Menu Icon

Debt Rattle May 5 2025

May 052025
 
 May 5, 2025  Posted by at 9:51 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  40 Responses »


Felix Vallotton On the beach 1899

 

• Russia Alone in Confronting Entire Collective West – Putin (Sp.)
• Russia Standing Alone Against West – Putin (RT)
• The Summit In The Sand – Putin To Meet Trump In Abu Dhabi May 15-16 (Helmer)
• Ukraine Ignores Russia’s Truce Request, Prepares To Sabotage Victory Day (SCF)
• No Peace And No Respect: Zelensky Threatens The May 9 Parade (Pacini)
• No Ukraine in EU Without Budapest’s Approval – Orban (RT)
• Slovak PM Fico Pledges To Defy ‘Unacceptable’ Zelensky Threats (RT)
• Musk Reacts To Video of Forced Mobilization In Ukraine (RT)
• How to Win the PR War on Tariffs (Scott Pinsker)
• Trump Just Got a Game-Changing Legal Victory (Matt Margolis)
• Trump Orders Reopening Of Notorious Alcatraz Prison (NYP)
• Trump Will Start Nominating Federal Judges ‘Rapidly’ (DS)
• Trump’s 100 Days and the Legal War in Washington (Hans von Spakovsky)
• Romania Hits All-Time Low With Fake Elections, Manipulated By The EU (Jay)
• Right Wing George Simion Wins First Round of Voting in Romania (CTH)
• The Bell Tolls for All White Gentile Ethnicities (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

 

 

Biden’s the worst thing that ever happened to old people :-))

Ballroom

JD

Bannon
https://twitter.com/JanJekielek/status/1918696577448747095

FSD+

Sachs

GOP
https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/1918972872988512416

Roosevelt

 

 

 

 

“..if Russia doesn’t rely on its traditional values, it risks losing its identity, and, ultimately, its existence.”

• Russia Alone in Confronting Entire Collective West – Putin (Sp.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia did not initiate its military operation in Ukraine any earlier because it believed in the Minsk agreements and aimed to resolve the Donbass issue peacefully. Russia did not prepare specifically for a military operation, but instead sought a peaceful resolution to the Donbass conflict, Vladimir Putin told journalist Pavel Zarubin in a documentary dedicated to the 25th anniversary since the president’s first inauguration. The country could not proceed with drastic action on Ukraine without first addressing key issues in the spheres of security and the economy. The president pointed out that the United States is now openly acknowledging that the West is engaged in an existential war with Russia. Putin emphasized that Russia is essentially standing alone in its confrontation with the collective West.

Until 2022, Russia had approached agreements with its Western partners with cautious trust. The signing of the Minsk agreements was a hopeful moment for Russia, expecting compliance from all parties. However, Putin pointed out that the country was ultimately deceived. The West used the pause under the guise of complying with the Minsk agreements to rearm Ukraine and prepare for war with Russia, he added. Putin said that as Western companies began to leave Russia, many risks loomed over the country’s economy. But despite these challenges, Russia did not fall into crisis, thanks to strong economic fundamentals that kept the country resilient. The president underscored the danger of a nation becoming too dependent on external factors, stressing that if Russia doesn’t rely on its traditional values, it risks losing its identity, and, ultimately, its existence.

Read more …

“I was responsible for the future of the country. Of course, I began working to ensure that this never happened..”

• Russia Standing Alone Against West – Putin (RT)

Russia is standing alone against the West, which is waging an “existential war” against the country, President Vladimir Putin has said. Putin made the remarks in a documentary titled ‘Russia. Kremlin. Putin. 25 years,’ filmed by Rossiya-1 broadcaster and released on Sunday. The film marks the 25-year anniversary of Putin becoming the country’s president for the first time. He inaugurated on May 7, 2000. The documentary features conversations between Putin and journalist Pavel Zarubin on various matters, including the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, as well as a broader conflict between Moscow and the West. “Russia is essentially standing alone against the collective West. This required a serious attitude to the possible development of the situation in this particular sense,” Putin stated.

It has been clear from the early 2000s that the West has been acting “insidiously” against Russia, speaking about one thing and doing the opposite, Putin noted. The West’s failure to hear Russia’s repeated warnings, as well as its refusal to fully recognize the country’s sovereignty and respect its national interests, has ultimately led to the ongoing crisis, the president explained. “This ‘civilized world’ decided that Russia had weakened, historical Russia called the Soviet Union had collapsed, and the remaining parts needed to be finished off. The largest of them was the Russian Federation, and it also needed to be partitioned into 4-5 pieces. I was responsible for the future of the country. Of course, I began working to ensure that this never happened,” he said.

Moscow has repeatedly described the hostilities in Ukraine as a Western proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainians are being used as “cannon fodder.” Russian officials have argued that the US and other Western powers intentionally escalated tensions by disregarding Moscow’s security concerns over NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe and its growing military cooperation with Ukraine. Russia and the collective West ended up locked into an “existential war,” Putin stressed, adding that many in the West have now openly admitted that. Back in March, for instance, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the conflict as “frankly, a proxy war between nuclear powers – the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia” and said the West should abandon its dead-end strategy of propping up Kiev “for as long as it takes.”

Putin

Read more …

Only reference to this meeting I have seen.

• The Summit In The Sand – Putin To Meet Trump In Abu Dhabi May 15-16 (Helmer)

After the Victory Day celebration later this week, President Vladimir Putin has agreed to hold a summit meeting with President Donald Trump. “The Americans have repeatedly asked for a summit and the Kremlin has finally decided,” according to a reliable Moscow source, “that there is no need to spurn the extended hand.” The source believes Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is the likely location. Preparatory discussions were held last week in Moscow when Putin telephoned the UAE President, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The Kremlin communiqué claimed “the current state of Russia-UAE relations…constitute a strategic partnership and…enables ongoing dialogue even on the most sensitive international issues.” That was on May 1. The next day Putin met with Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, one of the President’s sons and his personal security chief, titled deputy prime minister.

The Moscow source says “the messages have been sent that it will not be a conclusive deal, only a meeting. This is a climb-down from the previous, public Russian position that a lot of work needs to be done first, before a presidential summit, by specialists. The Russians have understood there are no specialists on the US side yet, and the opportunity is right to shake hands first, then work out the details later.” The White House press spokesman has announced Trump “will travel to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates [in this order] from May 13th, until May 16th.” “It’s a display of the Russian hand of friendship and mutual security,” the Moscow source adds. “The Americans are offering nothing concrete but we believe Trump is disposed to giving Russia the security steps it needs.”

The source says the Kremlin is “neither surprised nor disappointed” at Trump’s May 1 tweet declaring that “many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II.” “It shows you how foolish the Kremlin faction was which has advocated inviting Trump to Red Square for May 9. Putin will give Trump his PR opportunity – but in the sand, not in Red Square.” The shift in the Moscow consensus – from resistance on the part of the General Staff, the intelligence agencies, and the Foreign Ministry – has followed remarks by Vice President JD Vance. “It’s going to be up to them [Russia and Ukraine] to come to agreement and stop this brutal, brutal conflict,” he said on Friday (May 2).

“It’s not going anywhere right [now]. It’s not going to end any time soon…Look, I am optimistic, but it’s hard to say…confident because the Russians and the Ukrainians – they’re the ones who have to take the final step. We got ‘em talkin’. We got ‘em offering peace proposals. We got the minerals deal done. I think we’re in a place where they’ve got to say we’re done with the fighting…but only Russia and Ukraine can make that decision. That’s not something even President Trump can do for ‘em.” In Moscow this is interpreted as acceptance by Washington that the war will continue on Russia’s terms – slow advance westward, no massed offensive – and that it’s now up to “direct” negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to reach an agreement.

“This is a double signal prompting Putin”, another Moscow source says, “to agree to a summit meeting with Trump now without preconditions and without pressure to agree on the Kellogg or Witkoff term sheets. In all likelihood, this will be a feel-good summit. No negotiations at all.” The source adds a caution. “The planned meeting may be derailed at the last minute if the Ukrainians violate the Victory Day ceasefire [between May 8 and 11], and if Trump is either shown to be incapable of controlling the Kiev regime, or duplicitous in aiding the violations. If the Ukrainians do not observe it, the Russians will hit back hard, very hard, and then ask Trump if he still wants to meet. It might go to the wire.”

Read more …

“As the world prepares to honor those who gave their lives in the fight against fascism, Kiev prepares to attack those who once defeated Ukraine’s infamous so-called “heroes.”

• Ukraine Ignores Russia’s Truce Request, Prepares To Sabotage Victory Day (SCF)

Behind its “democratic” rhetoric and constant appeals for Western support, the Kiev regime continues to display its true nature: belligerent, provocative, and increasingly engaged in terrorist practices. The most recent demonstration of this is Ukraine’s plan to sabotage the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, scheduled for May 9, 2025—a date that symbolizes the Soviet Union’s triumph over Nazism and thus holds profound historical and civilizational significance for Russia and the world. Despite ongoing international tensions, leaders from more than 20 countries have confirmed their attendance at the event. Among them are high-profile figures such as Presidents Lula da Silva (Brazil), Ibrahim Traoré (Burkina Faso), Nicolás Maduro (Venezuela), To Lam (Vietnam), Miguel Díaz-Canel (Cuba), and Aleksandar Vucic (Serbia), along with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.

The diversity of the guest list highlights that the event goes far beyond Russia’s national interest—it stands as a global tribute to the defeat of fascism and a reaffirmation of our shared historical memory. However, on the other side of the border, in Kiev, President Vladimir Zelensky’s government is taking a radically different path. According to diplomatic and intelligence sources, Ukrainian authorities have openly discussed the possibility of launching provocations and terrorist attacks to disrupt the Moscow event. The presence of foreign dignitaries does not appear to deter such plans, revealing a flagrant disregard for basic norms of international law and diplomatic conduct. Zelensky himself, in recent statements, advised world leaders not to attend the May 9 parade, a clear attempt to sow fear and discourage participation.

His suggestion that the event may be targeted echoes earlier remarks in which he stated that “they are worried their parade is under threat—and they should be,” signaling awareness of or complicity in potential sabotage operations. These threats are not vague or speculative. Influential figures within Ukrainian nationalist circles, such as Dmitry Korchinsky—the leader of the radical “Bratstvo” party—have used social media to call on followers to prepare terrorist attacks on Russian soil. In public messages, Korchinsky even recommended planting improvised explosive devices in Moscow’s Red Square ahead of the celebration and proposed using fiber-optically guided drones. The range of potential attacks is wide and deeply concerning: from direct terrorist acts in Moscow and other Russian cities to infrastructure sabotage, targeted assassinations, disinformation campaigns, and psychological operations.

There is also evidence suggesting the possible deployment of foreign mercenaries and nationalist militant groups such as the “Freedom of Russia Legion” or the “Sheikh Mansur Battalion” to destabilize Russian border regions like Belgorod, Bryansk, and Kursk. A full-scale incursion by the Ukrainian regular army into these regions to spread panic and terror cannot be ruled out. In contrast, Russia has formally called for a ceasefire during the Victory Day period—a humanitarian gesture that any state truly committed to international law and human rights should respect. However, all indications suggest that Kiev will not only ignore this appeal but will deliberately violate it. This reinforces the growing perception that the Ukrainian regime acts as a perpetual agent of destabilization, supported—either tacitly or explicitly—by the West.

By aligning themselves with a government that threatens to sabotage a historic and internationally respected commemoration of the defeat of Nazism, Western countries are, whether knowingly or not, siding with reckless historical revisionism and disorder. This raises a serious question: how far are NATO allies willing to go in tolerating the increasingly extreme methods of the Kiev regime? As the world prepares to honor those who gave their lives in the fight against fascism, Kiev prepares to attack those who once defeated Ukraine’s infamous so-called “heroes.” The West and its institutions may absolve the Maidan junta—but History will judge it differently.

Read more …

“The invitation, as is well known, was also extended to US President Donald Trump, in continuation of the peace talks that have been ongoing since January..”

• No Peace And No Respect: Zelensky Threatens The May 9 Parade (Pacini)

Volodymyr Zelensky, in his delusions as self-proclaimed president-without-end of Ukraine, continues to spout nonsense even during this festive period: referring to the May 9 celebrations, he rejected Vladimir Putin’s proposal for a truce, similar to what happened at Easter. Unfortunately, the rejection was widely predictable, as is the fact that he will try to provoke Russia at the height of the celebrations. Zelensky has called for a 30-day ceasefire, which Russia has no reason to accept given the situation on the battlefield, which is entirely in Russia’s favor. On the other hand, Putin has always said, since the beginning of the SMO, that he would only agree to stop the war permanently, i.e., through genuine and comprehensive peace negotiations, as is customary in diplomacy.

The arrogance of Washington’s puppet knows no bounds, remaining completely outside the bounds of diplomatic decorum. Not even in the worst war schools would they have gone this far. It is almost embarrassing how the Ukrainian president is seeking direct confrontation at all costs. It is no longer a simple repetition of provocation, it is much more: it is a strategy to exhaust the enemy’s patience. The most suicidal move one could attempt. Zelensky has also stated that Ukraine cannot guarantee the safety of the leaders who will participate in the May 9 parade in Red Square. We are witnessing an explicit threat against heads of state who, in theory, could apply restrictive measures and sanctions against Ukraine if they wanted to. How can it come to this? It is a wicked statement.

Clearly, no one is afraid of the threat posed by the ‘loneliest man in the world’, the leader ignored by all, who, like a parasite, has sucked money from European states and NATO members in the name of an impossible war, protecting only his own interests. Imagine you have a crazy friend whom you would never give anything important to do because you are afraid he might ruin everything. That’s Zelensky. But now it’s time to stop playing games. If Ukraine really attacks Moscow, the retaliation will be devastating. And so will the international response. Numerous politicians from around the world are expected in Moscow on May 9. The invitation, as is well known, was also extended to US President Donald Trump, in continuation of the peace talks that have been ongoing since January, as well as to Chinese President Xi Jinping, at a time of particular tension between the US and China.

Once again, it is a lesson in life and diplomacy. Russia seeks mediation and puts it into practice with authority, being in an international position where it certainly does not have to ask anyone’s permission; on the contrary, it sets an example. An example that Kiev should keep in mind. The opportunity is of enormous value: symbolically, it is the repetition of a principle that has been engraved in history, that of anti-fascism and the historical truth of the defeat of Nazism in Europe thanks to Soviet Russia. It is also the repetition of an objective historical victory of socialism, in the Soviet model, over the other ideologies of a century ago (a victory that did not last uninterrupted, unfortunately suffering a severe blow from liberalism after 1989). And today, it is a sign of a clear desire: to reunite the peoples of Eurasia in a bloc that will serve as a guide for all peoples who do not want to submit to Western hegemony, under any name or flag.

Read more …

“..Orban warned that Ukraine’s EU membership “would bankrupt the Hungarian economy,” describing Kiev’s potential accession as a “collective economic trap.”

• No Ukraine in EU Without Budapest’s Approval – Orban (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky have clashed over Kiev’s prospects of joining the EU. Orban reminded the Ukrainian leader that Kiev has no chance of becoming part of the bloc without Budapest’s approval. The war of words started on Friday when Orban warned that Ukraine’s EU membership “would bankrupt the Hungarian economy,” describing Kiev’s potential accession as a “collective economic trap.” The Hungarian leader also criticized the EU’s goal of admitting Ukraine by 2030, a target recently reiterated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “We know when they want to bring them in. It’s not some vague future; it’s here, knocking at our door,” he said. “Forget the fairy tales about when and how. They want to do it now, as fast as possible.”

Zelensky responded by citing domestic polling in Hungary. “70% support Ukraine joining the EU. That means people in Hungary are with us,” Zelensky claimed. However, the poll conducted by the opposition Tisza Party to which Zelensky referred showed only 58% support. An earlier poll by the Hungarian newspaper Nepszava showed even lower figures, with 47% in favor and 46% against. Orban fired back at Zelensky on X, writing: “What the Hungarian people think is not decided by the president in Kiev or the bureaucrats in Brussels. There is no Ukrainian EU accession without Hungary. Every Hungarian will have their say on this. Whether you like it or not. That’s how we do things here.”

All EU member states must unanimously approve any new country joining the bloc. Hungary has repeatedly cited widespread graft and minority rights issues as reasons to oppose Ukraine’s fast-track membership, with Orban at one point describing the nation as “one of the most corrupt countries in the world.” Ukraine, which has designated EU membership as a national priority, formally applied to join the bloc in February 2022, just days after the escalation of hostilities with Russia. Despite support from several EU members, the timeline for Ukraine’s membership remains uncertain. Brussels has cited the need for Kiev to undertake significant legal, political, and economic reforms.

Read more …

“..Fico, however, stated that the threats issued by Kiev would not deter him from participation in the commemoration.“In my opinion, it’s ridiculous. I reject such threats..”

