of the alleged amount held. Adding to the complete farce, none of the bars being passed around for the cameras were matched to a serial number, assayed or tested for purity, or even verified as US holdings – as foreign countries have previously stored their gold at Fort Knox as well.

Since then there has been no independent verification of the roughly 4,580 metric tons supposedly held by the Treasury outside of bullshit annual ‘vault seal checks’ that don’t actually analyze the gold (oh, and they’ve ‘lost’ seven of those) – various efforts have been raised to audit Fort Knox – most recently in 2021, when Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) introduced (now-dead) legislation to audit America’s gold holdings with a full assay, inventory, and audit of all US gold – which would include a full account of gold transactions undertaken by the US government.

It would be great if @elonmusk could take a look inside Fort Knox just to make sure the 4,580 tons of US gold is there. Last time anyone looked was 50 years ago in 1974.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 15, 2025

In 2010, former Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul called for an independent audit of Fort Knox. “It’d be nice for the American people to know whether or not the gold is there,” Paul said at the time.

Throwback to @RonPaul talking about the gold in Fort Knox: pic.twitter.com/5xiAQItOjk

— Natalie F Danelishen (@Chesschick01) February 16, 2025

With Elon Musk’s team at DOGE – including a gent who goes by the name “Big Balls” – investigating government-wide waste, fraud and abuse, we thought it might be helpful to point them towards Fort Knox… The suggestion immediately went viral on X, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) indicating he’s on board – replying to Musk with “Let’s do it.” Musk and team need to get to the bottom of just how deep the rot goes…

Biggest story of the day: Senator Rand Paul is calling for an audit on Fort Knox to ensure the 4,580 tons US gold is still there

Here’s what you were NEVER TOLD about the gold at Fort Knox

America’s Wealth, The largest fortune in the history of the world, was stolen. The Fort… pic.twitter.com/geYwfVBvvG

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) February 16, 2025

Arab jews

Sit with this fact.

There were hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Jews. In the 1950s, Mossad conducted false flag bomb attacks against Iraqi Jewish communities and blamed Arabs to compel Jews to leave Iraq and come to Israel.

Here is Jewish historian Prof. Avi Shlaim explaining: https://t.co/kjtbVxJjTK pic.twitter.com/xPFCnqYS7d

— Ousman Noor (@ousmannoor) February 16, 2025

Toys
https://twitter.com/i/status/1891110279649366275

Grok

ELON ON AI: I PLAY TO WIN, OR I DON'T PLAY AT ALL

"You've gotta have the most powerful training compute, and your rate of improvement of training compute has to be faster than everyone else's, or you will not win."

source: @lexfridman, @elonmusk https://t.co/A7rQxTheFZ pic.twitter.com/yq5fChXlKB

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 16, 2025

Hello

3 months old snow leopard says hello pic.twitter.com/3oH6bsw4tz

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) February 15, 2025

Thai cat
https://twitter.com/i/status/1890863657350783065

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Debt Rattle February 7 2025

Feb 072025

February 7, 2025 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 11:00 am Finance Tagged with: ceasefire, DOGE, Gaza, Politico, Ronald Reagan, Rubio, Trump, USAID, WHO, Wikileaks 54 Responses »

René Magritte The conquerer 1926

• USAID Media Payments Could Be ‘Biggest Scandal In History’ – Trump (RT)

• Politico Pleads Innocent (ZH)

• WikiLeaks: USAID Has Been Funding Over 6,000 Journalists Worldwide (ZH)

• ‘Leaked’ Plan: Trump To ‘Force’ Zelensky To Agree On Ceasefire By Easter (ZH)

• Trump Envoy Responds To Zelensky’s Nuclear Weapons Demand (RT)

• White House Softens Aspects Of Gaza ‘Takeover’ – No Boots On The Ground (ZH)

• What is Trump Really Thinking About Gaza? (Larry Johnson)

• The Greatest Showman’s “Inside Out” Political Solution (Alastair Crooke)

• How the Democrats Became the Party of Puppets (Pinsker)

• Investor Demand For X Debt Upsized, Musk Sees Revenue Improving Rapidly (ZH)

• Rubio To Boycott G20 Meeting in South Africa (RT)

• FBI Official Accused of Defying White House Reform Efforts (Turley)

• EU Plays Trump Card To Advance Its Globalist Agenda (Villamor)

• What Is Really Destroying Europe? The EU (Godefridi)

• What to Know About US Withdrawal From the WHO (ET)

• ‘Gov’t Is the People’s Business’: A Tribute to Ronald Reagan (Salgado)

Evo
https://twitter.com/i/status/1887475768508252227

Mike Benz exposes USAID for 11 straight minutes

Mike Benz exposes USAID for 11 straight minutes. pic.twitter.com/ja95d0qp0c

— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) February 5, 2025

Sen. Kennedy

Senator Kennedy's Defense Of Elon Musk's DOGE Left The Room Speechless.
"I wanna try to put in perspective what many of my Democratic friends have been talking about today. They're very, very, very upset at president Trump, and they're very, very, very upset at Elon Musk.… pic.twitter.com/jjk5yyaToK

— Camus (@newstart_2024) February 6, 2025

3rd temple

Regardless if people want to see it or not, or believe it or not- we are in the last seconds of the end times.

We are watching Bible prophecy play out in front of our eyes and for those that know Jesus, this is such an exciting time to be alive!! pic.twitter.com/mWXCISAjvh

— Ashley Hays (@Ashleyhays2089) February 5, 2025

Alwaleed

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is one of the biggest media investors in the world. Here’s why he thinks X now dominates everything.

(0:00) Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Thoughts on Donald Trump
(2:26) Saudi Arabia’s Relationship With Israel and Iran
(6:55) Negotiating With Trump
(7:56)… pic.twitter.com/PwFlDgCper

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 5, 2025

Sounds like a bombastic headline. But is it? Do (re)check the Nicole Shanahan clip below that I opened with yesterday. She explains that DOGE has a super search engine for files (data mining research), that finds in seconds/minutes what would otherwise take days or weeks. The USAID “library” is vast and complex but “He did that over the weekend”. USAID is just the start.

• USAID Media Payments Could Be ‘Biggest Scandal In History’ – Trump (RT)

Billions of dollars have been stolen at USAID and used to pay for positive media coverage of Democrats, US President Donald Trump has said. The claim comes in conjunction with a White House announcement that it will stop “subsidizing” Politico. In January, the Trump administration initiated significant changes to the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Trump ordered a near-total freeze on foreign aid, aiming to align assistance with his “America First” policy. Trump took to Truth Social on Thursday to warn that “the biggest scandal in history” was brewing, after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged that American taxpayer money had been used to subsidize government subscriptions to Politico and other media outlets. Leavitt was referring to Politico Pro, a premium legislative and regulatory tracking service used by multiple government agencies.

Politico Pro subscriptions are reported to cost up to $10,000 annually. ”Looks like billions of dollars have been stollen [sic] at USAID, and other agencies, much of it going to the fake news media as a ‘payoff’ for creating good stories about the democrats. the left wing ‘rag,’ known as ‘Politico,’ seems to have received $8,000,000,” Trump wrote. He questioned whether The New York Times and other outlets were also receiving “payoffs.” Politico said it had “never been the beneficiary of government programs or subsidies” and that the “overwhelming majority” of subscriptions come from the private sector.

Some conservative commentators online claimed that Politico, The New York Times and the Associated Press were receiving “government funding” or “grants,” from USAID and other agencies. Kyle Becker, a former Fox News producer, dug into public records on USAspending.gov and discovered that the government paid Politico $8.2 million in the last 12 months. However, only about $24,000 of this total came from USAID, with the largest contributor being the Department of Health and Human Services. Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), called the payments “a huge waste of taxpayer money.” “Many media outlets are going to experience a mysterious drop in revenue,” he warned on X on Wednesday.

The outlets in question denied receiving government subsidies, stating that agencies purchased subscriptions like any client, and insisted on their editorial independence. CNN went as far as to decry the accusations as “a false right-wing conspiracy theory,” and accused Leavitt of elevating a “bogus claim.” The freeze on USAID funding has led to the suspension of numerous senior officials, layoffs of contractors, and the halting of various international aid programs. Legal experts have questioned the legality of dismantling USAID without congressional approval. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was appointed as the acting administrator of USAID, with plans to merge it into the State Department. Elon Musk criticized the agency as a “criminal organization” that should “die.”

Nicole Shanahan: "On the topic of of DOGE, I don't think people are hearing exactly what DOGE is. It's yes. It's an efficiency agency, but what really is it? I've heard from, an incoming agency head that what DOGE is, it's a data mining research arm that can answer any budgetary… pic.twitter.com/yPGOMjC3D0

— Camus (@newstart_2024) February 5, 2025

What exactly is the role of German publisher Axel Springer?

• Politico Pleads Innocent (ZH)

During Wednesday’s White House presser, spox Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Politico has been getting ‘more than $8 million taxpayer dollars,’ which has ‘gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions.’

.@PressSec: "I can confirm that the more than $8 million taxpayer that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico will no longer be happening."

"The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now." pic.twitter.com/xfzyzA5Xwd

— CAPITAL (@capitalnewshq) February 5, 2025

* * *
On Tuesday, staffers at Politico were notified that a ‘technical error’ had prevented paychecks from going out. Many joked that this had something to do with the Trump administration putting a freeze on USAID funding. And while there’s no evidence the two are linked, the suggestion prompted internet sleuths to look into Politico’s sources of funding. What they found was absolutely shocking. According to government spending tracker website USASPENDING.gov, Politico – which laundered the Hunter Biden ’51 intel officials’ propaganda during the 2020 election – received up to $27 million (and by some counts $32 million) from various US agencies during the Biden years. In one instance, roughly $500,000 was spent on 37 Politico ‘pro’ subscriptions. Of note, Politico was sold to German media giant Axel Springer (which also owns Business Insider) for $1 billion in 2021, meaning US taxpayer dollars have been flowing to the German media giant to prop up their US propaganda rags.

So 90% of "subscribers" to left-wing publications like Politico are fake and "taxpayer funded". And then using fake subs to artificially pump up revenue, Politico gets to sell itself to German propaganda giant Axel Springer for $1 billion. https://t.co/j8wEv5MybL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 5, 2025

It's not just the subscriptions: there are huge "ad contracts", dinner parties DC throws itself under the guise of "media conferences", sponsorships, etc all paid for by taxpayers.

Once done with Politico look at its spawn Axios, founded by Politico veterans https://t.co/ShM4zTbnyX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 5, 2025

That’s a large chunk of the media.

• WikiLeaks: USAID Has Been Funding Over 6,000 Journalists Worldwide (ZH)

Yesterday’s report that the US government has been funding outlets such as Politico, the Associated Press, the BBC, and others raised more questions than it answered – though the obvious implication is that the US government has effectively been propping up regime-friendly media, which then peddles regime-friendly coverage – and spent years attacking independent outlets such as ZeroHedge, The Federalist, and many unlucky ones who have since been starved out of business. And while funding for Politico and others has come from all over the federal government – WikiLeaks, citing a RSF report, highlighted that USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets and 279 “media” NGOs, which includes 90% of the reportage out of Ukraine.

USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets and 279 "media" NGOs, including nine out of ten media outlets in Ukraine.https://t.co/tLUoBT2GfN https://t.co/Siq2RJOXQf pic.twitter.com/LyaUFuq3He

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 6, 2025

According to RSF, the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid – roughly $268 million earmarked to fund “independent media and the free flow of information,” has ‘thrown journalism around the world into chaos.’ “Almost immediately after the freeze went into effect, journalistic organizations around the world that receive American aid funding started reaching out to RSF expressing confusion, chaos, and uncertainty. The affected organizations include large international NGOs that support independent media like the International Fund for Public Interest Media and smaller, individual media outlets serving audiences living under repressive conditions in countries like Iran and Russia.

…
USAID programs support independent media in more than 30 countries, but it is difficult to assess the full extent of the harm done to the global media. Many organizations are hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks. According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organizations dedicated to strengthening independent media. The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information.”

Note the recurring use of the term ‘independent media.’ Of course, the RSF report, and another from the Columbia Journalism Review are sounding the alarm over the ‘silencing of independent media’ around the world. The critical context they omit, however, is that USAID – despite the best of intentions when it was formed, has been corrupted into a deep-state slush-fund.

My full hit on USAID on Newsmax tonight with @DavidJHarrisJr. If you're a policymaker or legislator involved in USAID oversight, I implore you to listen to this segment very carefully: pic.twitter.com/sTGaVOKrTJ

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) February 5, 2025

https://twitter.com/i/status/1886764407700472231

The architects behind the Trump impeachments and lawfare were plotting to launder money through USAID for their anti-Trump resistance efforts.

I obtained their “2025 Democracy Playbook” which admits to all of this. pic.twitter.com/izopd5G4P4

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 4, 2025

And so, no matter how ‘independent’ these USAID-funded media outlets are around the world, they’re all eating fruit from the same poisonous tree.

“The EU will reportedly be asked to assist Ukraine in its reconstruction efforts, which may cost as much as $486 billion over the next decade..”

• ‘Leaked’ Plan: Trump To ‘Force’ Zelensky To Agree On Ceasefire By Easter (ZH)

As of the start of this week, the Kremlin said ‘no progress’ had been made in arranging peace talks on Ukraine between Moscow and Washington. Rumors and speculation abound, given that US diplomats under Trump are without doubt working behind-the-scenes to arrange something, with the possibility that talks could be hosted in a ‘neutral’ location like Saudi Arabia or the UAE. A Thursday Daily Mail report has just added immense fuel to the fire of speculation, presenting the allegedly leaked Trump ceasefire plan which he intends to present for Russia’s consideration. The report says Trump will try to ‘force’ Ukraine’s President Zelensky to agree to a ceasefire by Easter, which is on April 20 this year.