• Slovak PM Fico Pledges To Defy ‘Unacceptable’ Zelensky Threats (RT)

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has confirmed he will attend Russia’s Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on May 9, dismissing warnings by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of potential security risks as “ridiculous.” The May 9 parade in Moscow will mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Kremlin has extended invitations to the event to the leaders of Serbia, Slovakia, China, India, and Brazil, among others. In April, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed a unilateral 72-hour ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict to coincide with the Victory Day celebrations. Zelensky rejected the offer, labeling it a “theatrical performance” and advocated for a more substantial, unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Russian officials argue that a new temporary truce would simply allow Kiev to regroup and rearm.

Earlier this week Zelensky urged foreign leaders to avoid visiting Moscow, citing potential security risks. Russian officials accused Zelensky of endangering the safety of civilians attending the May 9 events. Fico, however, stated that the threats issued by Kiev would not deter him from participation in the commemoration.“In my opinion, it’s ridiculous. I reject such threats,” Fico said at a press conference on Sunday. “I will go to the celebrations of the 80th anniversary [of Victory Day in Moscow].” Fico claimed Zelensky was effectively warning invited leaders not to attend, with the veiled threat that Ukraine might retaliate in some way. “Well, celebrate, we might throw you a drone or something like that. These are unacceptable things for me,” he said.

Referring to Zelensky’s claim that Kiev could not guarantee the security of attending leaders, Fico responded: “If Zelensky thinks that his cries will prevent foreign delegations from coming there, it is a huge mistake. Ensuring the security of participants [in the celebrations] is the responsibility of the Russian Federation,” said the Slovak prime minister. The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, warned in April that the bloc does not want any member or candidate states attending. During a meeting last month with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, who earlier pledged to attend, EC Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos reportedly cautioned that his attendance would be held against Serbia in its bid to join the EU. Fico recommended “Kallas and others to deal with more serious problems than whether I will go or not to the celebration of the 80th anniversary.”

Read more …

“Elon Musk has drawn attention to a viral video showing Ukrainian military recruiters forcibly detaining a deliveryman in Lutsk..”

• Musk Reacts To Video of Forced Mobilization In Ukraine (RT)

Elon Musk has drawn attention to a viral video showing Ukrainian military recruiters forcibly detaining a deliveryman in Lutsk, in the western part of the country. Kiev has pursued a violent mobilization campaign for months, often resulting in clashes between reluctant civilians and military personnel. On Saturday, a media user on X shared a video showing three Ukrainian soldiers approaching a man on a bicycle carrying a large yellow bag and wearing a vest, who appears to be a delivery worker. After a brief conversation, the soldiers attempt to drag him into a white van parked nearby, but he resists. Following a struggle, the recruitment officers manage to shove the man into the vehicle, which then drives off. The fate of the detainee is unknown. Reacting to the video, Musk posted “!!” on his social media platform. The X owner and close ally of US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on the Ukrainian leadership to sign a ceasefire with Russia to avoid further casualties.

Last November, he also criticized reported calls by the US government for Ukraine to lower the minimum conscription age to 18, writing: “How many more need to die?” On Friday, another mobilization video from Lutsk surfaced on social media, with recruitment officers – potentially driving the same van as in the first clip – forcibly detaining a man riding a scooter. Ukraine announced a general mobilization following the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, barring most men 18 to 60 years old from leaving the country. In 2024, faced with manpower shortages and mounting losses, Kiev lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25, while introducing stricter penalties for draft evasion and tightening other mobilization rules. As the mobilization drive continues, numerous videos have emerged on social media showing Ukrainian officials trying to forcibly recruit reluctant civilians, often leading to violent clashes.

Read more …

How to win? Talk about jobs. Talk about no income taxes.

“If we can lift 800 million Chinese peasants out of poverty, then there’s no excuse for leaving any Americans behind..”

• How to Win the PR War on Tariffs (Scott Pinsker)

“In a few moments, I will sign a historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world, reciprocal. That means they do it to us and we do it to them, very simple, can’t get any simpler than that.” —Donald Trump’s very first mention of tariffs during the May 2 “Liberation Day” event.

That was an honest lead, but it wasn’t optimal PR. There are zillions of truthful, accurate, interesting facts about tariffs. It’s a complex subject that’s intertwined with global trade, international diplomacy, geography, history, and economic policy — textbooks can (and certainly have) been written about it. You could yak about it 24/7 for a decade and still find something new to say. When it comes to tariffs and PR, there’s an embarrassment of riches. I know that sounds like a good thing, but it’s actually a problem.

[..] Experts in highly skilled fields (engineers, medical, tech) are often difficult to train for media appearances… because they know so damn much! For example, if a doctor is representing a hospital during a news segment and is asked about a new procedure they’re offering, he’ll instinctively want to share all the info he’s most excited about: the new research, new clinical studies, new data, new equipment, and new theories! To a doctor, all that stuff is incredibly important — and medically relevant, too. He’s right. But the guy sitting at home just wants to know if it’ll make him feel better. Truth and tactics are different. Let’s get back to tariffs. More often than not, the standard MAGA answer for “why” is twofold: Liberation Day was necessary because other countries were ripping us off, and because what they’ve been doing to us is unfair.

Fairness is almost always accentuated. Even the name reflects it: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on Trade. In fact, that was the very first bullet-point listed under the announcement: The “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” will seek to correct longstanding imbalances in international trade and ensure fairness across the board. Well, fairness is very nice. Most people would support that. But fairness to whom? The guy sitting at home doesn’t associate himself with global trade. He’s indifferent to Walmart’s stock price. For him, tariffs are connected to higher prices.[..] Tariffs are about FAIRNESS, eh?! The way it’s currently being positioned, it sounds a helluva lot “fairer” for those big corporations than for the guy at home, ‘cause he’s the one who’s gonna pay more! Those rich guys don’t seem to be suffering. Asking Joe Sixpack to sacrifice so Walmart, Apple, Google, and Boeing can claim a bigger piece of the pie is a pretty big ask.

Other countries’ tariffs have been grossly unfair and decidedly un-reciprocal; that’s a true statement. And even the media doofuses who’ll call Trump a liar at the drop of a (red) hat are actually taking his word on tariffs: Trump really, truly believes that other countries were unfairly ripping us off; it’s not a put-on. Nobody’s doubting the sincerity of his convictions. But for PR purposes, we need to recalibrate the trajectory of who is being ripped off: We don’t want our audience to think about the Walmarts, Apples, and Boeings of the world. We want them to think about themselves. If the American people personalize this issue — i.e. if they identify with the struggle — then MAGA will win the political war over tariffs. And if they don’t? We won’t. The answer, then, to WHY we have tariffs must always be a four-lettered word: JOBS!

“Fairness” is an abstraction; a job is tangible. I’d be furious with the politician who gave me higher prices, just so Google’s shareholders could make more money — but I’ll gladly sacrifice so my friends, neighbors, and colleagues will have better jobs. Everyone recognizes the value of high-paying jobs. The American economy is unfathomably large. It’s the envy of the world. It’s so big and prosperous, we’ve employed BILLIIONS of foreign nationals over the last 40 years! We’ve made hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Europeans, and others incredibly wealthy. Since 1978, global trade has lifted 800 million Chinese people out of poverty. Good for them. Maybe the limousine liberals in the Democratic Party haven’t noticed, but our own people are hurting. We need to lift our friends and neighbors out of poverty, too. There aren’t enough good jobs available!

If we can lift 800 million Chinese peasants out of poverty, then there’s no excuse for leaving any Americans behind. So, this isn’t just “Make AMERICA Great Again” — it’s Make AMERICANS Great Again. This is about us! There’s an affordability epidemic in our country: 67% of Americans now believe that homeownership is “unrealistic” for young people. It’s gotten so bad, 73.8% of millennials are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Without your own home, it’s really tough to raise children. And without more children, our entire system collapses. It’s literally an existential threat. Unless we bring high-paying jobs back to our country ASAP, our children and grandchildren won’t have a country left anymore — because greedy, corrupt politicians gave our country away in crooked trade deals. The status quo was destroying the American Dream.

Read more …

“The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration’s personnel actions and funding decisions..”

• Trump Just Got a Game-Changing Legal Victory (Matt Margolis)

When President Trump returned to the White House, he didn’t just get to work cleaning up Joe Biden’s mess—he set his sights on dismantling decades of entrenched bureaucratic bloat, waste, and corruption. With a relentless series of executive orders and policy directives, Trump reignited his mission to drain the swamp—this time with laser precision and zero patience for the status quo. Predictably, the left went into full-blown panic mode. Liberal legal groups immediately launched a barrage of lawsuits, cherry-picking friendly courts in a shameless attempt to stall Trump’s agenda. They’re terrified of losing control over the bloated regulatory state they’ve used for years to push policies they could never pass through Congress. But that strategy just hit a major roadblock.

In a landmark ruling on Saturday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a decisive legal victory—one that could fundamentally change how activist judges and forum-shopped cases interfere with executive authority. “This is a huge victory for President Trump and his Article II powers granted in the United States Constitution. It’s also a victory for US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and VOA,” Kari Lake told Fox News Digital. Lake now serves as a USAGM senior advisor to the Trump administration. “We are eager to accomplish President Trump’s America First agenda which has always been to modernize and make our government efficient while cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.” The appeals court’s 2-1 ruling Saturday emphasized the judiciary’s deference to executive authority in matters concerning federal employment and contractual decisions.

The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the administration’s personnel actions and funding decisions, particularly regarding grant agreements with non-federal entities like Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. This ruling Trump’s March 14 executive order (EO), which aimed to dismantle USAGM operations. This ruling effectively reins in district courts that have been sidestepping proper jurisdictional channels in cases challenging Trump administration actions. The decision serves as a clear reminder that courts themselves must operate within their prescribed legal boundaries. According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point: jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications.

As Cleveland explains, many of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate. The court’s decision also strikes at the heart of a broader legal strategy being used by leftist groups to stymie Trump’s reforms—namely, the claim that the administration is engaging in “wholesale dismantling” of agencies. But as the ruling makes clear, the Administrative Procedure Act was never designed to handle such broad-based political grievances, and Congress never waived sovereign immunity to allow them. In another key point, the court found that the lower court also overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts. All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.

The significance of this decision extends far beyond these specific cases—it establishes clear jurisdictional parameters that could affect dozens of pending lawsuits against Trump administration policies. While the administration won’t prevail in every case, this ruling suggests courts may need to more carefully consider their jurisdictional authority before issuing sweeping injunctions against executive actions.

Read more …

Strong symbols.

• Trump Orders Reopening Of Notorious Alcatraz Prison (NYP)

President Trump called on his administration to reopen and expand Alcatraz so authorities could send the “dregs of society” to the notorious California prison more than six decades after it closed. The commander in chief announced Sunday that he was directing the Bureau of Prisons and other federal agencies to get the massive island facility off the San Francisco bay — which has long been the lore of Hollywood — back up and running again to lock away homegrown, repeat criminals. “For too long, America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat Criminal Offenders, the dregs of society, who will never contribute anything other than Misery and Suffering,” he wrote on Truth Social. “When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm.

“That’s the way it’s supposed to be. No longer will we tolerate these Serial Offenders who spread filth, bloodshed, and mayhem on our streets.” Trump, 78, also said the “substantially enlarged and rebuilt” prison would “serve as a symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE.” But the logistics behind the presidential order are thornier. The island is now a major tourist attraction that is run by the National Parks Service and attracts thousands of visitors each year. It’s also a designated National Landmark. Alcatraz was initially closed because its infrastructure was crumbling and it was too expensive to keep running — given all food, supplies and other necessities had to be delivered by boat. The facility was operated as a major federal detention center between 1934 and 1963 and was nearly inescapable because the island was surrounded by strong currents and ice-cold water. Some of its most famous prisoners included gangsters Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly.

The island has become the subject of several Hollywood blockbusters, including “The Rock,” starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage and the 1979 film “Escape from Alcatraz,” starring Clint Eastwood. During Alcatraz’s 29 years as a prison, 36 men made a bid for freedom — with nearly all of them dying or getting captured by guards. To this day, it remains unknown if three inmates – brothers John and Clarence Anglin, and fellow inmate Frank Morris – successfully made it off the island alive during their attempted escape in 1962. Trump, in his social media post, said the country can’t be held hostage by “criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally.” The Republican has railed against federal judges who have slowed his effort to boot alleged gangbangers and ship them off to the infamous El Salvador megaprison.

Just last Thursday, District Judge Fernando Rodriguez – who was appointed by Trump – blocked the US government from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump also ordered the FBI, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to help get Alcatraz reopened. The president previously reopened a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, where criminal migrants have been sent. When that announcement was made in late January, one of the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., floated the idea of dumping prisoners in Alcatraz. “Now this is a great idea,” he said in reference to Guantanamo Bay. “Maybe we should also reopen Alcatraz?!?!”

Read more …

“..we have thousands of murderers in this country, we’re getting them out and they say ‘we don’t want them out, we want them to stay in our country until we have a trial..”

• Trump Will Start Nominating Federal Judges ‘Rapidly’ (DS)

President Donald Trump will nominate federal judges “rapidly,” he told The Daily Signal on Sunday night. “We’re putting them in rapidly and trying to get very good ones, but we need judges that are not going to be demanding trials for every single illegal immigrant,” Trump said on Air Force One. “We have millions of people that have come here illegally, and we can’t have a trial for every single person, that would be millions of trials.” Trump is off to a slower start in nominating judges than his first term, having only nominated one federal judge, Whitney Hermandorfer, who will serve on the 6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio. About 100 days into Trump’s first term, the Senate had already confirmed a new Supreme Court justice, Trump had nominated an appeals court judge, and several other prominent judicial nominees were in the queue to be announced within days.

But according to the president, his slow start to judicial nominations is about to morph into a sprint. Trump said America needs federal judges who won’t insist on a trial for the deportation of every illegal immigrant. “The people elected me in a landslide… We won every swing state… by big numbers… not only swing state, but the popular vote by millions of votes… they elected me, this was the number one issue,” Trump said, “and now we have judges that are radicalized, and they’re crazy because … if you believe this, they want us to have a trial for every person that came illegally into our country.” “So they come into our country illegally, and we’re supposed to take weeks, I guess, and months to have a trial, you want every criminal, and we have murderers that are all over the country,” the president continued. “I don’t think the Supreme Court will stand for that, I can’t believe it, because you know what? If they do, we’re not gonna have a country.”

The Daily Signal asked the president how he will ensure his nominations are different than the judges blocking his agenda, and he said all he can do is his best. “All you can do is do the best you can,” he said. “You try to appoint the best people to being judges or anything else that you appoint, but so far you know we’re very disappointed with the decisions that come out, mostly from people appointed by others than me.” “But it’s so hard to believe that you have a murderer, you know we have 11,888 or whatever the number is, we have thousands of murderers in this country, we’re getting them out and they say ‘we don’t want them out, we want them to stay in our country until we have a trial,’” Trump said. Trials take years, and America doesn’t have that much time to curb illegal immigration, according to the 47th president. “They take years,” he said. “It’s so crazy. We won’t have a country left. We can’t have that happen.”

Read more …

” If the Supreme Court doesn’t take steps to do that, Congress may remove it from the court’s hands and deal with the problem itself.

• Trump’s 100 Days and the Legal War in Washington (Hans von Spakovsky)

During his first 100 days in office, President Donald Trump acted with unprecedented speed to make major changes in government policies and root out the pervasive waste, fraud, and diversity, equity, and inclusion poisoning our government and its programs. Still, he was hampered by a handful of biased judges who abused their authority to keep him from implementing the policies the American people voted for. Jurisdiction is limited to the federal districts where the hundreds of district court judges reside. However, some of these judges arrogantly assert that they can override the president in areas of core executive branch competency and issue sweeping injunctions that affect the entire nation. They even claim they can act on behalf of people who aren’t parties in the cases before them.

These judicial tyrants seem to believe that the Constitution gives them more power than the president to make decisions on the size of the federal government, how it spends its money, and whom it can hire and fire. They say they have a right to overrule the president’s national security judgment on issues that affect our relations with foreign governments, our military readiness, and the safety of the public from unchecked illegal immigration. The Constitution does not give that authority to the judiciary. Perhaps these judges would like to rewrite President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to say we must preserve “government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.” Make no mistake: These judges are acting far outside their authority, and their actions are unprecedented.

Last year, the Harvard Law Review noted that of the 127 nationwide injunctions issued since 1963, 64 were against the first Trump administration. Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) that district courts had issued such injunctions in recent years “without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief.” Thomas said these injunctions “did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding” and are “inconsistent with long-standing limits on the equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.” In the case in question, district courts had issued nationwide injunctions against Trump’s proclamation restricting entry of aliens from eight nations, many of them terrorist states, because of the security threat they posed. As in many of today’s cases on dangerous criminal gangs and terrorist organizations, those judges thought their national security judgment overrode that of the president.