The Trump administration is seeking to end the war within 100 days. “The unconfirmed plans, reported by Ukrainian outlet Strana, have been doing the rounds in ‘political and diplomatic circles’ in Ukraine, and will include a ceasefire by April 20 that would freeze Russia’s steady advance, a ban on Ukraine from joining NATO, and a demand for Kyiv to accept Russian sovereignty on annexed land.” While still very much unconfirmed, the headline is having an immediate impact on oil prices. Zelensky’s office has vehemently denied the legitimacy of reports of the peace plans being reported and floated. On top of these alleged key aspects of a ban on NATO admission, freezing the front lines, and agreeing to Russian sovereignty over the four annexed territories in the east, the leaked report says the following is also included in the proposal:

• On top of this, Ukrainian troops will be made to leave Russia’s Kursk region, where it launched a counteroffensive in August, while a contingent of European soldiers, which could include British troops, would be asked to police a demilitarised zone. American troops will not be involved in this contingent.
• The EU will reportedly be asked to assist Ukraine in its reconstruction efforts, which may cost as much as $486 billion (£392 billion) over the next decade according to the German Marshall Fund thinktank.
• The plans will reportedly begin with a phone call between Zelensky and Vladimir Putin in early February, a meeting between the two warring leaders in late February to early March and an official ceasefire declaration of a ceasefire by April 20.
• A declaration on the agreed parameters for ending the war would then be released by May 9, after which Kyiv would be asked not to extend martial law or mobilize troops.

This essentially gives Moscow most everything it wants – particularly the ban on NATO admission – and so if true the plan is likely to be entertained positively by Putin. Zelensky has been complaining that talks about Ukraine between the US and Russia must never happen without Kiev’s representation and input, but Zelensky it seems is being left behind. He’ll likely reject the above ‘leaked’ plan, but for Moscow and Washington that probably won’t matter too much. [..]

* * *
Ceasefire by Easter:
• NATO Membership: Ukraine would be barred from joining NATO under the plan.
• Territorial Concessions: Kyiv would recognize Russian sovereignty over annexed lands and withdraw troops from Kursk.
• Demilitarized Zone: European, possibly British, troops would police it; no U.S. involvement.
• Reconstruction: EU assistance sought for Ukraine, estimated at $486 billion over a decade.

Timeline:
1) Early February: Zelensky-Putin phone call.
2) Late February to early March: Leaders’ meeting.
3) April 20: Ceasefire declaration.
4) By May 9: Agreement terms released, no further martial law or mobilization.
5) Additional Support: Continued U.S. military aid for Ukraine, with a pathway to EU membership by 2030.

“Let’s be honest about it, we both know that’s not going to happen..”

• Trump Envoy Responds To Zelensky’s Nuclear Weapons Demand (RT)

US President Donald Trump’s envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, has brushed aside Kiev’s demand for nuclear weaponry, stating that it is “not going to happen.” Kellogg made the remarks on Thursday while speaking to Fox News Digital. He was asked about the latest call by Vladimir Zelensky for “nuclear weapons” and “missile systems” from Kiev’s Western backers. “The chance of them getting their nuclear weapons back is somewhere between slim and none. Let’s be honest about it, we both know that’s not going to happen,” Kellogg said.The idea of arming Ukraine with nukes goes against “common sense” and is not something the Trump administration would consider, Kellogg stated. “Remember, the president said we’re a government of common sense. When somebody says something like that, look at the outcome or the potential. That’s using your common sense,” he explained.

Zelensky, speaking to British journalist Piers Morgan earlier this week, said that Ukraine must either be fast-tracked into the US-led NATO bloc or given more weaponry to “stop Russia.” “Give us back nuclear weapons, give us missile systems. Partners, help us finance a one-million army, deploy your troops to the areas of our country where we want to stabilize the situation,” he stated. While the Ukrainian leader has raised the issue of nuclear weaponry before, including shortly ahead of the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, he has done so increasingly in recent months. Zelensky has expressed regret that his country surrendered its portion of the Soviet nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the USSR in exchange for security guarantees in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. In 1991, Ukraine possessed some 1,700 warheads, which however, remained under Moscow’s operational control.

Russia insists that Ukraine never possessed any nuclear weapons of its own, as the assets belonged to Moscow as the sole legal successor of the Soviet Union. The 1994 memorandum also envisioned Ukraine’s neutral status, which has been undermined by NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the US-led bloc, Russian officials maintain. In November, Russian President Vladimir Putin explicitly stated that the any procurement of nuclear weaponry by Kiev was non-starter and would compel Moscow to use all available means to destroy it. “What do you think – on the level of common sense – if the country with which we are essentially now engaged in military operations becomes a nuclear power, what should we do? In this case, use all – I want to emphasize this – precisely all the means of destruction at Russia’s disposal,” the president said.

For Trump and Gaza, do watch this lady first:

Do you really think Netanyahu is just *letting* the U.S. take over land they’ve been using as a pawn for 70 years?

No. Bibi was blindsided.

This is Trump’s policy to contain Israel. pic.twitter.com/52PjXm37Bk

— Lauren Lee (@sheislaurenlee) February 5, 2025

• White House Softens Aspects Of Gaza ‘Takeover’ – No Boots On The Ground (ZH)

Israel announced Thursday it has begun preparations for the departure of large numbers of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip following President Trump earlier this week publicly backing a controversial mass resettlement plan in neighboring Arab countries. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s plan for Gaza as “remarkable” in an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity published Thursday. “The actual idea of allowing Gazans who want to leave to leave. I mean, what’s wrong with that? They can leave, they can then come back, they can relocate and come back. But you have to rebuild Gaza,” Netanyahu said.In the face of fierce condemnation and pushback from an assortment of countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Ireland, as well as the United Nations – Trump has still doubled down in a Thursday Truth Social post.

He explained that “the Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel” after the end of hostilities. He reiterated that Palestinians could be relocated to “far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region” and would “actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free.” The president said the that the US would oversee development teams from across the world, which will “slowly and carefully” begin the construction of what would become “one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth.” That’s when he emphasized the following: “No soldiers by the US would be needed! Stability for the region would reign,” Trump wrote. Given that it’s an active war zone, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad are still openly displaying their weapons in battalion-sized displays and deployments, it seems doubtful any of this could happen without serious military intervention.

Trump said all of this after on Tuesday he declared he wants to the US to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. Some aspects have been softened or walked back by the White House, however. When pressed for clarification on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “They need to be temporarily relocated out of Gaza for the rebuilding.” Thus the plan has changed to a non-permanent resettlement, apparently, though it’s hard to see the logistics and politics of all of this actually playing out. Leavitt continued, “It’s been made very clear to the president that the United States needs to be involved in this rebuilding effort to ensure stability in the region for all people.” “That does not mean boots on the ground in Gaza. That does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort,” she added.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also sought to distance the administration from criticisms that this looks like a potential major foreign military intervention. He said the idea was of “temporary” relocation, and said the proposal “was not meant as hostile. It was meant as, I think, a very generous move — the offer to rebuild and to be in charge of the rebuilding.” And Trump’s envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, echoed something similar. He said the US doesn’t want to put any US troops on the ground, and that no US dollars should be spent. He acknowledged that Trump had been “gestating” on the idea for a while.

“..while many interpreted his remarks as catering to the Zionists, the language he used was just the opposite. He did not say that Gaza was Israel’s.”