Trump won that case when the Supreme Court ruled that he was well within his authority to make that judgment and that the admission and exclusion of aliens is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Over the past 100 days, we have again witnessed numerous injunctions against actions well within Trump’s constitutional authority as the chief executive and commander in chief. Justice Neil Gorsuch warned against this type of judicial activism in 2020 in Department of Homeland Security v. New York, a case involving rulemaking on the definition of “public charge” as used in federal immigration law. In that case, multiple lawsuits had been filed with conflicting rulings by different courts. Gorsuch cynically said these different rulings didn’t matter.

“Despite the fluid state of things—some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for the plaintiffs over there—we now have an injunction to rule them all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.” The Supreme Court stayed that injunction, but it never ruled on the legitimacy of the rulemaking. As soon as the Biden administration came in, it withdrew the government’s appeal and revoked the rule as part of its open borders policy. Today’s bout of lawfare is still in its preliminary stages, and the substantive merits of the various claims have not yet been decided by federal courts of appeals or the Supreme Court. However, the president has had some significant wins.

Notably, the Supreme Court recently dissolved temporary restraining orders issued by Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a decision that told Boasberg he lacked jurisdiction over the removal of members of the terrorist group Tren de Aragua. Similarly, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a Biden district judge’s injunction that had told the administration it couldn’t root out DEI poison from the executive branch. The lawfare against the administration is undoubtedly frustrating, but we’ll see what happens when these cases reach the Supreme Court. In Trump v. Hawaii, Thomas said that if the “popularity” of nationwide injunctions continues, “this Court must address their legality.” Let’s hope the justices do that soon. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take steps to do that, Congress may remove it from the court’s hands and deal with the problem itself.

Read more …

“How convenient it was for Brussels to cancel an election in a country where corruption is so endemic that the people simply didn’t question how anti-democratic the stunt was in the first place..”

• Romania Hits All-Time Low With Fake Elections, Manipulated By The EU (Jay)

The European Union continues to sink deeper and deeper in its own political excrement as it not only believes its own manufactured consent by its Brussels cabal of wasters who call themselves journalists but is also tightening down its grip on its 400 million citizens. The EU never pretended to be a democracy but these days it is surpassing even the Stalinist period of the Soviet Union in its determination to control every thought of its citizens, which, of course means hunting down and persecuting any journalists who even simply question the narrative. The latest example – as there are many – is good ‘ol Chay Bowes, an RT presenter-come-journalist who was sent to Romania to cover the presidential elections – second time around, as the original result in March, which didn’t please the EU, was cancelled.

It’s what the EU does quite frequently. It simply cancels democratic processes which don’t come up with the results it prefers. Ireland and France experienced the same with their own referendums which had to be done a second time to get the right result. These days the EU simply calls any results which it doesn’t like ‘Russian interference’ and everyone just rolls over and accepts it, amazingly. Well, perhaps not amazingly for Romania which entered the EU in 2007 as its sort of Third World member state with corruption so bad that the narrative in Brussels at the time was “we’ll let them it and then reform them”. Not much has changed. The elite in Bucharest quite confidently takes its instructions from Brussels these days which told the Romanians to arrest Bowes when he arrives in Bucharest and get him to sign some bullshit fake police statement admitting all kinds of nonsense before kicking him out of the country.

Only the EU elite would go this far to block any kind of old school reporting on the ground by polemics like Bowes, who is probably considered very odd in his native Ireland, but was really only going to report what he saw and heard. Only the EU would be this obsessed with using the example of his arrest as a warning to any other odd journalists who don’t believe the EU script, that this is what happens to you. Bowes may well be wondering what will happen to him if he ever has to return to Ireland to see loved ones. Will his own police, on the instructions of the fabulously corrupt EU, have him arrested on some fake charge? At the heart of the matter is a man called Georgescu who, in basic terms, stands against everything that the corrupt EU and its boss – Ursula von der Leyen – stand for and so he got branded as being ‘pro-Russian’ and they have the piece of paper to prove it. From their own secret service goons. Oh yes they have.

Although he didn’t stand this second time around, back in March he got very close to winning outright the election before the EU stepped in. How convenient it was for Brussels to cancel an election in a country where corruption is so endemic that the people simply didn’t question how anti-democratic the stunt was in the first place. Romania, it would seem, is an irony-free zone. And I should know. In 2007 I travelled there to interview the PM for Euronews, only to find that once I arrived the interview was cancelled. I protested in a sarcastic email offering a couple thousand euros bribe to the press officer, only to receive a very angry email back. The press honcho had taken my offer seriously. Undeterred, I comforted myself by interviewing Romania’s new, young anti-corruption minister who, somewhat on cue, was forced to resign a few days after the interview. Yes, you’ve guessed it. He was accused of graft on a grand scale himself.

Democratically speaking, Romania is not at all a serious country, which has allowed the EU to meddle in its internal workings quite effortlessly rather like Moscow might have done at one point in its history. The elite in Bucharest and their EU masters have a real problem with Georgescu and is policies which are remarkably similar to those of Victor Orban, the EU’s in-house irritant who holds back the project from thinking big. “His frequent posts channelled widespread frustration over persistent poverty and endemic corruption in the country” Bloomberg wails. “Reprising themes popular with prominent nationalists such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, he condemned LGBTQ rights, questioned the use of vaccines, portrayed the coronavirus pandemic as a hoax and espoused the “Great Replacement” theory — the idea that Christian populations are being systematically replaced by non-Christians and immigrants”.

Read more …

“Simion hoped to harness the election support Georgescu built last year by saying he’ll have a job for him, even possibly as prime minister.”

• Right Wing George Simion Wins First Round of Voting in Romania (CTH)

The original winner of the previous Romanian election in 2024, Calin Georgescu, was removed as the election winner and barred from ever running again because Georgescu did not support the EU security state and did not want war with Russia. The election was thrown out because the wrong person won the vote of the Romanian people. A second election was organized, and the man who represents the voice of Georgescu, George Simion, has won the first round. However, do not get too excited; remember, NATO is building their biggest military base in Romania, and they will not accept any impediments. Like Moldova, the second round will likely see massive numbers of “Romanians voting from abroad” to help shape the final result. The people living in Romania will not technically be the ones deciding the Romanian election. In the new era of intelligence systems controlling “democracy,” all votes from people with an interest in the matter will be counted in favor of the candidate chosen by the EU national security apparatus.

Politico: “BUCHAREST — George Simion, the hard-right leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians, is projected to win the first round of Romania’s presidential election with around 40 percent of the vote, according to partial results from the country’s election authority. Simion badges himself as a supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, wants to stop military aid to Ukraine and will leave the EU quaking as another key country threatens to turn its back on mainstream European policies. “I promise I will always heed the will of the people. I am here to serve Romanians, not the other way around,” Simion said in a statement early Monday. He will face centrist Bucharest Mayor Nicosur Dan, who edged out establishment figurehead Crin Antonescu to make it into a runoff on May 18.

Dan won 20.7 percent of the ballots of Romanians voting at home, barely ahead of Antonescu, who received 20.5 percent. But Dan won 26 percent of the votes of Romanians voting abroad, with nearly 80 percent of the polling stations counted. Antonescu only received 7.3 percent of the votes abroad. […] The election results are being closely watched in Brussels and Washington, as Romania has become the latest battleground between the far right and the political establishment. […] Sunday’s vote was part of the election do-over that Romania’s top court ordered in December, after canceling the November ballot over allegations of illegal campaigning and potential Russian interference in favor of Calin Georgescu, an ultranationalist firebrand who came out of nowhere to win the first round.

That was the first time a candidate backed by a mainstream political party did not make it into the second round. Georgescu was set to face reformist Elena Lasconi in the second round. Lasconi, whose center-right Union Save Romania party leadership abandoned her to support Dan, only received some 2.8 percent of the votes of Romanians voting at home, according to the partial results. Simion hoped to harness the election support Georgescu built last year by saying he’ll have a job for him, even possibly as prime minister. “We are approaching an exceptional result, far beyond what the system’s TV channels present, which stirred up division, sprayed venom and distorted everything I said,” Simion said in a message projected at his party’s headquarters after the exit polls were released.

Read more …

“President Trump’s effort to restore power to ethnic Americans is being blocked by an anti-American judicial system that represents immigrant-invaders, not American citizens.”

• The Bell Tolls for All White Gentile Ethnicities (Paul Craig Roberts)

The Vice President and Secretary of State of the United States have called attention to the tyrannical behavior of the current German government, a corrupt anti-democratic government, controlled by Israel, that is holding on to power by designating its rival, AfD, the rapidly growing second largest party as “extremist.” Recent polls indicate that the AfD has pulled even and perhaps a bit ahead of the government that is trying to suppress it. By applying the “extremist” label to its rival, the government gives itself the power to use its spy agencies to keep the AfD under surveillance. This permits the current corrupt government to know in advance the AfD’s electoral plans while demonizing the AfD as so extreme that it must remain under surveillance.

On what grounds is the AfD designated extremist? The German Domestic Security Service BfV explains: The AfD represents ethnic Germans. Representing “people based on ethnicity and descent” disregards the human dignity of immigrant-invaders and is “incompatible with the democratic basic order.” Here we have it stated clearly just as Jean Raspail put it in The Camp of the Saints. It is anti-democratic for a government to represent the citizens from whose ethnicity the name of the country is derived. Democracy requires representation of those who entered the country illegally or under false pretenses. All government enforcement measures are then directed against the ethnic citizens who are coerced to accept the invasion. As Jean Raspail showed, this is a formula for the extinction of white ethnicities. President Trump’s effort to restore power to ethnic Americans is being blocked by an anti-American judicial system that represents immigrant-invaders, not American citizens.

Hanne Herland of the Herland Report tells us accurately that this is the situation all over Western Europe, the UK and Ireland: “In Europe, non-Western immigrants were given the victim card, and the current discrimination against the indigenous native Europeans by their own leaders began. Instead of listening to their needs, they demonized their views and attacked their own populations. “Europeans were told to step aside and allow immigrants to behave however rudely they wanted, since they came from poor countries and ‘didn’t know any better.’ They were to be excused from law-breaking behavior such as violent rapes, murders or entering the country illegally.” In other words, the immigrant-invaders weren’t civilized sufficiently to know any better, and it is all the fault of racist white ethnicities. What representing immigrant-invaders means in the EU is the loose enforcement, if any enforcement at all, of criminal and rape laws against immigrant-invaders.

Holding immigrant-invaders accountable would be racism, like what the Germans did to Jews. In effect, what is happening all over Europe and in Britain is that immigrant-invaders are becoming overlords over the ethnicities that comprise the former nations, now towers of babel. So, on top of their Israeli overlord, Europeans have immigrant-invaders as another overload. What a joke that Europeans and British and Irish are “free people.” They are the most enslaved in history. Even their tongues have been cut out. They cannot speak. The entire Western World is a dead man walking. Every person who rises to the defense of Western civilization is demonized, arrested, fired, dismissed from his university, framed in a false prosecution and imprisoned. The Insouciant West was insouciant for too long, It has lost its life.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Genes

Birth rate

Giga

Trump 1980

BR

Mess

Ali Baba

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 25 2025

Apr 252025
 
 April 25, 2025  Posted by at 10:20 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  56 Responses »


Salvador Dali Archeological Reminiscence of Millet’s Angelus 1933

 

• Trump: Russia’s Concession To Ukraine Is Not Taking The Whole Country (ZH)
• Trump Slams Zelensky Again (Margolis)
• Peace Will Come When Ukraine Withdraws From 4 Annexed Territories – Peskov (ZH)
• Russia Launches ‘Massive’ Missile Strike On Kiev, Leaving 9 Dead (ZH)
• Ukraine Preparing To Lose US Support – Bild (RT)
• Rubio and Witkoff Slam Politico Over ‘Fake Crap’ And ‘Fiction’ (RT)
• European Leaders Rejected US Proposal On Crimea – FT (RT)
• Russia Watches Western Europe Closely. It Has Reasons To Worry (Bordachev)
• Strategy Does Not Rhyme With Hypocrisy (Pacini)
• Russia Can Break Any Naval Blockade (Leiroz)
• Rubio and Trump’s Unfinished Business with ‘Bloated’ State Department (Devlin)
• ‘Coalition of The Willing’ Resolve Eroding – The Times (RT)
• Leading Liberals Call Upon Europeans to Resist the United States (Turley)
• China Dismisses Reports Of US Trade Progress As “Fake News” (ZH)
• The Method Behind the Madness of Trump’s “Tariff Wars” (Victor Davis Hanson)
• About the Judge Blocking Trump’s Election Integrity Order (Fred Lucas)
• UK To Greenlight Experiments To “Dim The Sun” In Bid To Stop Global Warming (ZH)
• EPA Head Demands Answers From Company Putting Sulfur Dioxide Into The Air (JTN)
• ‘Rewrite The Rules’ – Trump Store Teases Potential 2028 Reelection Bid (JTN)

 

 

 

 

Bessent

Tucker Massie
https://twitter.com/BryceMLipscomb/status/1915089434405491163

Hegseth

Racist

 

 

 

 

He’s completely right, but the story has been so distorted over the past three years that few people in the West will recognize that. Ukrainians claim that their army saved the country. But three years ago, in the initial invasion, Russia had Kiev largely surrounded. They retreated because they were tricked by Merkel et al into a “peace deal”.

Point of contention: “..the US will push Russia to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to maintain its military..” Seems doubtful. Russia already beat that military.

• Trump: Russia’s Concession To Ukraine Is Not Taking The Whole Country (ZH)

Reporters in the White House press pool challenged President Trump over some of his latest remarks regarding Ukraine and the possibility of peace. While in the Oval Office sitting across from Norway’s prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Trump was asked what concessions Russia has “offered up thus far to get to the point where you’re closer to peace.” He quipped somewhat sarcastically, “Stopping the war, stopping from taking the whole country” — which he called a “pretty big concession.” Zelensky has made clear over the last few days that he’s not on board with Trump’s strategy, which has featured offering recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea as a key concession. These latest words from the US President yet again illustrate that he believes Ukraine has no chance of winning the war, and that he’s being a pragmatist and realist in seeking substantial concessions by Kiev.

When asked about whether the US might (again) cut weapons to Kiev and intelligence-sharing, Trump responded, “Let’s see what happens; I think we’re going to make a deal; ask that question in two weeks.” But Trump apparently plans to keep up the pressure on Moscow. A Thursday Bloomberg report says the US will push Russia to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to maintain its military and defense sector as part of any future peace deal. Steve Witkoff is expected to present the demand to Putin in the next upcoming round of negotiations. Among Putin’s key objectives in the war remains the ‘demilitarization’ of Ukraine.

Read more …

Crimea is -again- Russian, since 2014. But Zelensky says there isn’t even anything to talk about. Of course Putin gets tired of that. It’s not a serious conversation.

• Trump Slams Zelensky Again (Margolis)

President Donald Trump sharply criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday after Zelensky rejected a U.S.-backed proposal that would have acknowledged Russian control over Crimea as part of a potential peace agreement. Amid ongoing efforts to broker a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, Zelensky reaffirmed that Ukraine would not recognize Russia’s control over Crimea. It’s a firm stance, to be sure, but hardly unexpected given the circumstances. “Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea,” Zelensky said in a press conference. “There’s nothing to talk about here. This is against our constitution.”

Trump, however, saw things differently, and in a post on Truth Social called his statement “very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion.” Trump continued, “Nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian Territory but, if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”

“The area also houses, for many years before “the Obama handover,” major Russian submarine bases. It’s inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy’s that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about! The situation for Ukraine is dire — He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever. The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the “killing field,” and nobody wants that! We are very close to a Deal, but the man with “no cards to play” should now, finally, GET IT DONE. I look forward to being able to help Ukraine, and Russia, get out of this Complete and Total MESS, that would have never started if I were President!”

The President’s remarks underscore the delicate balance required in international diplomacy. While Zelensky may be acting in what he believes is his nation’s best interest, Trump views his stance as a significant impediment to achieving a swift resolution. The Wall Street Journal has more: “Zelensky’s dismissal upends Trump’s latest gambit to halt the war in Ukraine—now in its fourth year—and casts new uncertainty on the future of the relationship between Kyiv and Washington, which Trump has made conditional on a quick deal. American officials had presented a series of ideas for ending the war, including the Crimea proposal, to Ukrainian officials last week and expected an answer on Wednesday at a summit in London, where Ukrainian, U.S. and European officials will gather. Zelensky said Russia should agree to a cease-fire before further talks to demonstrate “serious steps, and not childishness.” He said that Ukrainian officials meeting with U.S. and European officials in London would have a mandate to discuss a partial or full cease-fire, which Ukraine agreed to last month but Moscow rejected.”