• What is Trump Really Thinking About Gaza? (Larry Johnson)

I am not making excuses for Donald Trump. I fully understand why many have interpreted his scripted remarks yesterday during the joint-press conference with Bibi Netanyahu about relocating the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza and the US taking control of Gaza as insane or heartless or both. I want you to entertain another possibility — maybe Trump is really trying to secure a deal that does not cater to the Zionist vision of occupying all territory from the river to the sea.

We are 16 days into the second Trump administration and the flurry of activity coming out of the Oval office is akin to a Category Five hurricane. It is clear that Trump did not spend the last four years in political exile moping and despairing of the lawfare tsunami unleashed by his political opponents. He tacitly conceded that he was totally unprepared to confront the monster of the Deep State when he entered office in January 2017. He did not make that mistake this time. The day after securing his election victory in November he began executing a plan for governing that has left his political opponents and the Washington establishment reeling. This is akin to a military blitzkrieg. He is attacking across a broad front.

With this in mind, let me suggest another way of looking at what he said about taking control of Gaza during the Tuesday press conference with Netanyahu. First, he was reading from a script. This means it was drafted and vetted in advance, most likely with Michael Waltz taking the lead. Second, while many interpreted his remarks as catering to the Zionists, the language he used was just the opposite. He did not say that Gaza was Israel’s. He said that the US should take control of Gaza and oversee the rebuilding. However, he did not propose a specific plan for doing so and made it clear that someone other than the US would foot the bill for the rebuilding. Would Trump entertain a Saudi offer to rebuild Gaza with its funds? I think so, but it would likely be part of a broader agreement to resurrect the Abraham accords.

It is true that Netanyahu has publicly embraced Trump’s plan, but in announcing this proposal, Trump has made it almost impossible for Netanyahu to abandon the ceasefire agreement, at least the second phase, which he reportedly promised finance minister Smotrich he would do. If the Zionists decide to launch a fresh offensive on the Palestinians in Gaza, this would be a direct slap in the face of Trump. Scott Ritter reminded me during the roundtable with Danny Haiphong of Trump’s crazed, insulting remarks about Kim Jong-Un that preceded his face-to-face negotiations with Kim. It is a classic Trump negotiating tactic — bombast and insult up front followed by diplomacy and deal making. Is this Trump’s plan with respect to re-framing the Palestinian issue? I think it is a possibility. I also could be wrong (and I’m sure many of you will let me know).

Trump’s heated rhetoric regarding Iran also appears to be another example of his bad-cop-good-cop routine. Steve Witkoff reportedly is negotiating with the Iranians on orders from Trump. I think it is highly likely that Iran, despite press reports to the contrary, is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, primarily because of the security treaty they signed with Russia on January 17. If Witkoff succeeds in crafting an agreement with Iran then Trump will be able to claim that his tough guy approach created the conditions that made a deal possible. Okay. You are now free to tell me why I am full of crap.

“Netanyahu at this juncture is utterly dependent on Trump. The PM’s wiles will not be enough to get him off the hooks: Trump has him where he wants him.”

• The Greatest Showman’s “Inside Out” Political Solution (Alastair Crooke)

Dissing Putin as a loser in Ukraine perhaps was more addressed to the U.S. Senate and its ongoing confirmation hearings. Trump made these comments days before Tulsi Gabbard faces Senate hearings. Gabbard already is criticised by U.S. ‘hawks’ for allegedly holding ‘pro-Putin’ sentiments, as well as being subjected to a media slur campaign by the deep state. Was Trump’s apparent disrespect toward Putin and Russia (which caused anger in Russia) said primarily for the ears of U.S. Senators? (The Senate is home to some of the most ardent ‘never-Trumpers’). And were Trump’s egregious comments about ‘cleansing’ Gaza’s Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan (co-ordinated with Netanyahu, according to an Israeli Minister) intended primarily for the ears of the Israeli Right? According to that Minister, the issue of encouraging voluntary Palestinian migration is now back on the agenda, just as the Right-wing parties have long wanted – and many in Netanyahu’s Likud had hoped. Music to their ears.

Was it then a Trumpian pre-emptive move, designed to save Netanyahu’s government from imminent collapse over the ceasefire’s second-stage, and the threat of a walk-out by his Right Wing contingent? Was Trump’s target audience in this case then Ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich? Trump pointedly confuses us – by never making it clear to which audience he is addressing his ruminations at any one time. Is there nonetheless some substance sedimented within Trump’s comment that any Palestinian state must be resolved ‘in some other way’ than the Two-State formula? Maybe. We should not discount Trump’s strong leanings towards Israel. Netanyahu faces harsh criticism for mis-handling both the Gaza and Lebanese ceasefires. He has been guilty of promising one thing to one party and the opposite to the other (an old vice):

He has promised the Right a return to war in Gaza, yet committed to the unequivocal end to war in the actual ceasefire agreement. In Lebanon, Israel was committed to withdrawal by 26 January on the one hand, yet its military is still there, provoking a human wave of Lebanese returning to the south, hoping to reclaim their homes. Consequently, Netanyahu at this juncture is utterly dependent on Trump. The PM’s wiles will not be enough to get him off the hooks: Trump has him where he wants him. Trump will get ceasefires, and will tell Netanyahu,no attack on Iran (at least until Trump has explored the possibility of a deal with Tehran). With Putin and with Russia, the opposite is the case. Trump there has no leverage (the favourite word in Washington). He has no leverage for four reasons:

Firstly, since Russia steadfastly refuses the idea of any compromise that “boils down to freezing the conflict along the line of engagement, that will give time to the U.S. and NATO to rearm the remnants of the Ukrainian army – and then start a new round of hostilities”. Secondly, because Moscow’s conditions for ending the war will prove to be unacceptable to Washington, as they would not be susceptible to being presented as an American ‘win’. Thirdly, because Russia holds the clear military advantage: Ukraine is about to lose this war. Major Ukrainian strongholds are now being taken by Russian forces without resistance. This ultimately will lead to a cascade effect. Ukraine may cease to exist if serious negotiations do not take place before summer, the head of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Kyrylo Budanov recently warned. But fourthly, because history is not reflected at all in the word leverage. When peoples who occupy the same geography have different and often irreconcilable versions of history, the western transactional ‘split the power spectrum’ simply doesn’t work. The opposed sides will not be moved – unless some solution recognises and takes account of their history.

“..because they don’t know what the heck else to do, the Dems are kneejerk opposing EVERYTHING..”

“.. There’s more “breaking news” in one day of Trump than six months of Biden. Team MAGA is churning through news cycles faster than a jackrabbit on Red Bull.”

• How the Democrats Became the Party of Puppets (Pinsker)

“There’s nothing new under the sun” is found in Ecclesiastes 1:9. But if the statement is correct, then the idea itself must be older than Ecclesiastes; otherwise, that would be something new under the sun. (Right? Or is my Vulcan-like grasp of logic experiencing carpal tunnel? Yeah, I think I’m right.) For the statement “There’s nothing new under the sun” to be truthful, by definition, someone else must’ve already made a similar observation. Which makes sense: Life gets tedious after a while. We all get into ruts of the same-old, same-old. Life is cyclical. If you live long enough, it’s pretty easy to identify all the different cycles. So maybe there really is nothing new under the sun. Heck, as one PJ Media reader pointed out, even my (seemingly original) idea to relocate the Palestinians to Greenland was a blatant rip-off of “The Golden Girls”: (My apologies to Ms. Rose Nylund and/or all the good people of Saint Olaf.)