A recent poll shows that while more Ukrainians are open to territorial concessions to end the war, rising from 8% in 2022 to 39% now, half the country still firmly opposes giving up any land. Even among those open to compromise, the idea of formally ceding Crimea remains politically untouchable in Ukraine. Officials have denounced the idea as a breach of international law and a dangerous precedent. Crimean Tatar lawmaker Tamila Tasheva warned that such a move would legitimize aggression and encourage future conflicts. Meanwhile, skepticism persists over whether Vladimir Putin is genuinely interested in peace, despite reports of productive talks with intermediaries like special envoy Steve Witkoff.

Read more …

Plus: No Nukes, No NATO, No Nazis. Nothing changed.

• Peace Will Come When Ukraine Withdraws From 4 Annexed Territories – Peskov (ZH)

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has filled in a little bit more of the details in the wake of a Financial Times report issued Tuesday which said President Putin is offering to freeze the current battle lines for the sake of a peace deal. The significant concession came as a surprise to many, who asked what’s the catch. Peskov in Wednesday comments filled in the missing information, stressing that peace can be achieved if Ukrainian forces fully withdraw from territory in the four oblasts Moscow annexed in 2022. Financial Times wrote that “The proposal is the first formal indication Putin has given since the war’s early months three years ago that Russia could step back from its maximalist demands to end the invasion.”

Peskov in the fresh statement emphasized that Russia’s claim to the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia remain enshrined in its constitution. He was asked directly whether a Ukrainian withdrawal would end the war, to which he responded, “If Ukraine withdraws its troops from these four regions, then yes.” “According to the results of the referendums, these territories have entered the administrative borders of Russia. From our point of view, this is a de jure and de facto situation,” Peskov said. But so far Zelensky hasn’t even been willing to cede Crimea, despite the Russian-speaking population of the strategic peninsula long being firmly in Russian hands, also with its naval Black Sea fleet being stationed there since Soviet Times and throughout recent history.

President Trump said Wednesday that Ukraine “lost” Crimea years ago, and so it is “not even a point of discussion”. But Washington’s demands that Ukraine finally compromise on the issue has been rejected by Zelensky. Peskov commented on this too, expressing total agreement with Trump. “This completely corresponds with our understanding, which we have been saying for a long time,” he said. If the Ukrainian government did finally accede to Russia’s demands, it would lose 20% of its total territory, given this is about how much Russian forces currently occupy. The US is also said to currently be offering Ukrainian neutrality vis-a-vis NATO, alongside international recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. But talks have still not gotten off the ground, and the Trump admin is ramping up the pressure on Zelensky especially.

Read more …

Deaths updated to 12. If there really was such a massive strike, “center of Kiev, large-scale death”, there would be 12,000 deaths, not 12. Russia aims at infrastructure, not people.

• Russia Launches ‘Massive’ Missile Strike On Kiev, Leaving 9 Dead (ZH)

Amid stalled US-led peace talks, Russia launched a massive overnight attack on Ukraine, including raining down ballistic missiles on the center of Kiev, unleashing large-scale death and destruction. At least nine people have been reported killed and over 70 injured in the capital city, in what was one of the largest and deadliest missile strikes on Ukraine in months. Some other cities, including Kharkiv, were also hit. Anti-aircraft systems began engaging inbound missiles and drones at about 1am local time. But after drones and missiles were able to make it through, several buildings – including a factory – and a house, as well as cars, were set on fire. BBC writes, “An apartment block was completely flattened during the attack and the windows of surrounding buildings were blown out and balconies ripped down.” “Russia has launched a massive combined strike on Kyiv,” Ukraine’s state emergency service announced on Telegram. “According to preliminary data, nine people were killed, 63 injured.”

President Trump early Thursday condemned the attack, saying he’s “not happy” with the Russian move. “Vladimir, STOP!” he wrote on Truth Social. “5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!” A large rescue effort has been underway given a missile head a densely populated area, with Ukraine’s interior minister, Ihor Klymenko, saying of Svyatoshinsky district of Kiev, “Mobile phones can be heard ringing under the ruins. The search will continue until everybody is got out. We have information about two children who cannot be found at the scene of the incident.” Ukrainian officials have cited that some 70 missiles and up to 150 drones were used against several cities in the devastating overnight attack. This new Thursday attack on the capital was the deadliest since last year’s July 8 attack on Kiev, which left 34 people dead and 121 injured.

It comes after the Zelensky government has expressed frustration that the White House should be more concerned and standing by Ukraine’s side, instead of holding bilateral talks toward diplomatic normalization with Russia. The latest Trump and Zelensky back-and-forth has focused on Crimea. Trump on Wednesday slammed the Ukrainian leader for rejecting a US proposal that would see Kiev give up all claims on Crimea. Trump pointed out that Crimea “was lost years ago” and that Zelensky has “no cards to play”. Zelensky then cited the 2018 “Crimea declaration” by Trump’s then secretary of state Mike Pompeo, which laid out that the United States “rejects Russia’s attempted annexation”. “There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky had initially told reporters of the question of giving up Crimea permanently.

But Vice President JD Vance had also articulated while traveling in India, “We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say yes or for the United States to walk away from this process.” He emphasized “The only way to really stop the killing is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.” Freezing the war now would certainly give Russian forces a huge advantage, given the immense territory in the East they now hold, and this is in large part why Zelensky is refusing such a deal.

Read more …

“..Kiev is now trying to renegotiate with Washington while simultaneously seeking support from its European sponsors..”

• Ukraine Preparing To Lose US Support – Bild (RT)

The leadership in Kiev is bracing for a “worst-case scenario” in which US President Donald Trump cuts off all American support, the German tabloid Bild has reported, citing anonymous sources within the Ukrainian government. Trump has reportedly increased the pressure on Ukraine to quickly accept Washington’s “final offer” to resolve the conflict. He has also warned that if negotiations between Moscow and Kiev stall, the US may “take a pass” and withdraw from its role as a mediator. “What is on paper and what is being signaled to us in the negotiations is unacceptable,” Bild wrote on Thursday, quoting a Ukrainian diplomat. “We are preparing for the worst-case scenario… and that means an end to US support,” another unnamed government insider told the paper.

The US president has been pushing for a resolution to the conflict, while also seeking a minerals extraction agreement with Ukraine to help offset the billions of dollars Washington has spent on military and financial aid. Trump temporarily halted military supplies and intelligence sharing with Kiev following a public dispute with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the White House in February. On Wednesday, Trump reiterated that Zelensky – who he once described as a “dictator without elections” – has been “more difficult to deal with” than Russian President Vladimir Putin. The remark came after Zelensky publicly rejected a reported provision of the US peace framework, insisting earlier this week that Kiev will not even discuss formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory.

According to Bild, some officials in Kiev hope that Trump’s personal jabs at Zelensky were merely his way to apply pressure. “Our hope was that it was Trump’s negotiating tactic,” the outlet cited a Ukrainian government insider as saying. The report added that Kiev is now trying to renegotiate with Washington while simultaneously seeking support from its European sponsors. Kiev is still receiving weapons pledged by the previous US administration, but no new aid packages have been authorized since Trump took office, Zelensky said on Monday. His recent pleas for additional Patriot batteries and missiles have also gone unanswered.

Moscow has maintained that it is open to peace talks, provided its core security demands are addressed. It opposes any NATO presence on Ukrainian soil and has demanded that Kiev recognize Russia’s new borders and abandon its plans to join the US-led military bloc. Moscow has condemned the continued flow of Western weapons as detrimental to any lasting peace. The Russian government has also said it will not accept a temporary freeze of the conflict, which would only lead to renewed hostilities later on, citing Ukraine’s multiple violations of an Easter ceasefire and an earlier US-mediated moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure as proof of Kiev’s untrustworthiness.

Read more …

“Politico said Witkoff was the “main proponent” of the plan, allegedly due to a developing “friendship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin in his role as Trump’s envoy..”

• Rubio and Witkoff Slam Politico Over ‘Fake Crap’ And ‘Fiction’ (RT)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, have accused Politico of publishing “fiction” and “fake crap,” over a report by the media outlet on a potential Ukraine peace deal. In an article on Wednesday, Politico claimed that Washington is considering lifting sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline and “other Russian assets in Europe” as part of its peace efforts. Citing “five people familiar with the discussions,” Politico said Witkoff was the “main proponent” of the plan, allegedly due to a developing “friendship” with Russian President Vladimir Putin in his role as Trump’s envoy. The piece also claimed Rubio opposed the idea and quoted analysts warning it could hurt US LNG exports by reopening the EU market to Russian gas. Rubio was quick to respond, writing on X that the “piece of fiction” was “unequivocally false.” Witkoff responded with sharper language, calling the article “fake crap.”

Rubio and Witkoff are among the key figures in US-Russia discussions aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict. While the US-proposed peace framework has not been made public, reports suggest it could involve recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky recently dismissed any such proposals as “unconstitutional,” prompting Trump to accuse him of jeopardizing the peace process with “inflammatory statements” and warning that he could “lose the whole country” if he does not compromise.

US Vice President J.D. Vance echoed the sentiment, warning on Wednesday that Washington might “walk away” from talks unless Kiev and Moscow reach a deal soon, and stating that “both will have to give up some of the territory they currently own.” Russia has repeatedly said that the status of Crimea and the four other former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia after referendums is not up for negotiation. Moscow insists recognition of the “reality on the ground” is vital for lasting peace. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned this week against relying on media reports regarding US-Russia talks, warning that “a lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications.” He advised the public to trust official sources instead.

Read more …

If a tree falls in a forest…

• European Leaders Rejected US Proposal On Crimea – FT (RT)

European leaders have rejected a US proposal to recognize Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea as part of a draft peace deal on the Ukraine conflict, the Financial Times reported on Thursday. European officials told the outlet that such a move could cause a rift within NATO and force Kiev’s backers to choose between sticking with Ukraine or siding with Washington. According to the report, US President Donald Trump’s team has presented Ukraine with a take-it-or-leave-it deal that includes Washington formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. US Vice President J.D. Vance has also suggested freezing the conflict along the current lines of control. A senior European diplomat told the FT that it would be “impossible” to accept the US proposal, while one EU official claimed that “Crimea and future NATO membership aspirations are red lines for us.”

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has also refused to even consider conceding Crimea, stating that the country’s constitution prohibits such a move. Trump has criticized Zelensky’s stance, calling it “very harmful” to peace negotiations and stating that “Crimea was lost years ago.” “He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” the US president wrote on social media this week. Officials cited by the FT said that if Trump unilaterally recognizes Crimea or lifts sanctions on Russia, it could trigger a severe split within NATO as well as the EU.

The Trump administration recently warned that the US could end its involvement in Ukraine peace talks if there is no progress soon, but also noted he has found it easier to negotiate with Russia than with Zelensky. Moscow has expressed appreciation for the Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate a settlement of the conflict, and has indicated that it will maintain contact with Washington on the issue. At the same time, Russian officials have said that Kiev and its European backers don’t appear to want the conflict to end and are consistently undermining peace efforts.

Read more …

“The EU’s turn toward Russophobia is not strategic—it is compensatory. Western Europe’s global credibility continues to erode. The reason is simple: a lack of empathy and introspection. The continent views the world through a mirror, seeing only itself.”

• Russia Watches Western Europe Closely. It Has Reasons To Worry (Bordachev)

Western Europe is once again returning to a familiar role: a primary source of global instability. For Russia, this presents a critical question—should we simply turn our backs on the West and focus entirely on our eastern partners? Judging by the current trend in Russian foreign trade of Asian countries steadily taking a larger share, this conclusion may appear reasonable. Yet such a strategy, while tempting, is short-sighted. From antiquity to the present, Europe has often served as a destabilizing force. From the Greek island raiders who disrupted the Nile Valley civilizations, to modern Western European meddling in Africa and aggression in Ukraine, the continent has rarely chosen diplomacy over division. The dismantling of colonial empires and Western Europe’s post-war subordination to the United States softened this tendency. But today, old habits are re-emerging.

European political rhetoric may sound hollow, even absurd, given the continent’s dwindling economic and demographic weight. However, that does not make it less dangerous. Europe is no longer the heart of global politics, yet paradoxically remains its most likely flashpoint. Here, the possibility of a direct military clash between great powers remains disturbingly real. For Russia, Western Europe is a historical adversary, one that has long sought to dictate terms or impose its will. From Napoleon to Hitler, and now to Brussels’ bureaucrats, attempts to subdue or marginalize Russia have been met with fierce resistance. This enduring conflict defines much of our shared history. Today, facing its own developmental dead ends, Western Europe once again turns outward in search of a scapegoat. This time, the preferred solution is militarization, supposedly to counter a “Russian threat.”

The irony is obvious. The EU’s grand vision of integration is in disarray. Its socio-economic models are faltering. Britain, now outside the bloc, is no better off. Aging populations, failing welfare systems, and uncontrolled migration are stoking nationalist sentiments and pushing elites toward more radical postures. Finland, once neutral and pragmatic, now also leans into anti-Russian rhetoric to mask its growing internal malaise. Meanwhile, the institutions that once underpinned European unity are crumbling. The EU’s central structures in Brussels are widely viewed with disdain. National governments resist ceding further power, and the criteria for leadership within the bloc seem to have become cynicism and incompetence. For over a decade, the top posts have gone not to visionary leaders, but to pliable figures chosen for their loyalty and lack of ambition.

Gone are the days of Jacques Delors or even Romano Prodi, who at least understood the value of dialogue with Russia. In their place, we have figures like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, whose inability to achieve anything meaningful within the bloc leads them to seek relevance by provoking confrontation with Moscow. The EU’s turn toward Russophobia is not strategic—it is compensatory. Western Europe’s global credibility continues to erode. The reason is simple: a lack of empathy and introspection. The continent views the world through a mirror, seeing only itself. This solipsism, coupled with economic stagnation, makes it harder for its leaders to convert its shrinking economic advantages into geopolitical influence. Africa offers a telling case. France’s influence, once substantial in its former colonies, is rapidly vanishing. Local governments, tired of paternalistic lectures and ineffective policies, are turning instead to Russia, the United States, or even China to build new partnerships.

Even Western Europe’s relationship with the United States is entering a phase of uncertainty. As internal divisions grow in America, European elites accustomed to strategic dependence now find themselves increasingly anxious. They are unsure whether Washington will continue to shield them, or whether they will be left to face the consequences of their own miscalculations. This insecurity partly explains the EU’s heightened hostility toward Russia: it is a desperate bid for attention and relevance. Representatives of the new US administration have already hinted at the lack of real strategic contradictions with Russia. Such statements provoke panic in Brussels. Western European elites fear a US-Russia thaw that could leave them sidelined. They know Washington will not grant them independence in foreign policy, but they also fear that its patronage will no longer come with privileges.

Read more …

“Not even at Easter was it possible to have a little respite, because, ultimately, no one in the West really wants peace.”

• Strategy Does Not Rhyme With Hypocrisy (Pacini)

The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, had called for an “Easter truce” on the occasion of the liturgical solemnity, celebrated this year throughout the Christian world. This was a sign of strong attention to the human dimension of war, too often forgotten in favor of journalistic narratives and the utility of politicians who profit from the blood of young people dying at the front, but also further proof of Russia’s willingness to find sensible and rational solutions to the conflict. Solutions that, once again, have been manipulated and exploited by the enemy. There is no peace even at Easter. In fact, Ukraine took advantage of the truce to turn the media narrative in its favor. The attack was twofold:

– In the media, Ukraine first accused Moscow of spreading falsehoods and, once the truce actually began (only on the Russian side), repeatedly accused Russia of continuing its attacks, repeatedly violating the truce. – The affair served to cover up and make people forget as much as possible about the events in Sumy, or Bucha 2025. – Strategically, Ukrainian soldiers tried to resupply some frontline positions and break through at some sensitive points, failing to do so but effectively firing on the enemy even though they knew it was a pause in the conflict. In Jus in bello, the law of war, a truce is a temporary suspension of hostilities agreed upon by the parties. When declared unilaterally by one party, it is not usually considered legally binding, but may nevertheless have practical and legal implications.

The Hague Convention of 1907, in Article 36, defines a truce as “the suspension of hostilities between the belligerents for a period fixed by them, either directly or through mediators.” Therefore, when only one party calls for a truce, there is no international legal obligation, but there is nevertheless a strong moral and political value, which generally demonstrates a clear willingness to respect and protect the needs and safety of civilians, as well as to attempt negotiation. There is always an open military risk. It is precisely the political nature of the affair that is strategically interesting. Kiev deliberately sabotaged the Easter truce because it is interested in continuing the military conflict. The Russian Ministry of Defense reported more than 50 attacks within the border areas with civilian casualties, including a 2-year-old girl in the Belgorod region. In addition to the bombing of Russian army positions, civilian areas in Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Donetsk, and Lugansk were also attacked. On the global political scene, the unelected permanent president Zelensky has shown great hypocrisy, trying to manipulate Putin’s goodwill, but without success. The result is a demonstration of war mongering and a lack of humanity.

After the expiry of the “Easter truce,” Russian troops attacked the industrial zone of the “Storm” research institute in Odessa. The Russian Ministry of Defense also reported the detonation of an ammunition depot in the Kirzhach area due to a violation of safety regulations. Towards Sumy, Russian troops continued their offensive and liberated the Gornalsky monastery, also advancing into the fields towards Oleshnya. Towards Dzerzhinsky, Russian troops moved to fight on the outskirts of Dachnoye, partially surrounding Ukrainian Armed Forces units in the village. Fighters from the Russian Armed Forces’ 68th Tank Regiment are advancing north of Valentinovka and driving the enemy out of most of Sukha Balka. In terms of international politics, however, it is interesting to draw attention to what was announced by Donald Trump, who had planned to stop the war by Easter, or to obtain a truce of at least 30 days. None of this worked. The U.S. has once again confirmed that it is far from having any real capacity to intervene and influence the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

[..] On the EU/NATO side, Kaja Kallas chastised the U.S. for not using effective tools to put pressure on Russia, stating that “They have tools in their hands to actually put pressure on Russia. They have not used those tools,” and acknowledging that Russia is winning the game. She said that the EU, for its part, will never recognize the peninsula as Russian: ”Crimea is Ukraine. It means a lot to those who are occupied that others do not recognize this as Russian.” The EU therefore wants endless war with Russia under Washington’s umbrella, because it knows that Europe alone would not be able to survive a single day. Not even at Easter was it possible to have a little respite, because, ultimately, no one in the West really wants peace.

Read more …

“In the end, any blockade attempt will only amount to another strategic failure by the West — which continues to underestimate an adversary historically accustomed to resisting — and winning — when encircled.”

• Russia Can Break Any Naval Blockade (Leiroz)

The West’s hostile rhetoric against Russia has taken on increasingly aggressive tones, revealing a coordinated effort to isolate Moscow across all spheres — including the maritime domain. Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev recently stated that the European Union and the United Kingdom are currently preparing a naval blockade against Russia, a measure that constitutes a clear violation of international law and signals an unprecedented escalation in geopolitical tensions. More than a symbolic or diplomatic gesture, such a naval siege amounts to a declaration of economic and strategic warfare. Patrushev warned that Russia has more than enough means to respond to any provocation of this kind. He made it clear that, in the event of diplomatic failure, the Russian Navy would be authorized to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the country’s shipping.

First, it is necessary to understand what kind of “blockade” the West is planning to impose. In recent times, Western countries have threatened Russian vessels in various areas of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly in the Baltic Sea, which NATO increasingly treats as its own “lake” — while ignoring the military stronghold of Kaliningrad. Russian ships have also faced patrols and threats near ports and territorial waters of European nations, a situation that is becoming increasingly troubling. However, while there is still insufficient information to determine the West’s real intentions, it is essential to consider the possibility of a full-scale physical encirclement strategy. Although clearly impossible in a direct and frontal manner, such an idea could be pursued progressively through small-scale naval provocations along multiple routes close to Russian shores.

In this context, two key pillars would define Russia’s defensive strategy: the Arctic — where Moscow has built one of the world’s largest military infrastructures — and Russia’s colossal nuclear capability. Over the past decades, Russia has turned the Arctic into a strategic bastion. It now hosts not only highly equipped naval and air bases, but also alternative trade routes and power projection corridors — such as the Northern Sea Route, which is becoming increasingly viable with the melting of polar ice caps. Russia’s Northern Fleet, equipped with next-generation nuclear submarines and cruisers armed with long-range missiles, is strategically positioned to ensure the country’s maritime sovereignty and to prevent any logistical strangulation attempts. More than a defensive zone, the Arctic now functions as an offensive platform allowing Russia to project power not only across the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea, but also along European coastlines, if necessary.

The Western attempt to encircle Russia fails to consider this critical factor: Moscow is not bound by traditional routes, nor does it rely on the goodwill of European ports — its ability to break blockades is real and already operational. In parallel, Moscow is advancing an ambitious naval modernization program, incorporating autonomous systems, new operational doctrines, and a strategic posture that avoids the trap of an arms race but ensures regional superiority. Russia is not seeking direct confrontation, but it is prepared for it — across multiple domains, including the strategic one. And this is where nuclear deterrence comes into play — an element the West insists on ignoring or downplaying in its propaganda, but which remains the primary guarantor of Russian security. The nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation is clear: in the face of an existential threat — even if not in the form of a direct nuclear attack —, the response may escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. This is not an empty threat, but a pillar of global stability — the same one that prevented direct conflict throughout the Cold War.

Russia’s strategic patrol submarines, many of them operating from Arctic bases, maintain a constant second-strike capability. Their warheads, dispersed and well-protected, ensure that any Western aggression can be met with devastating force. Thus, a naval blockade becomes not just a provocation, but a global risk — one that could trigger a conflict of unpredictable scale. Given this, it is up to the West to reflect on the consequences of its actions. London and Brussels may believe they can suffocate Russia with unilateral measures, but they deliberately ignore the military and geostrategic realities of the 21st century. The Russian Federation is not a vulnerable state; it is a fully capable power, ready to defend its vital interests — whatever the cost. The illusion of a successful naval siege says more about Western arrogance than about any Russian weakness. In the end, any blockade attempt will only amount to another strategic failure by the West — which continues to underestimate an adversary historically accustomed to resisting — and winning — when encircled.

Read more …

“Prior to Rubio’s arrival in Foggy Bottom, the State Department had 734 different offices, many with redundant tasks and responsibilities. Now, Rubio aims to decrease that number to 604 with the closure of 132 offices..”

• Rubio and Trump’s Unfinished Business with ‘Bloated’ State Department (Devlin)

If it hasn’t been made clear enough by now, President Donald Trump and his administration have unfinished business from his first term.That feeling is especially acute at the State Department. The first Trump administration’s plans to revive the American system were undermined by leakers and turncoats who sought to preserve the status quo. Such was the case at the State Department: When Trump proposed transformative cuts in 2017, the president faced resistance not just from deep state actors but from his own political appointees and Republicans in Congress. The four-year interregnum of President Joe Biden culminated in Trump’s return to Washington more powerful and more popular than ever. The mandate victory exposed just how wrong the establishment was in thinking the American people wanted Trump-lite—the American people wanted full-bodied Trump.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has brought that message to Foggy Bottom. On Monday, Rubio announced the most aggressive reorganization of the State Department in modern American history. This “comprehensive reorganization plan,” Rubio said in a statement, “will bring the department into the 21st Century.” Prior to Rubio’s arrival in Foggy Bottom, the State Department had 734 different offices, many with redundant tasks and responsibilities. Now, Rubio aims to decrease that number to 604 with the closure of 132 offices, according to a report from The Free Press. The nearly 20% reduction in State Department offices will come with the elimination of 700 civil service and foreign service employees. Beyond the closure of 132 offices, 137 offices will be consolidated into other divisions of the agency. Furthermore, the elimination of 700 foreign and civil service roles is just the tip of the iceberg, as Rubio has instructed his undersecretaries to produce plans within 30 days to slash their staff by 15%.

Some of the offices Rubio is looking to downsize employ thousands of people, thanks to the rapid growth of state department staffing over the last few decades. Prior to World War II, the State Department employed about 1,000. By 1946, the State Department had grown to 17,000 employees, somewhat understandable to meet the needs of the war and its aftermath. Today, the State Department employs around 80,000 people between foreign service, civil service, and locally employed staff. Cold War hires? No. In the year 2000, State Department employees numbered just over 30,000. In 25 years, the agency has nearly tripled in size. All the while, the Department of Defense has played an increasingly important role in international diplomacy at the expense of the State Department. Core State Department functions and efficacy have been undermined, due in no small part to over bureaucratization and left-wing capture that has diverted oodles of taxpayer dollars to liberal pet projects.

Rubio himself described the department as “bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition”: In the early days of Trump 1.0, the administration proposed a 28% cut to the State Department budget, with a $25.6 billion budget between the State Department and USAID. The proposal, Tillerson told State Department employees in an email at the time, “acknowledges that U.S. engagement must be more efficient, that our aid be more effective, and that advocating the national interests of our country always be our primary mission.” Those deep cuts failed to materialize, and Democrats were not solely to blame. Republicans in Congress opposed the plan, as well. Then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he was “not in favor” of the cuts.

The late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also said he was “very much opposed.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., went further, claiming Trump’s State Department cuts were “dead on arrival” and that “it would be a disaster.” Even Rubio expressed concerns at the time. Graham’s prediction turned out to be true: Republicans in Congress failed to deliver on the cuts that would have assisted Trump’s reform efforts. By 2021, the State Department saw a 2,000-person drop in foreign service staffers and still fewer reductions in civil service staff, but this was mostly credited to attrition and retirements. Now, Rubio is prepared to go farther than anyone in the first Trump administration—much less Rubio himself—imagined in 2017.

Read more …

“According to The Times, the UK-French plan was rolled back during talks in the UK capital on Wednesday.”

• ‘Coalition of The Willing’ Resolve Eroding – The Times (RT)

France and the UK displayed a weakening resolve to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, during recent talks in London, The Times has reported, citing anonymous sources.Defense chiefs from a number of European NATO states have been debating deploying forces to Ukraine as part of a self-titled “coalition of the willing.” The idea, led by France and the UK, was proposed as a means of providing Kiev with security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire with Russia. Moscow has rejected outright the idea of troops from the US-led military bloc being deployed to Ukraine under any pretext. According to The Times, the UK-French plan was rolled back during talks in the UK capital on Wednesday.

“Sir Keir Starmer and President Macron of France have offered to deploy troops to Ukraine to keep the peace as part of a ‘coalition of the willing,’ but during talks in London sources told The Times there appeared to be a softening of the commitment,” the newspaper wrote on Wednesday. However, a defense source told the outlet that the UK is not prepared to abandon the plans entirely. Some European officials realise that Moscow would never tolerate the deployment of a force of NATO members’ troops to Ukraine, The Times reported. Russia has warned that it will consider such a troop presence as a NATO deployment, under the guise of peacekeepers or otherwise, and will treat it as a valid military target. Moscow has repeatedly stated that NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the military bloc are among the root causes of the Ukraine conflict.

The deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine could lead to a direct clash between the US-led bloc and Russia, setting off World War III, Russia’s National Security Council Secretary and former Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has said. The troop deployment plan comes as EU states have floated a $840 [billion] militarization plan for the bloc, citing a perceived threat from Russia. Moscow has repeatedly criticized the EU’s continued flow of armaments to Ukraine, arguing that Western European nations appear more interested in prolonging the fighting rather than resolving the conflict diplomatically.

Read more …

“..the conference that declared “A New World Order with European Values.” Various Americans were present to reaffirm the worst about the United States..”

• Leading Liberals Call Upon Europeans to Resist the United States (Turley)

In his historic speech in Munich this year, Vice President J.D. Vance confronted the Europeans over their attacks on free speech, declaring “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.” That is manifestly true, but it appears that there is something that certain Americans can still do for Europe. As the European Union ramps up its long-standing campaign against free speech, it is increasingly calling upon Americans to make the case against both free speech and the United States. The Europeans and globalists see the Trump Administration as a threat in the effort to create transnational governance systems. German diplomat Christoph Heusgen became emotional in responding to Vance, declaring “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.”

American politicians and journalists quickly added their voices of condemnation. CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio to suggest that Vance’s support for free speech was outrageous because he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” Brennan’s bizarre suggestion that free speech contributed to the death camps was amplified by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) who accused Vance of using “some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.” After the Munich speech, some of the leading anti-free speech figures in the world gathered at the World Forum in Berlin. I was one of the few speakers from the free speech community at the conference that declared “A New World Order with European Values.” Various Americans were present to reaffirm the worst about the United States as a nation descending into tyranny.

The two most celebrated figures were Bill and Hillary Clinton, who also criticized the current Administration. The appearance of Hillary Clinton was particularly chilling for the free speech community at the Forum. Clinton has been unrelenting in her attacks on free speech and is a favorite of globalists who want to create this new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation. The EU did precisely that and is now threatening Musk with confiscatory fines unless he resumes the censorship of Americans and others. After returning from Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the DSA.

Read more …

China sends out all sorts of people commenting. But Trump wants to talk to XI one-on-one. No “point person for the dialogue..” or anything like that.

Xi bets on Americans turning on Trump, if things get more expensive. But China, too, has domestic breaking points.

• China Dismisses Reports Of US Trade Progress As “Fake News” (ZH)

Wednesday’s equity market rollercoaster—sharp pops and drops—was driven by conflicting reports on headlines surrounding potential U.S.-China trade talks. Markets surged after a Wall Street Journal report suggested President Trump considered cutting steep tariffs on Chinese imports. But sentiment quickly reversed when Reuters poured cold water on the claim. Further declines followed after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarified there had been “no unilateral offer from Trump” to reduce Chinese tariffs and that a trade deal could take two to three years to finalize. In the overnight hours, China demanded Washington remove unilateral tariffs before engaging in trade talks and rejected the claim that any negotiations had progressed.

“The US should respond to rational voices in the international community and within its own borders and thoroughly remove all unilateral tariffs imposed on China, if it really wants to solve the problem,” Ministry of Commerce’s spokesman He Yadong told reporters at a regular briefing on Thursday in Beijing. Yadong rejected any signs of progress in bilateral communications, indicating that “reports on development in talks are groundless.” He said Washington needs to “show sincerity” if both sides want to make a deal. Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Guo Jiakun also called any rhetoric coming from the Trump administration about deal progress “fake news” in a press conference.

The Trump administration’s softening stance—reported by the WSJ, which sent US equity markets higher early Wednesday—may signal a willingness by the US to de-escalate the trade war with Beijing in order to shift to the negotiating phase. Trump told reporters on Wednesday: “Maybe we’ll make a special deal, and we’ll see what it will be. Right now, [the tariffs are] 145%, that’s very high.” One day earlier, Treasury Secretary Bessent told investors at a closed-door meeting: “No one thinks the current status quo is sustainable, at 145% and 125%, so I would posit that over the very near future, there will be a de-escalation. We have an embargo now on both sides.” Alfredo Montufar-Helu, senior adviser at The Conference Board’s China Center, told the Shanghai Morning Post that “news today confirms China has no intention to reach out first with a proposal of its own.”

“The impasse in negotiations is driven by a very simple dynamic; no side wants to bear with the political costs of being seen as capitulating to the other side,” Montufar-Helu explained. According to Zhang Zhiwei, chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management, even if the negotiations between China and the US start immediately, reaching an agreement could take time, and mounting risks exist. The tariff war on both sides could soon unleash pain across global trade. “It takes time for trade negotiations to proceed between the US and other countries. This means the tariffs will hit global trade and economies for at least several months. It is not clear to what extent inventory build-up and pre-loading of trade in the past few months will help to soften the immediate damage. The question now is how bad trade and other macro data will be in China, the US and other countries,” Zhiwei said.

[..] Bloomberg reported last week that Beijing wants to see several things from Trump’s administration before trade talks begin, such as more respect and naming a point person for the dialogue. Neither side has announced any upcoming bilateral trade meetings despite Trump’s announcement this week to ease tariffs potentially.

Read more …

“..the EU people want to help the American Left, and one of the ways they think they can is to stonewall and watch the bond and stock market go down.”

• The Method Behind the Madness of Trump’s “Tariff Wars” (Victor Davis Hanson)

Where are we in the trade wars, the tariff wars? The stock market recently has recovered somewhat. We’re about where it was in August. I didn’t think it was too bad in August of 2024. It’s recovering 1% to 2%, on occasion. And why is that? Because Donald Trump has announced that JD Vance and his wife, who is of Indian legacy—her family was born in India—met with the Indian government officials, and there may be a trade deal. Japan has been talking with us. They both want—us and Japan—want a deal. Japan says we moved the goalpost. We say, “They’re not serious.” But there’s going to be a deal there. And more importantly, Donald Trump said he was willing to lower tariffs on China. Now the Left says, “Oh, he’s caving, he’s caving. This was all unnecessary.” You could interpret it that way. But it’s more likely “Art of the Deal.”

In other words, “We’re going to invade Panama,” but we’re not going to invade Panama. We just want Panama to let American companies run the exit and the entry to the canal—and that’s probably going to happen. “Canada’s going to be the 51st state.” No. It’s not going to be the 51st state. But Canada should defend themselves and pay 2% of their GDP, and they need to address a $65-$100 billion deficit. But, “We want to absorb Greenland.” No. We don’t. We want Denmark—a colonial power with this huge North American colony—we want them to help them a little bit. And indeed, they’re starting to put Greenland on their imperial flags, and they gave them a billion dollars, and the base is secure. And the Greenland people, 50,000 or so, will want U.S. security. So, that is the “Art of the Deal.”

And to get China to come and reduce its $300 billion trade surplus with the United States, Donald Trump talked about these huge tariffs. Now, he will talk down and we’ll probably get a deal in an “Art of the Deal” fashion. We saw that with NATO. He harangued them in 2018. They were furious. Said he might not come to their aid. They haven’t met their 2%, 2014 promises. And guess what? They started to spend more in defense. Timely so, because when the Ukraine war broke out, Europe had spent a billion dollars more on defense expenditure. And more importantly, they had Finland and Sweden, two of the most muscular of all the European nations in terms of munitions and defense readiness, now both part of NATO. That worked.