Perhaps it’s the monotony of life that gives older folks a nagging, unavoidable sense of “been there, done that.” Like Jerry Seinfeld noted, once we realized we could make our own people, we lost interest in the rest of you: But political parties don’t have the luxury of avoiding the real world. Nor do they ever get to suspend operations for a few months and try a soft reboot. They’re always on, always engaged, always connected to current events. It’s less like a play — with actors, actresses, and a well-written script — and more like a never-ending conga line. New faces appear when old faces exit, but the choreography itself never changes. Too much institutional momentum. They’re not the only ones, of course. The GOP has its conga line as well; all political parties do. If politics can be analogized to a dance, then D.C. is a crowded, competitive, cutthroat dancehall.

But the difference today is, the Democrats want us to lead. This hasn’t happened since the early days of the George W. Bush administration, nearly 25 years ago. It’s a generational opportunity for the Republican Party. Usually, even when the Democrats are voted out of power, they shamelessly push their own agenda, manipulating the mainstream media to reframe every news cycle in pro-Democratic terms. They never interpret an electoral defeat as a repudiation of their ideas; instead, the culprit must be misinformation, or Russian interference, or the racist, sexist, homophobic voters. And so, they double down and keep on pushing forward. Not anymore. Not since Donald Trump walloped them in 2024, capturing an electoral landslide. They’re simply too shell-shocked.

It won’t last forever but right now, they’ve given up on their agenda. All they can do is follow Donald Trump’s lead: whatever he supports, they oppose. Which means, Donald Trump has a generational opportunity to rebrand the Democratic Party. Part of their rebranding is already underway. Because Trump is such a kinetic whirlwind of manic activity, he’s firing ideas and initiatives at a million miles a minute. (Those poor Democrats are drinking out of a firehose!) And because they don’t know what the heck else to do, the Dems are kneejerk opposing EVERYTHING. This might’ve worked if Trump moved as slowly as Biden, but Trump is still the Great Disruptor. There’s more “breaking news” in one day of Trump than six months of Biden. Team MAGA is churning through news cycles faster than a jackrabbit on Red Bull.

For the audience at home, the volume and content far exceed their bandwidth. They have lives of their own and can’t keep track of everything. So, from their perspective, Trump is constantly trying SOMETHING… and the Democrats are opposing EVERYTHING. And there’s a whole lot of “everything.” Which is why the Democrats are being rebranded as the party of pearl-clutching. WAH! They’re the party of crybabies.

Whatever Trump says or does, Democrats cry and scream and soil themselves. Every molehill is a mountain; every Republican is “literally Hitler” and “a threat to democracy.” There’s more Democratic “hysteria” than anything Def Leppard did in the 80s. Knowing this, Trump could do one helluva troll move: He can turn the Democratic Party into his puppets. By structuring his agenda specifically and methodically, he can pull their strings and walk them off the cliff. Trump can get ‘em to do whatever he wants — simply by doing the opposite. They can’t help themselves. They’re just too proud and stubborn to change. Once again, the Bible was eerily prescient: “Pride goeth before the fall” (Proverbs 16:18). So maybe there really isn’t anything new under the sun.

He won.

• Investor Demand For X Debt Upsized, Musk Sees Revenue Improving Rapidly (ZH)

Investors want a slice of X as Elon Musk’s social media platform becomes the epicenter of news distribution, while corporate leftist media outlets and their government-funded censorship cartel face a fiery demise (see: Politico). This follows a multi-year advertiser boycott led by mega-corporations and relentless lawfare by an army of leftist nonprofits in their attempt to destroy the platform. However, those efforts have failed, and Musk has gone on the offensive, positioning X for a year of success. In the latest report from The Wall Street Journal, top banks finished up a sale of debt backed by X. Sources familiar with the debt deal stated that the banks initially planned to sell around $3 billion in debt at 95 cents on the dollar. However, due to surging demand from large high-yield fund managers, the deal was upsized to $5.5 billion.

Buyers of the debt included Pimco and Citadel, who agreed to pay 97 cents on the dollar. The floating-rate debt carries an interest rate of 11%, with borrowing costs several percentage points higher than some of the riskiest loans on Wall Street. The upsized sale of X debt marks the end of the multi-year doom loop for Musk’s social media company. Since purchasing the platform in 2022, Musk has faced relentless advertiser boycotts and endless lawfare from shadowy leftist billionaire-funded nonprofit groups. However, X’s ability to circumvent the Biden-Harris regime’s censorship cartel and play a key role in the Trump-Vance presidential victory has placed Musk in Washington as a special government employee leading DOGE efforts. This, in return, has strengthened Wall Street’s confidence in X.

Additionally, Trump’s executive order on “restoring free speech and ending federal censorship” is expected to provide additional tailwinds for X and other alternative media platforms. This is yet another key driver of soaring optimism around X. Last Friday, X CEO Linda Yaccarino and Morgan Stanley bankers presented prospective investors with metrics showing the social media platform’s financial health was set to rebound in 2025.

Revenue should improve rapidly this year, as the advertising boycott winds down

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 6, 2025

“Revenue should improve rapidly this year, as the advertising boycott winds down,” Musk told one X user. WSJ noted: “Financial documents reviewed by investors showed that the artificial-intelligence company transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the social-media company, the people said. That money has helped X pay its bills and stay current on its obligations, the people said. Growing advertising revenue at X should mean fewer transfers in the coming months and years, the people said.” The financial documents said X now holds a 10% stake in xAI, valued at around $5 billion, people familiar with the matter said. The AI company last year was valued at $50 billion. Musk had previously posted that X investors would own 25% of xAI.

X also reported to the investors 2024 adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of about $1.25 billion and annual revenue of $2.7 billion. Investors said that was a better picture than they had expected and that X’s finances hit an inflection point a few months before the November election. In 2021, Twitter reported adjusted Ebitda of about $682 million and about $5 billion in revenue. That was the last full year before Musk took the company private.-WSJ . X’s debt sale is a big relief for banks…

“South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote solidarity, equality, & sustainability. In other words: DEI and climate change..”

• Rubio To Boycott G20 Meeting in South Africa (RT)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he will not attend a meeting of the G20 group in South Africa later this month because Pretoria is “doing very bad things.” The decision by the top American diplomat on Wednesday comes amid US President Donald Trump’s feud with the African country’s government over a new land ownership reform. South Africa will host the G20 foreign ministers’ summit in Johannesburg on February 20-21. Last December, Pretoria officially assumed the rotating presidency of the intergovernmental forum, which it will hand over to the US in November 2025. In a speech during the launch of Pretoria’s chairmanship in Cape Town, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said the group of 20 major economies has enough “shock absorbers” in place against an ‘America First’ policy by the Trump administration.