And I think the same thing is happening with trade. Here’s the dynamic: the Europeans detest Donald Trump more than they see their self-interest. In other words, they would rather be on the outside of these trade negotiations and punish Donald Trump than they would be with the Asian powers and make a deal and profit, mutually with the United States. And partly that’s because they’re akin to the American Left. And, as we saw with Jamie Raskin, a representative in the Congress, he said to each country, “If you cut a deal with this administration [the Trump administration] we’re going to remember that.” So, the EU people want to help the American Left, and one of the ways they think they can is to stonewall and watch the bond and stock market go down. And then they could come in later with more favorable concessions from the United States.

The problem with that thinking is that if India cuts a deal and South Korea cuts a deal—and now they’re talking about Japan, Taiwan, Australia—the Trump administration has already established, openly, transparently, that those countries that are first to cut a deal will get the most favorable terms. And so, the more people that come in and have a reciprocal agreement with the United States—I’m not saying it’s going to be parity. I’m not saying we’re going to get down to zero deficits—but if we cut this trillion-dollar deficit by half, that will be a considerable achievement. The Europeans, then, will see that they’re left out. And especially if we come to an accord in the next month or so with China—not that we’re going to be able to force China to have no tariffs on their part. But we might be able to lower them and then make them buy American products to reduce that $300 billion—If that were to be true, then Europe has missed the boat.

Read more …

Lawfare doesn’t rhyme with election integrity. The President can’t order fair elections, only Congress can.

“The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning nonprofit groups sued to block the order from being implemented, claiming it would cause voter suppression..”

• About the Judge Blocking Trump’s Election Integrity Order (Fred Lucas)

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked part of President Donald Trump’s executive order on election integrity. Kollar-Kotelly, who was appointed to the District Court for the District of Columbia by President Bill Clinton in 1997, has a history of left-leaning decisions on free speech, transgender policy, terrorist detention, and more recently, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning nonprofit groups sued to block the implementation of the order. Kollar-Kotelly granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction and noted they are likely to prevail. “Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states —not the president–with the authority to regulate federal elections,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in the opinion.

“Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the president purports to order. And no statutory delegation of authority to the executive ranch permits the president to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.” The judge blocked provisions in the executive order to add documentary proof of citizenship to the standardized national voter registration form. She also blocked the portion of the order that requires federal agencies to assess citizenship before providing a federal voter registration form to people receiving public assistance. Trump’s order adds citizenship scrutiny to the national mail voter registration form, withholds federal grants from states that count mail ballots arriving after Election Day, gives states more access to a federal database to better verify voter registration lists, and directs the Justice Department to prioritize enforcing voting laws.

Trump’s order addressing voter registration lists is significant. As noted in my book, “The Myth of Voter Suppression,” states and localities across the United States have failed to update their voter registration lists to eliminate dead people, people who have moved, or people who are not citizens. Failing to update the voter rolls is a violation of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning nonprofit groups sued to block the order from being implemented, claiming it would cause voter suppression. Here are six things to know about Kollar-Kotelly.

Read more …

Mass hysteria manifested in the flesh.

• UK To Greenlight Experiments To “Dim The Sun” In Bid To Stop Global Warming (ZH)

It’s a project reminiscent of the movie Snowpiercer, in which governments institute a global experiment to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to stop global warming and end up creating a new ice age instead. Once again reality is downstream from fiction as the UK is set to bankroll an experiment to “dim the sun”. This goal will be pursued in field trials which could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, or brightening clouds to reflect sunshine. The project is being considered by scientists as a way to prevent “runaway climate change”, despite the fact that there is zero evidence to support the claim of runaway climate change. Aria, the Government’s advanced research and invention funding agency, has set aside £50 million for projects, which will be announced in the coming weeks.

Prof Mark Symes, the program director for Aria (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), said there would be “small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches”. “We will be announcing who we have given funding to in a few weeks and when we do so we will be making clear when any outdoor experiments might be taking place,” he said. “One of the missing pieces in this debate was physical data from the real world. Models can only tell us so much. Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We’re absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research. We have strong requirements around the length of time experiments can run for and their reversibility and we won’t be funding the release of any toxic substances to the environment.” One major area of research is Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM), which includes Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) whereby tiny particles are released into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight.

Another potential project is Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) in which ships would spray sea-salt particles into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds. Climate scientists say efforts to reduce carbon emissions are not working fast enough and that levels are “too high”, leading to irregular weather patterns and eventually the temperature “tipping point” in which an exponential crisis is created by heat creating carbon and then carbon creating more heat. The problem is that nothing in this theory is backed by causational evidence or the climate history of the Earth. In other words, climate scientists are siphoning up government grant money to create solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist. The vast majority of climate change theories are based on data collected since the 1880s – 140 years of data is a insignificant window of time in the long lifespan of the Earth’s climate.

When we look at the temperature data over millions of years, we find that today’s temps are near the lowest in our planet’s history (we just exited an Ice Age not long ago and climate scientists want us to believe it’s too hot).

When comparing millions of years of carbon data to parallel temperature data, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between carbon levels and global warming. This graph also proves that carbon and temperature levels can rise and fall independently of human industry and human industry’s effects on these patterns is negligible or non-existent.

There is also no data to prove correlation or causation between carbon emissions and extreme weather patterns. The entirety of the climate change theory is based on lab models with no corresponding examples in nature. It is pure hysteria. This makes the use of atmospheric manipulation by governments all the more disturbing. If they truly are trying to “dim the sun” for the sake of preventing global warming, then they are doing so based on a delusion. There is also the possibility that they know man-made climate change is nonsense and these experiments serve another purpose. In either case, they should be stopped. No one voted for politicians to blot out the sun (or to find a way to blot out the sun). No one gave them permission to pump particulates or chemicals into the sky. Their actions constitute a radical violation of the public trust.

Read more …

50 years ago, sulfur dioxide meant acid rain. Today it must save the world. This is far worse than mass hysteria. Stop these fools. Lock them up with Al Gore.

• EPA Head Demands Answers From Company Putting Sulfur Dioxide Into The Air (JTN)

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is demanding a company that deliberately sends sulfur dioxide into the air to combat global warming provide detailed information on its practices. Critics of the practice, which is called geoengineering, say it puts potentially harmful pollutants into the air and needs more oversight. The company Zeldin is scrutinizing, Make Sunsets, sells “cooling credits.” The credits pay to launch weather balloons made of biodegradable latex containing hydrogen and sulfur dioxide. According to the company, each $5 credit it sells offsets the warming impact of one ton of carbon dioxide for one year. Last year, the company posted on its X account videos of balloon launches. According to the Make Sunsets website, the company has sold 125,717 “cooling credits” since February 2023, delivered by 147 balloons.

As the balloon rises, the decreasing air pressure causes it to burst. They try to make the balloon burst above 66,000 feet, upon which they issue the “cooling credits.” Make Sunsets was founded by entrepreneur Luke Iseman and former account executive Andrew Song. The company is backed by venture capitalists Boost VC, Draper Associates, Pioneer Fund and unnamed “angel investors.” The company isn’t the only company looking at various approaches to geoengineering, nor is it a new concept. More than a decade ago, billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates was lobbying governments and international organizations to back research into how sulfur dioxide could be used to counteract global warming.

Last year, The New York Times reported on an experiment by University of Washington researchers on the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier in Alameda, California. The researchers sprayed an aerosol of sea salt to brighten clouds and make them reflect more sunlight. This May, experts and advocates of geoengineering – also called solar radiation modification (SRM) – are gathering for a conference on the topic. The “Degrees 2025 Global Forum” features an agenda full of speakers from around the world. The interest in geoengineering is driven by claims that climate change is producing dangerous outcomes, which many experts dispute. With global emissions continuing to rise despite trillions spent pursuing “net zero” – which is balancing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere with the amount removed – geoengineering proponents say it’s a “Plan B” to stop global warming.

Critics of geoengineering say it’s potentially dangerous and possibly unnecessary. Steve Milloy, senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute and publisher of “JunkScience.com,” told Just the News that the balloons Make Sunsets is sending up are likely harmless because the scale of the operation is so small. To have any significant impact on global temperatures, Milloy said, the operation would have to put tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which would cause harm. “All this stuff is just kind of crazy because – well, it’s not kind of crazy, it’s just crazy. In the first place, it’s really not going to work. For it to work, you’d have to do it on such a scale that we would have acid rain again,” Milloy said.

During the 1970s and 1980s, acid rain became a widespread environmental concern, explored in situation comedies and news reports. Acid rain falls when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere and transported by wind and air currents. The two gases react with water, oxygen and other chemicals to form sulfuric and nitric acids. They mix with water condensing in the atmosphere and fall to the ground. Dr. Matthew Wielicki, a geologist and author of the “Irrational Fear” Substack, explains in an article on geoengineering that beginning in the 1990s, the U.S. began implementing regulations aimed at sulfur emissions from diesel engines. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel was expensive and drove up the cost of shipping, which drove up the cost of everything, Wielicki explains.

Unlike carbon dioxide, which stimulates plant growth, sulfur dioxide, Wielicki wrote, causes genuine environmental harm, including soil acidification, forest degradation, infrastructure corrosion and severe aquatic ecosystem damage. “This tangible harm justified sulfur regulations,” Wielicki warns. “Yet now, geoengineering advocates want to intentionally pump sulfur into our atmosphere, ignoring decades of clear scientific evidence regarding sulfur’s proven environmental and health damage.” Just the News reached out to Make Sunsets to ask about the safety of their operation and Zeldin’s request for details about its operation, but didn’t receive a response. Make Sunsets co-founder Iseman told the MIT Technology Review the company is part entrepreneurial and partly an act of geoengineering activism meant to get attention. “We joke slash not joke that this is partly a company and partly a cult,” he told the Review. With the threat of climate change, he said, “It’s morally wrong, in my opinion, for us not to be doing this.”

In a press release, Zeldin said Make Sunsets is banned in Mexico, and it’s not clear the company has been in contact with state, local or federal agencies. Noting the potential environmental and respiratory health impacts of sulfur dioxide, the EPA states that the gas has been regulated since 1971. The EPA told Just the News that Make Sunsets is the only entity in the U.S. currently launching sulfur dioxide balloons with the intention of geoengineering. The agency gave the company a deadline of May 14 to answer its questions. In a letter to the company, the EPA warns that a failure to comply in a timely manner could result in monetary penalties. The EPA is asking Make Sunsets to provide information on the physical location of the company, the number of employees, its annual revenues and its expenditures for carbon credits. It’s also asking for detailed information on its balloon launches and their contents, including what gases they contain and how they’re sourced.

The agency is also asking about any communications the company has had with federal, state and local authorities, and any enforcement actions, such as consent decrees, related to air emissions that apply to Make Sunset’s operations. Milloy said that the science behind the cooling effect of sulfur dioxide is solid. Research has shown, for example, the 2001 Mount Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures for about 15 months after the eruption due to the cooling effect of the particles it put into the atmosphere. The problem with geoengineering, he said, is that lowering temperatures by increasing sunlight reflection will impact agriculture, in addition to acid rain. On a global scale, it could create all kinds of problems. “Do we really want the Chinese getting involved in this and trying to control our weather?” Milloy asked.

Read more …

“The future looks bright! Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat..”

• ‘Rewrite The Rules’ – Trump Store Teases Potential 2028 Reelection Bid (JTN)

First son Eric Trump on Thursday shared a link to the Trump store that appeared to tease a third term for President Donald Trump, with hats and shirts that read “Trump 2028 (rewrite the rules).” The president has floated that there are ways for him to run for a nearly unprecedented third term, which has only been achieved by the late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and which is now prohibited under the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. President Trump has not specified how he would be able to skirt the 22nd Amendment, except to acknowledge that Vice President JD Vance running, winning and then allowing Trump to be president is a possibility.

The Trump store website charges $50 for the Trump 2028 hat, and $36 for the shirts. “The future looks bright! Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat,” a description of the item reads. “Fully embroidered with a snap closure in the back, this will become your new go-to hat.” One lawmaker, Tennessee GOP Rep. Andy Ogles, has suggested making it possible for presidents to serve three terms if they do not serve more than two terms back to back. This would allow Trump to seek a third term, because of the gap in his presidencies.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Autism
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1915205991664099623

 

 

 

 

Growth

 

 

Lions

 

 

Eco

 

 

Dressed
https://twitter.com/Suzierizzo1/status/1914901582140809390

 

 

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 30.06 on the deck rail. I left six cartridges beside it, then left it alone and went about my business. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, my neighbor across the street mowed his lawn, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of my house. After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it. It hadn’t moved itself off the deck rail. It hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had presented to do so.

In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself. You can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the Media about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world. The United States is third in murders throughout the World. But if you take out just four cities: Chicago , Detroit , Washington DC and New Orleans , the United States is fourth from the bottom, in the entire world, for murders.

These four Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the U.S. All four of these cities are CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS. It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data – correct? Well, I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat .

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 23 2025

Apr 232025
 
 April 23, 2025  Posted by at 9:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  47 Responses »


Edward Hopper Sailing 1911

 

• Trump Makes ‘Final Offer’ To End Ukraine Conflict – Axios (RT)
• Trump Signals Step Back On China Tariffs (DC)
• ‘Only Trust Primary Sources’ On US-Russia Talks – Kremlin (RT)
• Ukraine Not Ready to Discuss US Peace Plan Proposal – Reports (RT)
• Ukraine Will Not Recognize Russia’s Crimea – Zelensky (RT)
• Rubio and Witkoff To Skip London Ukraine Talks (RT)
• EU and UK Preparing Naval Blockade of Russia – Patrushev (RT)
• Zelensky Could Easily Rig Wartime Election – Ex-Campaign Chief (RT)
• US To Propose Crimea Recognition As Part of Ukraine Peace Deal – WaPo (RT)
• Putin Offers To Halt Fighting Along Current Front Lines In Ukraine: FT (ZH)
• Tesla Shares Pop 5% After Musk Says He’ll Limit Time With DOGE In May (ZH)
• Rubio Announces MAJOR State Department Overhaul (PJM)
• Trump’s Courage to Fight the Good Fight (DS)
• How Trump ‘Restored Law and Order’ to US Borders (Allen)
• Woke Blackout in Tinseltown (Ryumshin)
• The Big Short and The Bigger Long (Egon von Greyerz)

 

 


Nikas Safronov (gifted to Trump by Putin)

 

 


https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/1914636471778111601

JFK

Nap/Sachs

Rice

Zeldin

BlackRock
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1914581682675449912

 

 

 

 

“..the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the[four regions]..”

Zelensky simply says no, not acceptable. For Kiev, It’s just a game.

• Trump Makes ‘Final Offer’ To End Ukraine Conflict – Axios (RT)

Washington has presented Kiev with what US President Donald Trump is calling a “final offer” to end the conflict in Ukraine, according to a report by Axios. The Kremlin, however, has urged the public to rely on official sources for developments in US–Russian talks. The one-page document was reportedly drafted following Trump envoy Steve Witkoff’s four-hour meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month, and was presented to Ukrainian officials in Paris last week, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the discussions. Under the proposed deal, the US is said to be prepared to grant “de jure” recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and unofficially acknowledge Moscow’s “de facto” control over the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.

The plan also includes provisions for lifting post-2014 sanctions on Moscow and enhancing bilateral economic cooperation. In addition, Washington would formally oppose Ukraine’s bid to join NATO. In return, Ukraine would reportedly receive a “robust security guarantee” from a coalition of EU and other like-minded countries, though the proposal lacks details on how this “peacekeeping” operation would function. Russia has consistently rejected the deployment of NATO forces to Ukraine under any pretext. The framework also promises Kiev unimpeded access to the Dnepr River and potential compensation for reconstruction efforts, although it does not specify where the funding would originate. The plan references a minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, which Trump expects to be signed on Thursday.

Another component of the proposal, according to Axios, involves designating the area around the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant (NPP) as neutral territory under US administration. Washington reportedly expects Kiev to respond to the proposal during a multinational meeting in London on Wednesday. Both Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will skip the event, with General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy focused on Ukraine, leading the US delegation instead. Witkoff is expected to travel to Moscow for a follow-up meeting with Putin. Rubio warned last week that the US could abandon the peace initiative and “move on” to other issues if negotiations fail. Trump said on Monday there is “a good chance of solving the problem” this week.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out ceding any territory to Russia and continues to urge the US and other allies to provide sustained military support. Moscow has consistently stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022 is not open to negotiation. Russian officials insist that any peace agreement must address the “root causes” of the conflict. Putin has added that a viable ceasefire would require Western nations to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Read more …

“..I think they’re going to be happy, and I think we’re going to live together very happily and ideally work together.”