Ramaphosa promised to advance Africa and the Global South’s development priorities, including addressing the impacts of climate change. However, Trump has repeatedly opposed international cooperation on climate issues. Ramaphosa also announced that he has invited Trump to South Africa for a state visit and to the G20 summit in late 2025, where the US leader will take on the chairmanship role. “I will not attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg. South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote solidarity, equality, & sustainability. In other words: DEI and climate change,” Rubio wrote on X. “My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism,” he added.

In response, South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said on Thursday that Pretoria’s “G20 Presidency, is not confined to just climate change but also equitable treatment for nations of the Global South, ensuring equal global system for all.” President Trump said on Sunday that he is halting funding to South Africa, accusing the country’s government of “confiscating” land and “treating certain classes of people very badly.” The US leader declared that Washington “won’t stand” for Pretoria’s “massive human rights violation.” The threat followed the passage of the Expropriation Act by Pretoria aimed at addressing racial disparities in land ownership, a long-standing issue in Africa’s most advanced economy since Apartheid ended in 1994.

The government has set a target of transferring 30% of farmland from white farmers, who still own the majority of it, to their black counterparts by 2030. President Ramaphosa has defended the reform, saying his government “has not confiscated any land.” Foreign Minister Lamola also denied the US allegations on Thursday, stating that “there is no arbitrary dispossession of land” or private property under the new legislation. “This law is similar to the eminent domain laws,” he said, referring to US legislation that authorizes the federal government to acquire property for public use. On Monday, Ramaphosa’s office said he spoke with Trump’s close ally, South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, to clarify “issues of misinformation and distortions” after he also accused Pretoria of having “openly racist ownership laws.”

“.. the Administration is moving far more aggressively in this second term. If Trump wanted to defibrillate the federal system and shock the status quo, he is succeeding in doing so.”

• FBI Official Accused of Defying White House Reform Efforts (Turley)

Last week, some of us discussed concerns over the demand of the Trump Administration for the names of all FBI agents involved in January 6th cases. While noting that we did not have all of the details, I wrote that this would be a critical test for the Administration between reform and revenge. Line FBI agents should not face punishment for carrying out the orders of their superiors or courts. Now, the Trump Administration has offered additional information, alleging an alarming defiance by a high-ranking official in sharing information. If true, the controversy involving Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll is reminiscent of the entirely improper conduct of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove released a statement stating that FBI agents were never being rounded up or targeted for their work on the cases. A reported force of over 5,000 agents was assigned to these cases.

According to Bove, Driscoll refused to turn over the “core team” involved in Washington, D.C., in the cases as part of its review of the weaponization of the legal system under the Biden Administration. Bove’s memo stated that:“That insubordination necessitated, among other things, the directive in my January 31, 2025 memo to identify all agents assigned to investigations relating to January 6, 2021. In light of acting leadership’s refusal to comply with the narrower request, the written directive was intended to obtain a complete data set that the Justice Department can reliably pare down to the core team that will be the focus of the weaponization review pursuant to the Executive Order.”Bove dismissed allegations of a purging of the ranks:

“Let me be clear: No FBI employee who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner concerning January 6 investigations is at risk of termination or other penalties. The only individuals who should be concerned about the process initiated by my January 31, 2025 memo are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent, who blatantly defied orders from Department leadership, or who exercised discretion in weaponizing the FBI.” Again, we have not heard Driscoll’s side. Yet, I cannot understand the basis for an FBI official to refuse to share such information with his superiors in the Administration. One can raise concerns over the motivations or even the legality of measures taken against line agents. One can also object that there is no reason to collect the broader information after being allegedly denied the narrower request. However, the Administration has every right to such information, particularly as part of its long-promised review of the agency during the campaign.

The alleged defiance brought back memories from the start of the first Trump term. As previously discussed, Yates was lionized for her stance in the media. She was then selected as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in 2020 and presented as the personification of a new Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law. Yates declared: “I was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.” The problem is, she wasn’t. She was fired for telling an entire department not to defend a travel ban that ultimately was upheld as lawful. I was critical of the initial memorandum supporting the travel ban, particularly its failure to exempt lawful residents. However, I also said Trump’s underlying authority would likely be found constitutional. Despite revisions tweaking its scope and affected countries, opponents insisted it remained unlawful and discriminatory.

They continued to litigate on those same grounds all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost two years ago. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawaii that the president had the authority to suspend entry of noncitizens into the country based on nationality and had a “sufficient national security justification” for his order. It also held that, despite most of the banned countries being Muslim-majority, the ban “does not support an inference of religious hostility.” That is why Yates deserved to be fired. Yates issued her order shortly after learning of the travel ban and despite being told by Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel it was a lawful order. She never actually said it was unlawful, only that she was not sure and was not convinced it was “wise or just.”

Rather than working to address clear errors in the original ban, she issued her categorical order as she prepared to leave the department in a matter of days. Yates maintained afterward that she believed the ban might still be discriminatory, even with revisions. The courts rejected those claims. Yates was due to retire from Justice within days when she engineered her own firing. It made her an instant heroine and allowed her to denounce Trump at the convention for “trampl[ing] the rule of law, trying to weaponize our Justice Department.” But that’s precisely what she did when she ordered an entire department not to assist the recently elected president. It is not clear what transpired between Bove and Driscoll, but I cannot imagine a basis for refusing to share personnel information and records with the Trump Administration.

The initial coverage of the request clearly omitted this context and led to the usual media stampede declaring a purging of the ranks by political commissars. The irony is that, once again, the true story may be even more interesting in an alleged defiance of the Trump Administration within the FBI. We have seen recently the actual locking out of Trump officials from agencies like US AID, leading to a security official being placed on leave. As someone who covered the first Administration, this is a very different profile and approach. Trump learned in his first term how officials could stymie and delay reforms. That process has begun anew, including a plethora of lawsuits designed to slowdown such efforts. However, the Administration is moving far more aggressively in this second term. If Trump wanted to defibrillate the federal system and shock the status quo, he is succeeding in doing so.

I have no problem with officials raising concerns over possible personnel action against agents who were only carrying out their assigned tasks. These officials have a duty to advocate for their agents and insulate their institution from concerns over political retaliation. However, if the FBI refused to supply personnel information, it would move the matter from internal deliberation to outright defiance of a lawful order.

Putin is no longer Brussels’ enemy no. 1. Trump is.

• EU Plays Trump Card To Advance Its Globalist Agenda (Villamor)

The reappearance of Donald Trump on the international political scene has left Brussels in a state of panic. Considering the current international context, it could well signify a revolution within the European Union. However, the European Union, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, is using the American magnate’s return to power as a golden opportunity to strengthen its own supranational integration agenda, further weakening the sovereignty of member states and promoting a centralized vision of the European bloc. If the last term was an example of the ‘new Europe’ designed for us, the next four years will bring more of the same, but now tinged with a particular European patriotism in the face of the expansionism of the ‘Eagle Empire.’