• Trump Signals Step Back On China Tariffs (DC)

President Donald Trump signaled Tuesday evening from the Oval Office that the U.S. will ease tariffs on China, saying they’ll “come down substantially” but won’t be eliminated entirely. On April 2, Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on several countries, with higher rates for nations like China due to their own trade barriers against the U.S. When asked Tuesday about the tariffs against the foreign country, Trump said that the 145% hit would not last forever. “I’m sure 145% is very high, and it won’t be that high, not going to be that high,” Trump said. “It got up to there. We were talking about fentanyl where, you know, various elements built it up to 145. No, it won’t be anywhere near that high.” Following Trump’s initial tariff announcement, the U.S. and China entered a tariff war, with China responding by imposing steep tariffs of its own.

By April 9, Trump said the U.S. would raise tariffs on China from 104% to 125% — after the country refused to lift its retaliatory measures — while implementing a 90-day pause on tariffs for other countries. “It’ll come down substantially, but it won’t be zero. It used to be zero,” Trump said. “We were just destroyed. China was taking us for a ride and just not going to — it’s not going to happen. We’re going to be very good to China. I have a great relationship with President Xi, but they would make billions and billions and billions of dollars a year, and they were building a military out of the United States on what they made.” By April 10, the White House said that Trump’s announced 125% tariff would actually total 145% on all Chinese imports, according to The New York Times.

The administration said the 125% would be added on top of a previously announced 20% tariff already in place on goods from China, the outlet reported. “So that won’t happen. But they’re going to do very well, and I think they’re going to be happy, and I think we’re going to live together very happily and ideally work together. So I think it’s going to work out very well, but, no, it’s at 145%. It will not be anywhere near that number,” Trump said. During a speech Tuesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expects a “de-escalation” in the tariff war between the U.S. and China, adding that the ongoing conflict would be unsustainable in the long run, according to the Associated Press.

Read more …

Maybe the no.1 item for the day. If the Kremlin feels they must warn about what everybody already knows, it’s serious. The other day I mentioned NPR, NYT, Politico as suspicious sources on the topic. Today the FT very much joins those ranks.

“A lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications..”

• ‘Only Trust Primary Sources’ On US-Russia Talks – Kremlin (RT)

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has urged people to go to the primary sources regarding developments in talks with the US on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, warning of fake news. In an interview with RIA Novosti on Tuesday, Peskov was asked to comment on a recent report from the Financial Times claiming that Moscow is ready to freeze the conflict along the current front lines. “A lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications, so you should only listen to the primary sources,” he said. According to the FT article from Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to freeze the conflict during his meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff earlier this month in St. Petersburg.

Russian presidential foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov confirmed on Tuesday that Moscow is expecting another visit from Witkoff later this week. This will be the diplomat’s fourth visit to Russia since the start of the US diplomatic push regarding the Ukraine conflict. US President Donald Trump has touted a big reveal of his plan to wrap up the hostilities in Ukraine. “I will be giving you a full detail over the next three days,” he told journalists on Monday, adding that the US has “had very good meetings on Ukraine, Russia.” The Kremlin stated that while work is underway, the peace process is unlikely to conclude soon.

“This topic is so complex that it probably shouldn’t be constrained by strict timeframes,” Peskov told the press on Tuesday. Trump and his administration have signaled growing dissatisfaction with the pace of the peace talks. “If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters last Friday. Throughout the conflict, Moscow has said it is open to talks with Kiev. Negotiations must be based on the realities on the ground and address the root causes, such as Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The Kremlin previously stated that it would not accept a temporary halt in the hostilities, saying this would simply allow Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm its military.

Read more …

“Not ready yet.” Trump is being played.

• Ukraine Not Ready to Discuss US Peace Plan Proposal – Reports (RT)

Ukraine appears to be reluctant to discuss the peace plan framework, prepared by the United States, during the upcoming talks in London, Axios reports, citing a US official. In the past 24 hours, there had been “indications from the Ukrainians” that they only planned to discuss a 30-day ceasefire on Wednesday, instead of US President Donald Trump’s complex peace plan proposal, Axios said on Tuesday night. The Washington Post reported earlier on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter, that the Trump administration was going to propose during the upcoming talks with Ukrainian and European representatives in London that Crimea gets recognized as part of Russia and that the front lines get freezed as part of a peace agreement.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing a person with knowledge of the negotiations, that British and French officials were “open to a scenario” where Ukraine would “accept the loss of control of some of the territories taken by Russia,” in exchange for economic support and security guarantees. The newspaper specified that France and the United Kingdom would prefer a Ukraine peace deal that acknowledged control of territories “only in a de facto way.” The New York Post reported, citing a senior US administration official, that Kiev was seemingly “willing to give up 20% of its land,” but only if it was considered a “de facto” recognition of the territory and not “de jure.”

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the US special presidential envoy for the Middle East, held talks on the conflict resolution with representatives from Germany, the United Kingdom and Ukraine, as well as with French President Emmanuel Macron, in Paris. On April 18, Rubio said he hoped the next meeting between Ukrainian and European representatives would lead to progress in the Ukrainian settlement. On Tuesday, US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said that Rubio was not going to attend the upcoming talks in London. The US will be represented by special envoy Keith Kellogg. Axios suggested on Tuesday that the decision to send Kellogg was made because of Kiev’s reluctance to discuss Trump’s peace plan framework.

Read more …

Zelensky claims Russia wants to prolong the war…

• Ukraine Will Not Recognize Russia’s Crimea – Zelensky (RT)

Kiev refuses to discuss recognizing Crimea as a Russian territory, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky told journalists on Tuesday, according to Ukrainian outlet Suspilne. “[Crimea] is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine. We have nothing to talk about on this topic – it is outside our Constitution,” Zelensky said. The Ukrainian leader claimed that discussing the issue of Crimean ownership will only lead to prolonging the war. “As soon as we start talking about Crimea, about our sovereign territories, we enter the format of prolonging the war,” he said, adding that this is “what Russia wants.”

Read more …

The US will now send Kellogg, who was recently demoted to make place for Witkoff.

“Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov reportedly told the US envoys that Kiev is “90%” aligned with Washington’s proposed peace framework..”

• Rubio and Witkoff To Skip London Ukraine Talks (RT)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not attend the upcoming Ukraine talks in London, despite earlier plans to take part, the State Department has confirmed. President Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, has also withdrawn from the meeting, according to the Financial Times, and is expected to visit Moscow instead. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce cited scheduling conflicts as the reason for Rubio’s withdrawal from Wednesday’s talks, insisting this does not signal a change in the US commitment to the peace process. “Secretary Rubio is a busy man… And so when there’s certain plans, they’re conditional. And in this particular instance, while the meetings in London are still occurring, he will not be attending. But that is not a statement regarding the meetings; it’s a statement about logistical issues in his schedule,” Bruce told journalists on Tuesday.

General Keith Kellogg, another Trump envoy tasked with negotiating with Kiev directly, will represent Washington at the London discussions. The talks will include officials from the UK, France, and Germany – countries that advocate continued military support for Ukraine – as well as representatives from Kiev. The London talks follow a series of high-level meetings in Paris last week, where Rubio and Witkoff held discussions with European and Ukrainian officials. According to the New York Post, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov reportedly told the US envoys that Kiev is “90%” aligned with Washington’s proposed peace framework, which has not yet been made public. Sources cited by the Washington Post on Tuesday claimed that the US proposals include formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and potentially lifting sanctions on Moscow as part of a future agreement.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times claimed that Russia is prepared to halt the hostilities along the current front line. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged the media and public to rely on official sources regarding developments in US–Russian talks on the Ukraine conflict, warning that “a lot of fakes are being published now, including by respected publications.” Both Washington and Moscow have officially confirmed that Witkoff will travel to Russia for talks “later this week.” Moscow has stated that the status of Crimea – which joined Russia in 2014 following a referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev – and the four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022, is not subject to negotiation. Russian officials maintain that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is essential to achieving a lasting peace.

Read more …

Russia would have to react. EU and UK hope that starts a war with NATO.

• EU and UK Preparing Naval Blockade of Russia – Patrushev (RT)

The EU and the UK are gearing up to impose a naval blockade on Russia, Nikolay Patrushev, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said. He warned that Moscow has a fleet powerful enough to respond to any such move. In an interview published on Monday by Kommersant, Patrushev, who chairs Russia’s Maritime Board, a body which oversees national policy in this domain, stated that Moscow is facing escalating threats and challenges at sea amid growing geopolitical tensions. “The collective West no longer hides its intentions to expel our shipping from the seas, while sanctions plans mulled, for example, by the British and some EU members increasingly resemble a maritime blockade,” he said. Patrushev warned that these steps would “meet an adequate and proportionate response” from Moscow.

“If diplomatic or legal instruments do not take effect, the security of Russian shipping will be ensured by our navy. The hotheads in London or Brussels need to clearly understand this,” he said. Patrushev emphasized that Russia is pursuing a large-scale naval modernization program, including the development and deployment of unmanned systems while refining navy tactics. However, Moscow does not intend to get involved in a “naval arms race,” he added. Western countries introduced maritime restrictions on Russia in 2022 over the Ukraine conflict, and have sanctioned dozens of Russian ships for allegedly circumventing an oil price cap. Russian ships have also faced major obstacles in accessing EU ports, insurers, and financial institutions.

The British Navy has been shadowing Russian ships passing near its waters for months, citing concerns about a perceived threat to national security and maritime infrastructure. Maritime tensions have also been heightened in recent months following several ruptures in underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. While there has been speculation about alleged Russian involvement, Western officials have offered no evidence. The Kremlin has dismissed the speculation as “absurd.” NATO has increased its military presence in the Baltic Sea following the sabotage allegations, prompting Russia to warn that it would respond appropriately to any “violations” by the bloc’s vessels.

Read more …

You can’t have a fair election with him as a candidate, or an organizer.

• Zelensky Could Easily Rig Wartime Election – Ex-Campaign Chief (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has the ability to manipulate the outcome of a presidential election under the current martial law, according to his former campaign chief, Dmitry Razumkov. Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year, but he asserts that no leadership change can occur while the conflict with Russia persists. In an interview with journalist Anna Maksimchuk on Monday, Razumkov, a seasoned political strategist who propelled Zelensky to power, expressed concern over his former client’s ability to maintain control. ”If someone devises a system for elections under martial law, Zelensky will end up with 102% of the vote,” he quipped. “They’ll station conscription officers at every polling station and draft on the spot anyone who dares not support the current government.”

Razumkov further criticized the notion of conducting a remote election via Ukraine’s e-government service, asserting that “whoever controls Dia will then secure that same 102%.” He quipped that Russia could engineer Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s election in Ukraine through such a faulty system. “Dia,” which translates to “the state and I,” is an app closely associated with Digitalization Minister Mikhail Fedorov. Razumkov managed the successful 2019 campaign that turned Zelensky from a comedian into a head of state. Subsequently, he served as the speaker of parliament until 2021, when he was ousted by fellow lawmakers from the president’s party in what many observers said was a consolidation of power.

Zelensky has continuously extended martial law in Ukraine roughly every three months, with the latest prolongation last week pushing the expiration date to early August. His emergency rule has even been condemned by US President Donald Trump, who called Zelensky a “dictator without elections” in February. Moscow contends that, according to the Ukrainian constitution, Zelensky should transfer presidential authority to the current parliamentary speaker, Ruslan Stefanchuk. Zelensky’s refusal to do so casts doubt on the legal validity of any documents he signs, including potentially a peace treaty with Russia, President Vladimir Putin has observed.

Read more …

“.. it was “Witkoff’s idea” for the US to designate Crimea as Russian “without forcing Ukraine to recognize it.”

• US To Propose Crimea Recognition As Part of Ukraine Peace Deal – WaPo (RT)

Washington will propose a peace deal recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea and freezing the front lines in the Ukraine conflict at a meeting with Ukrainian and European officials this week, the Washington Post has reported, citing sources. The US is expected to hold talks in London on Wednesday with Ukrainian and European officials as US President Donald Trump continues his push for a deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Keith Kellogg are reportedly set to meet foreign ministers and security advisers from France, Germany, the UK, and Ukraine. People familiar with the matter told the outlet on Tuesday that US proposals, presented to Ukraine in Paris last week, include Washington formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and eventually lifting sanctions against Moscow under a future accord.

One Western official described the pressure on Ukraine as “astounding.” European officials are expected to push for security guarantees for Ukraine and postwar reconstruction efforts, possibly funded in part by frozen Russian assets, the report said.Trump has threatened to walk away if progress is not made soon, and told reporters on Monday that he would be releasing details of the US proposals “over the next three days.” US special envoy Steve Witkoff, who has had multiple rounds of talks with senior Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, will visit Russia later this week, Moscow has confirmed. According to one of the Post’s sources, it was “Witkoff’s idea” for the US to designate Crimea as Russian “without forcing Ukraine to recognize it.”

Crimea held a referendum to join Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed armed coup in Kiev. The new Ukrainian government, along with its Western supporters, has refused to recognize the vote’s legitimacy.Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has ruled out relinquishing any territorial claims against Russia and has urged the US and other nations to continue providing military aid – a policy the Trump administration has said it will end. Moscow insists that the status of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol, and the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia in 2022, is not up for negotiation. Russian officials have emphasized that recognizing the “reality on the ground” is key to achieving lasting peace.

Read more …

This is the report the Kremlin warns about.

• Putin Offers To Halt Fighting Along Current Front Lines In Ukraine: FT (ZH)

In a huge development, President Vladimir Putin has offered to halt his invasion of Ukraine across the current front line as part of ongoing efforts to work with US President Donald Trump toward reaching a permanent peace deal. This reportedly happened during ongoing dialogue with Trump’s top envoys. This is according to several sources which spoke to Financial Times, which wrote further in a Tuesday report, “The proposal is the first formal indication Putin has given since the war’s early months three years ago that Russia could step back from its maximalist demands to end the invasion.” “The Russian president told Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, during a meeting in St Petersburg earlier this month that Moscow could relinquish its claims to areas of four partly occupied Ukrainian regions that remain under Kyiv’s control, three of the people said,” FT continues.

The Kremlin side has not publicly acknowledged this, and so the breaking report should be taken with a grain of salt, given this contradicts Putin’s public stance that Russia will never relinquish the four territories which were declared part of the Russian Federation after the Moscow-backed referendums of Sept. 2022. However, if Russian forces did simply halt their advance based on an agreed-upon freeze in fighting, there would be portions of these territories still not under Russian military control. The FT report goes on, “The US has since floated ideas for a possible settlement that includes Washington recognizing Russian ownership of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, the people added, as well as at least acknowledging the Kremlin’s de facto control over the parts of the four regions it currently holds.”

All of this is being reported hours after Ukraine’s President Zelensky said he has rejected the possibility of ceding over Crimea, after the Trump administration reportedly offered the ‘gift’ to Putin of US recognition of Russian sovereignty over the strategic peninsula and home to the Russian navy’s Black Sea fleet. According to Ukrainian media: “Ukraine will not legally recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea under any circumstances, President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a briefing in Kyiv on April 22. “There is nothing to talk about. This violates our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky told reporters. Zelensky added, “As soon as talks about Crimea and our sovereign territories begin, the talks enter the format that Russia wants — prolonging the war – because it will not be possible to agree on everything quickly.”

Kiev has also recently accused Moscow of using negotiations as a smokescreen while in actuality prolonging the war, also coming off the 30-hour Eastern truce, which saw both sides accuse the other of many violations. The Financial Times acknowledged this possibility, and the fact that Moscow is in the driver’s seat related to any potential settlement that would end the conflict, in the following: But European officials briefed on US efforts to end the war cautioned that Putin would probably use the apparent concession as bait to lure Trump into accepting Russia’s other demands and forcing them on Ukraine as a fait accompli. “There is a lot of pressure on Kyiv right now to give up on things so Trump can claim victory,” one of them said.

The reality remains that if Zelensky can’t so much as admit that Crimea will be permanently in Russia’s hands, with no hope of Kiev ever getting it back, the prospect of a peace settlement happening anytime soon seems very remote. But clearly Moscow is seeking to show itself willing to compromise by these overtures, but whether there’s much substance or genuineness behind the offer to halt all frontline fighting is another question. At the moment, at least 99.5% of Kursk territory is back in Russia’s control. Russia’s military also still continues to advance in remaining parts of Donetsk still held by Ukraine, but slowly and village by village.

Read more …

Tesla will be alright. So will Musk.

• Tesla Shares Pop 5% After Musk Says He’ll Limit Time With DOGE In May (ZH)

In a candid call with analysts on Tuesday, Elon Musk announced that he will begin scaling back his involvement with the federal government starting in May, signaling a shift in priorities back toward Tesla. As a result, Tesla shares were up 5% late in the after hours session.“I think starting probably next month, May, my time allocation to DOGE will drop significantly,” Musk said. Musk has been a central figure in the effort to streamline the federal government under the Trump administration through an initiative he dubbed the “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE. That effort has involved an aggressive reduction of federal workforce levels, targeting DEI programs, and a broad reorganization of agency resources. Despite growing protests against Tesla and Musk’s role in Washington, he remains unapologetic. “The work with DOGE is critical,” he stated, while dismissing the backlash as “organized and paid for.”