During her speech at the Davos Forum in January this year, von der Leyen made the EU’s new approach clear: continuing climate policies and protecting “our European way of life” (whatever that means to EU leaders) against external threats, particularly those stemming from Donald Trump’s United States and China—after years of declaring that the main enemy was Vladimir Putin’s Russia. “The world is in a ‘race against time’ to tackle global challenges such as climate change and seize the opportunities of AI,” she stated during her speech at the World Economic Forum. Brussels’ stance is clear: continue decarbonizing at any cost. “Europe will continue to seek cooperation and is ‘open for business’ to those who wish to improve clean technology and expand digital infrastructure.”

It is no coincidence that this rhetoric aligns with Brussels’ attempts to reform the EU’s founding treaties, granting even more powers to European institutions at the expense of member states. Although the call on the Commission to initiate these reforms passed in the Parliament with only a paper-thin majority, there’s no doubt the efforts will continue in both institutions. Among the reforms under discussion is the elimination of the unanimity principle in the European Council, the only tool blocking Brussels from making key decisions without the consensus of all member states. There is also talk of creating new powers in taxation, defense, and energy policy, which would significantly curtail the autonomy of countries reluctant to follow the European Commission’s lead.

After Trump’s ascent, the U.S. is continuously being portrayed as an ‘imminent threat’ to European stability, enabling the EU to strengthen its control mechanisms and discipline countries that resist its directives. The European Commission is now promoting a narrative in which only a stronger and more united Europe can withstand the ‘winds’ of populism, protectionism, and the so-called far right. However, this strategy is not only aimed at consolidating power in Brussels. It also serves as a weapon to weaken patriotic and sovereignist movements that have gained strength across the continent. Growing public outrage over mass immigration, draconian climate policies, and the imposition of ideologies alien to national traditions has led to the rise of parties challenging the EU’s globalist consensus.

In response, the European establishment has intensified its offensive: any movement that questions Brussels’ agenda is immediately labeled as “far right”, “fascist”, or even “Nazi”. This phenomenon is not new but has become more aggressive in recent years. Censorship attempts, media persecution, and the systematic exclusion of dissenting voices from public debate have become normalized. Anyone opposing the EU’s policies is presented as a threat to democracy when, in reality, what is at stake is the ability of European peoples to decide their future—if such a possibility even exists today. The tactic is cheap but at least transparent: use the figure of Trump as a scarecrow to justify the centralization of power in Brussels and delegitimize political movements that challenge the EU’s ideological hegemony.

What we are witnessing is, in essence, a perfect excuse to push forward a project of forced integration that many Europeans have neither voted for nor approved. The supposed fight against populism is nothing more than a strategy to consolidate a political elite that refuses to accept that European societies are changing and that more and more citizens reject the progressive dogma imposed by Brussels. This is not the first time the EU has taken advantage of an external crisis to strengthen its control. It happened with the euro crisis when centralized austerity measures were implemented, with the COVID-19 pandemic, which facilitated the expansion of bureaucratic control, and with the war in Ukraine, which was used to justify energy and military policies without the necessary widespread consultation. Now, Trump is the new excuse. Will it also be an opportunity for change in the Old Continent?

“The European Left, like the American Left, devotes unlimited antagonism to anything that does not think like it, talk like it, dream, eat or work like it.”

• What Is Really Destroying Europe? The EU (Godefridi)

The founding idea of the European Union was to build, through shared prosperity, solidarity and a sense of shared destiny among the nations of Europe. That was why three communities were formed: the economy, coal and steel, and nuclear energy. Until around 2000, in terms of growth and innovation, the European economy, year in, year out, was on par with the American one. Of that initial — and fairly brilliant — gesture of “peace through prosperity,” literally nothing remains. None of the EU’s current leaders cares about the financial well-being of Europeans. Coal is regarded as the devil’s fuel, and nuclear energy is abhorred by Europe’s elites, who say they prefer the inefficient and erratic wind turbines. Since 2000, the European economy has been mired in stagnation, which has worsened since 2008 and threatens to reach its height in the coming years — ending in the destruction of Europe.

Green Deal
The EU is a web of institutions with which an American would find nothing familiar, so let us just say that this web is dominated by one institution: the European Commission. It is a kind of European “government'” with a monopoly on legislative initiatives. Nothing is voted on in the EU without the Commission’s assent. The Commission makes no secret of the fact that its absolute priority is the Green Deal: to turn Europe into a “Carbon Neutral Society” by 2050. This means achieving a balance between the greenhouse gas emissions produced and those absorbed by natural or technological carbon sinks. The EU’s key strategies to achieve this balance include reducing emissions by massively increasing the use of “renewable energy” sources such as solar, wind, hydro and biomass, improving the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles and industries, and moving towards low- or zero-emission industrial processes, particularly in steel, cement and chemicals.

They also aim to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to absorb and store CO2 from combustion sources or from the air. Carbon dioxide captured is typically stored in geological formations such as depleted natural gas fields, or old coal mines. In Europe, the North Sea seabed serves as an ideal location for carbon storage. The problem is that these CCS technologies are extremely expensive. Imposing them in the gigantic way that zero-carbon requires implies additional costs that are impossible for any developed economy to digest. That is probably why these fantastical CCS technologies play such a marginal role in Europe. The truth is that the reduction in CO2 emissions in Europe is almost exclusively due to industry leaving Europe. That is the dirty little secret of the Green Deal: Europe is reducing its CO2 emissions to the extent and in proportion to the destruction of its industry.

[..] If there is one reality that leaders whose power is founded on myths abhor, it is transparency. Whereas in 2020, the power of the American legacy media still allowed it to make people believe that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation operation, over the last few years, this power was been reduced to shreds. The same shift is happening in Europe, under the influence not of European social media networks, because they do not exist, but of American ones, such as X. The EU elite has lost control of the narrative. Europeans are turning away from the lies and myths of the Green Deal en masse. This is what the EU cannot tolerate. By adopting the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU wanted to give itself an instrument with which to subdue the American platforms, and are obliged to fund hordes of censors to hunt down content that disagrees with the European Queen-Commission. The EU has been requiring a fine of 6% of worldwide revenue from social media companies, which would inevitably kill off the platforms.

These faceless censor-hunters, who are accountable to no one, are supposed to remove all content that is hateful, discriminatory or transphobic. None of these vague terms can be rigorously defined. Given the absence of precise definitions, the censors do whatever they want. The arbitrariness is total. In practice, these censors massively quash so-called “right-wing” content, while leaving the abundant anti-Semitic, Islamist and Marxist literature untouched. That, apparently, is the whole point. The European Left, like the American Left, devotes unlimited antagonism to anything that does not think like it, talk like it, dream, eat or work like it. By introducing legislation such as the DSA, Europe is asserting itself as a major player in the censorship camp, following the example of China, Iran, Russia and Islamist countries, and contributing to the de-civilization of the European continent. After all, isn’t freedom the definition, the reason for being and the sole distinguishing criterion of Western civilization?

Milei took Argentina out as well yesterday.

• What to Know About US Withdrawal From the WHO (ET)

On the first day in office of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), making good on a project from his first administration. Trump’s Jan. 20 order halted U.S. funding to the United Nations body, citing the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China,” as well as other global health concerns. Negotiations with the group about a pandemic agreement and the International Health Regulations will be suspended while the withdrawal is taking place.Because of the 1948 joint resolution by Congress, the United States has the right to withdraw from the WHO, but it must give a one-year notice. The resolution also requires the United States to fulfill “financial obligations” to the WHO for the current fiscal year.

The United States is currently the largest WHO funder, contributing about $1.28 billion during 2022–2023, the last reported year on the organization’s website. That equates to almost half of the WHO’s joint external evaluation missions for the last fiscal year. The 2024–2025 fiscal year is shaping up similarly, with the United States serving as the largest donor by far, contributing an estimated $988 million, or roughly 14 percent of the WHO’s $6.9 billion budget. Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that the United States covers about 95 percent of the WHO’s work on tuberculosis in Europe and about 60 percent in Africa and the Western Pacific, and that the WHO’s Europe office is more than 8 percent reliant on U.S. contributions. Additionally, U.S. funding provides “the backbone of many of WHO’s large-scale emergency operations,” covering up to 40 percent of that funding.

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus described relations with the United States as “a good model partnership” during a press briefing in Geneva in December 2024. “[We] have been partnering for many years, and we believe that will be the case. And I believe the U.S. leaders understand that the United States cannot be safe unless the rest of the world is safe,” he told reporters. Following the announcement of Trump’s decision to remove the United States from the organization, Ghebreyesus spoke out, asking world leaders to push the White House to reverse the decision. The WHO chief said during a closed-door meeting with diplomats that the United States would miss out on critical information about disease outbreaks, The Associated Press reported.

George Kyriacou, the agency’s finance director, said if the WHO’s spending continues at its current level without funding from the United States, the organization would be “very much in a hand-to-mouth type situation” regarding cash flow for at least portions of 2026. Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have ordered agency employees to stop working with the WHO, effective immediately. John Nkengasong, the CDC’s deputy director for global health, sent a memo to agency leadership on Jan. 26 calling on staff to cease collaborating with the WHO immediately and wait for further guidance. CDC staff also are not allowed to engage with the WHO, virtually or in person, and staff members are not allowed to visit the WHO offices.

Some public health experts, including Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a professor of medicine and global health at UCLA who works with the WHO on sexually transmitted infections, have voiced concern about halting the collaboration.“Stopping communications and meetings with WHO is a big problem,” Klausner said. “People thought there would be a slow withdrawal. This has really caught everyone with their pants down.” The Trump administration said the WHO was not able to demonstrate independence from the “inappropriate political influence” of member states and had failed to “adopt urgently needed reforms.” The president’s executive order also cites “unfairly onerous payments” by the United States that Trump said are “far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.” “China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO,” the order stated.

This is Trump’s second attempt to withdraw from the WHO. The president began the process in 2020 because of frustration over the WHO’s reaction to China’s coverup of details surrounding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The House Oversight and Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a report in December 2024 on the WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, calling it “an abject failure.” According to the report, the WHO is accused of bending to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placing “China’s political interests ahead of its international duties.” As part of the alleged failure, the WHO reportedly ignored warnings by Taiwan on Dec. 31, 2019, about “atypical pneumonia cases” in Wuhan, which it asked the WHO to investigate. “The initial mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic not only potentially caused the further spread of the virus, but it created a situation where people lost trust in the global public health organization,” the report stated.

“Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”

• ‘Gov’t Is the People’s Business’: A Tribute to Ronald Reagan (Salgado)

On this day (Feb 6) in 1911, a boy was born who would go on to be one of the greatest American presidents: Ronald Reagan. “Government is the people’s business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid,” Reagan said. It is unfortunate that some even in his own party no longer value his legacy much, framing him as a status quo president. He was not — he was a fighter, a reformer, and a great man hated by domestic leftists and foreign Communists alike but beloved by the Americans to whom he brought morning again in America.

Of course, he didn’t just bring America out of the horrible economic and political nightmare of the Jimmy Carter years; he also brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. Rejecting short-sighted pleas to drop the line, he stood fearlessly in front of the Berlin Wall, the physical divide between the free West and the authoritarian East, and cried, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” When the Berlin Wall came crashing down in 1989, in spite of the naysayers and petty dictators, in the same year Reagan had left office, it was Reagan’s victory as much as it was a victory for all the Germans and other Europeans who had defied Soviet tyranny.

There were leftists who sneered at Reagan because he had been an actor, and there were leftists who hated him because he was a Republican not afraid to challenge corrupt politicians. But not even a bullet could stop him. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest and most successful presidents in American history. And Americans knew it so well that in the 1984 election, he won 49 out of 50 states. Like those of so many other great men, Reagan‘s words are not only applicable to his own day but often applicable to ours. America will always be fighting authoritarians, both foreign and domestic; we will always have to struggle to preserve our constitutional republic. Or, as Reagan himself put it, even years before he became president:

Perhaps you and I have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. How true it is that freedom is a fragile thing! Many individuals and groups, most notably the Democrat party, have been trying to limit or destroy our freedom for centuries now in America. Think how great the contrast has been between the Biden-Harris administration and the first couple weeks of the Trump administration.

Reagan knew what so many other politicians deny, that the rulers of America are supposed to be its citizens. “With all the profound wording of our federal Constitution, probably the most meaningful words are the first three, ‘We, the People,’” he said, in his same gubernatorial inaugural address quoted above. “And those of us here today who have been elected to constitutional office and to the legislature are in that three-word phrase. We are of the people, we are chosen by the people to see that no permanent structure of government ever encroaches on the people’s freedom or assumes a power beyond that which has freely been granted to us by the people. We stand between the taxpayer and the tax spender.”

The Founding Fathers would approve, but not the bureaucrats and political hacks who get into government only for their own benefit. It seems somewhat ironic that this address was originally delivered in California, when Reagan was becoming governor there. How far woke California has come from those days. Reagan must also have made his opponents squirm as he added, “Now, it is inconceivable to me that anyone could accept this delegated authority without asking God’s help. And I pray that we of the legislature and the administration can be granted the wisdom and the strength beyond our own limited powers. That with divine guidance we can avoid easy expedience. That we can work to build a state where liberty under law and justice can triumph, where compassion can govern and wherein the people can participate and prosper because of their government and not in spite of it.”

Dana

Peloton tried to cancel Theo Von for interviewing RFK Jr. on his podcast so Dana White responded by removing ALL Peloton bikes from his gyms.

Alpha males always stick together! pic.twitter.com/XshfPc61l0

— Nick Adams (@NickAdamsinUSA) February 5, 2025

Sunglasses

The link between Sunglasses and Health pic.twitter.com/aEHWYfRFAA

— Truthseeker (@Xx17965797N) February 5, 2025

Queen

Moments when the "Queen of the Night" flower blooms one night a year. pic.twitter.com/i5AffThzu1

— Interesting As Fuck (@interesting_aIl) February 5, 2025

Mariana
https://twitter.com/i/status/1887327855882735634

Chirodectes

One of the rarest animal sightings in the world: chirodectes maculatus, only seen once before pic.twitter.com/xjtffBNsTu

— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) February 5, 2025

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

Older Entries