Although the billionaire entrepreneur holds the title of “special government employee”—a designation that legally limits him to 130 days of federal work per year—his presence in the capital has been nothing short of influential. Musk indicated that the heavy lifting to establish DOGE is “mostly done,” allowing him to reallocate his schedule. “I will spend ‘a day or two’ per week on government matters if President Trump wants me to,” he said, but emphasized that more of his attention will now return to Tesla. Despite his pullback from the capital, Musk said he will “continue to advocate for lower tariffs, rather than higher tariffs,” noting that this is the extent of his ongoing engagement on trade policy. Tesla remains the only publicly traded firm among Musk’s sprawling portfolio, which includes SpaceX, Neuralink, XAI, and The Boring Company. As such, it has absorbed much of the public response—both praise and criticism—related to Musk’s deepening political ties.

Yet, the CEO expressed confidence in Tesla’s direction. “I remain extremely optimistic about Tesla’s future,” he said, pointing to the company’s ambitions in autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots. He reiterated his forecast that Tesla will become the most valuable company in the world, noting that robotaxis are expected to deliver a meaningful financial impact by mid-2026. He also revealed that Tesla aims to have thousands of its Optimus humanoid robots operational in factories by the end of the year, with plans to scale to one million units annually within five years—a pace he described as faster than any product in the company’s history. Closing the call with idealism, Musk said, “I like this phrase sustainable abundance for all,” and affirmed his commitment to continue leading Tesla through its next phase of innovation and expansion. Tesla reported earnings after the market closed that were worse than analyst expectations. The stock, with most of the bad news seemingly already priced in, held its ground in after hours trading. The results were:

• Revenues $19.34BN, big miss to estimates of $21.37BN
• EPS 27c, missing estimates of 43c
• Gross margin 16.3% (down from 17.4% y/y), and beating estimates of 16.1%
• Automotive gross margin ex reg credits 12.5%, beating estimates of 11.9%
• Operating income $399 million, -66% y/y, missing estimates of $1.13 billion
• Free cash flow $664 million (vs. negative $2.53 billion y/y) missing estimate $1.08 billion
• Capital expenditure $1.49 billion (down -46% vs $2.77Bn y/y and down 47% vs $2.78BN Q/Q), missing estimates of $2.49 billion
Of note, Tesla eked out positive free cash flow number by slashing capex almost in half compared with the prior quarter and a year ago. Absent that, it would have burned cash.

Tesla offered a measured outlook during its earnings report, signaling that it will revisit its 2025 guidance in the Q2 update, while notably omitting any concrete forecast for a return to growth. The company emphasized that its rate of growth will hinge on a range of variables, including global trade policy, which it admitted is difficult to quantify in terms of impact. Tariffs, in particular, are expected to weigh more heavily on the company’s energy unit than its automotive business, with Tesla cautioning that the broader tariff landscape could have a larger effect on demand and operational strategy. Nevertheless, the company maintained that actions are being taken to stabilize performance over the medium to long term, and it expressed confidence in having sufficient liquidity to fund its product roadmap. Tesla confirmed that plans for new, more affordable vehicle models remain on track for production in the first half of 2025, though it acknowledged that these models may lead to less dramatic cost reductions than previously expected. Even with trade headwinds, the company reiterated a growing need for energy storage solutions across markets.

Read more …

“In its current form, the Department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission..”

• Rubio Announces MAJOR State Department Overhaul (PJM)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made a huge announcement on Tuesday regarding the State Department and the Donald Trump administration’s “America First” agenda. It’s being called the biggest shakeup at State in decades. “Today is the day,” Rubio began in a post on X, adding, “Under @POTUS’ leadership and at my direction, we are reversing decades of bloat and bureaucracy at the State Department. These sweeping changes will empower our talented diplomats to put America and Americans first.” The post included an official statement from the State Department, which reads (emphasis mine): We are facing tremendous challenges across the globe. To deliver on President Trump’s America First foreign policy, we must make the State Department Great Again. In its current form, the Department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition.

Over the past 15 years, the Department’s footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared. But far from seeing a return on investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and efficient diplomacy. The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America’s core national interests. That is why today I am announcing a comprehensive reorganization plan that will bring the Department into the 21st Century. This approach will empower the Department from the ground up, from the bureaus to the embassies. Region-specific functions will be consolidated to increase functionality, redundant offices will be removed, and non-statutory programs that are misaligned with America’s core national interests will cease to exist. Under President Trump’s leadership, we have a commander in chief committed to putting America and Americans first. As his Secretary of State, I am confident a reformed State Department will meet the moment and help make our country great once again.

So what exactly does a “comprehensive reorganization” of the State Department look like? According to The Free Press, which Rubio says has the “real exclusive,” — by the way, how do we get one of those exclusives here at PJ Media? — internal documents show that the Department “will close 132 agency offices, including those launched to further human rights, advance democracy overseas, counter extremism, and prevent war crimes.” That’s a 17% reduction to start. Additionally, “under secretaries at the State Department are also being instructed within 30 days to present plans to reduce their U.S. personnel in individual departments by 15 percent,” including “six top offices employing thousands of people.”

Rubio also wrote about the shakeup in what appears to be a new Substack for the State Department, stating that “The Department has long struggled to perform basic diplomatic functions, even as both its size and cost to the American taxpayer has [sic] ballooned over the past fifteen years. The problem is not a lack of money, or even dedicated talent, but rather a system where everything takes too much time, costs too much money, involves too many individuals, and all too often ends up failing the American people.” He also expanded on a topic I covered last week, the shuttering of the Global Engagement Center — an office that censored U.S. citizens — citing it as just one of many reasons why this overhaul is necessary.

“An example of an out-of-control Department is the Global Engagement Center (GEC) that I shuttered last week. The office engaged with media outlets and platforms to censor speech it disagreed with, including that of the President o the United States, who its director in 2019 accused of employing ‘the same techniques of disinformation as the Russians.’ Despite Congress voting to shutter it, the GEC simply renamed itself and continued operating as if nothing had changed. Unless we confront the underlying bureaucratic culture that prevents the State Department from carrying out an effective foreign policy, while allowing offices like GEC to flourish in the shadows, nothing will change. That is why I am initiating a broad reorganization of the Department to address the steady growth of bureaucracy, duplication of functions, and capture by special interests that have crippled American Foreign Policy.

Read more …

“Courage means feeling fear but behaving in a way that is noble and good..”

• Trump’s Courage to Fight the Good Fight (DS)

When the White House invoked the “Immortal Chaplains” to illustrate the history between the United States and Greenland, it touched on a theme emerging in the second Trump administration: the importance of courage. On Feb. 3, 1943, the American steamship SS Dorchester embarked with 902 souls—soldiers, merchant seamen, and civilians—bound for a U.S. Army base in southern Greenland to support the buildup of military personnel during World War II. The ship’s captain ordered those on board to sleep in their uniforms and life jackets in case of an attack by German submarines, but many disregarded the order because of heat from the ship’s engine. Just after midnight, a U-boat’s torpedo slammed into the Dorchester’s starboard side below the water line. Four Navy chaplains—a rabbi, a Methodist minister, a Catholic priest, and a Protestant reverend—gave up their own life vests and guided panicked crew members to the lifeboats.

The Dorchester sank in 20 minutes. One of the 230 survivors later recalled what he saw as he swam away from the ship: “The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the four chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could.” Courage means feeling fear but behaving in a way that is noble and good, as the chaplains did when they acted on their deepest convictions aboard the Dorchester. Donald Trump once wrote that courage is not the absence of fear but “the ability to act effectively, in spite of fear.” In 2016, Trump showed moral courage when he spoke the truth to American voters: A parasitic “establishment” of political and corporate interests had been exploiting our workers, farmers, and soldiers. When Trump challenged 16 opponents in the Republican primary, he exposed untruths in a conservative orthodoxy passed down from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush.

Establishment foes hounded him with investigations and impeachment proceedings throughout the four years of his presidency, but Trump refused to compromise his principles or check his ambition to “make America great again.” Emboldened by Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021, the establishment connived to use the 14th Amendment to prevent Trump from running for president a third time. They leveled charges against him in two federal district courts, tried him in a New York state court, and indicted him in Georgia for alleged RICO Act violations. Though Trump was unbowed, his campaign manager, Susie Wiles, was concerned: “I just worry that if they can’t get him this way, they’ll try to kill him.” And that almost happened on July 13 at the fairgrounds in Butler, Pennsylvania, when an assassin’s bullet grazed Trump’s ear.

Where Trump modeled courage, the establishment shows only cowardice—their decade-long effort to destroy Trump has been prosecuted from the shadows, hiding behind the anonymity that bureaucratic power affords. They falsely claimed that Trump “colluded” with Vladimir Putin and Russia. They used a cloak-and-dagger plan to scuttle the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. And, in 2022, someone leaked a copy of the Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade. In spite of Chief Justice John Roberts’ promise, the leaker remains unidentified and unaccountable. Some say that Trump’s opponents exemplify courage in their bold attacks on his character and reputation. But talk doesn’t make them courageous, least of all because it costs them nothing. Their admonitions are purely performative means to curry favor with the media and the establishment at large, which are viciously opposed to Trump’s reforms.

There is nothing courageous about yelling “F–k Trump” into a microphone. Whatever force it has in the political sphere depends on showing that the saying is accompanied by a doing. Trump’s been talking tough for years and backs it up by action of some kind. In the moment that he rose to his feet in Butler, with his face bloodied and yelling, “Fight! Fight! Fight!,” he gave the final proof that he’s more than a tough talker. Biden’s presidency is a rich example of cowardice: Insiders worked for years to conceal that the sitting president was incapable of executing the duties of the office. In the book “Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,” longtime political reporters Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes pull back the curtain on Biden’s presidency, detailing how his staff stage-managed a declining president and hid his impairment from the American people. Biden “lived in bubble wrap inside bunkers,” the authors write.

Though “the signs of decline were clear to anyone who was willing to see them,” Biden’s inner circle believed that “no one walks away from the house, the plane, the helicopter,” so, onward they went. When the scam was exposed at the presidential debate last June, the power players in Washington again retreated to the secrecy of the back room and hatched a scheme to cede the delegates that Biden had secured to nominate a candidate of their choice rather than the people’s choice. For decades, presidents talked about moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but no one did until Trump. For years, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders called for tariffs to restructure world trade. But when Trump did what he said he would do and imposed tariffs? That was all it took for the same people to discover their opposition to tariffs.

The cowardice of Biden and the leading lights in the Democratic Party contrast sharply with the new administration. Trump and many others have gambled their reputations, fortunes, and future interests on a bold but polarizing agenda. They face the American people, every day, openly and fearlessly. For Trump, the most important quality for aides and Cabinet members is not loyalty but courage—and the willingness to pay a price for things that matter.

Read more …

Turns out, the border is a problem only if you invite people over.

• How Trump ‘Restored Law and Order’ to US Borders (Allen)

The House Homeland Security Committee released its latest “Border Brief” Tuesday, highlighting significant changes at the border since President Donald Trump took office, and a staggering year-over-year decline in the number of illegal immigrants attempting to enter the United States. “Southwest border crossings have hit another record-low because we now have a president and [a Department of Homeland Security] secretary who enforce the law,” Rep. Mark Green, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told The Daily Signal. “In less than three months, President Trump has restored law and order to our nation’s borders, removed criminal illegal aliens from our communities, and helped ensure the safety of the American people by empowering Department of Homeland Security law enforcement to do their jobs,” according to a committee press release.

In March, encounters with illegal aliens between ports of entry at the southern border fell by 94% compared to March 2024. Customs and Border Protection encountered 29,065 illegal aliens nationwide last month, down 88% from the 246,505 encountered in March 2024. Border Patrol’s daily apprehensions nationwide were the lowest in recorded history in March, averaging 264, a 94% decline from the previous year. The House Homeland Security Committee credits the decline in illegal crossings to the “Trump administration’s sustained deployment of military and federal law enforcement across the Southwest border, as well as partnerships with countries like El Salvador.” Since Jan. 20, the Trump administration has deployed thousands of troops and additional military resources to the southern border. The U.S. also formed an agreement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to house deported illegal aliens in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center.

The Trump administration has also ended various parole programs set in place or expanded under the Biden administration, such as the CBP One mobile application that allowed illegal aliens to schedule an appointment at a port of entry to claim asylum. The result of ending the Biden administration’s parole programs, according to the House committee, is an 80% decline in migrant encounters at U.S. ports of entry since March 2024. The daily average of known “getaways,” illegal aliens who manage to evade Border Patrol apprehension, has also fallen by more than 90% since Trump took office. Last week, a Maryland jury found Victor Martinez-Hernandez, a reported illegal alien gotaway from El Salvador, guilty of murdering Rachel Morin, a mother of five. The number of unaccompanied alien children arriving at the southern border declined by 92% last month when compared with March 2024.

Border Patrol has also witnessed a 97% year-over-year decline in the number of Chinese nationals crossing the southern border between ports of entry. Rather than “commending this return to law and order,” Green, R-Tenn., said his “colleagues across the aisle are working to defend an illegal alien MS-13 gang member who was rightfully removed from our country.” Democrats are advocating for the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien with ties to MS-13 who the Trump administration recently deported to a prison in El Salvador. Some Democrats, such as Mayland Sen. Chris Van Hollen who traveled to El Salvador to meet with Abrego Garcia, claim the man was wrongfully removed from the U.S. “To the American people, the contrast could not be clearer,” Green continued.

“Make no mistake—our communities are safer because the Trump administration has empowered DHS law enforcement to do their jobs, remove violent criminals, and dismantle the cartels’ business model. Now, Congress must codify President Trump’s homeland security agenda and provide the necessary funding to continue successfully securing our borders.” The House Homeland Security Committee’s March “Border Brief” celebrates the 32,809 arrests of illegal aliens at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during the first 50 days of the Trump administration. The nearly 33,000 arrests included “14,111 convicted criminals, of whom 1,155 were criminal gang members, as well as 39 aliens on the Terrorist Screening Data Set,” according to the committee. ICE has also arrested more than 300 members of the violent prison gang Tren de Aragua since Trump took office.

The committee in April advanced legislation introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., that would require the DHS to publish the known number of special interest aliens, that is illegal aliens who pose a possible national security risk to the U.S., who cross U.S. borders. In its first border-related hearing of the 119th Congress, the committee highlighted the changes at the border during a Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee hearing on March 28, aimed at showcasing the Biden administration’s “failure” at the border. “President Trump continues to deliver on the promises he made to secure our border,” Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., told The Daily Signal. “As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement, I am honored to have the opportunity to work alongside President Trump to continue delivering results for the American people.”

Read more …

Woke has bankrupted Hollywood. Or almost. Bad for business.

• Woke Blackout in Tinseltown (Ryumshin)

The conservative winds that have swept across America since January 20, 2025 have reached all the way to California. Hollywood, once the global capital of progressive values, is rapidly turning its back on the previous narrative. Transgender characters are quietly being cut from scripts, LGBT-themed productions shelved, and studios are shifting toward content with Christian and family-oriented values. Entire projects have been dropped. Others are being rewritten on the fly to avoid positive portrayals of LGBT characters. Just a year ago, such a reversal seemed unthinkable. Hollywood, which had long been synonymous with ‘woke’ ideology, appeared firmly entrenched in its liberal agenda. Anti-Trump themes were being churned out with near industrial efficiency, and conservative attempts at counter-programming lacked the budget or reach to compete. In the cultural trenches, liberals were not just winning, they were dominating. But now, studios are backing off.

The liberal press, already ringing alarm bells, has pinned the blame squarely on Donald Trump. In this rare case, they might have a point. Following his re-election, President Trump wasted no time in asserting ideological control. He signed executive orders recognizing only two genders, reinstated the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, and scrapped federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) guidelines. In the cultural sphere, he made a bold appointment: Brendan Carr, a staunch Trump supporter and co-architect of the ‘Project 2025’ conservative reform blueprint, was named chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC might seem bureaucratic, but under Carr, it has become a powerful cultural weapon. Investigations were quickly launched into media outlets seen as hostile to Trump.

Disney, one of the most vocal progressive corporations, was accused of violating equal opportunity laws through its DEI policies. After making some adjustments, Disney still found itself under pressure, with Carr even threatening to revoke ABC’s broadcasting license. The result? Rapid, widespread self-censorship. Studios aren’t backpedaling because they’ve had a change of heart, they simply don’t want to attract the regulatory wrath of Washington. Amazon, led by Jeff Bezos, was ahead of the curve. Bezos cultivated ties with the Trump camp, quietly axed DEI advisors, and began investing only in “safe” content. The reward? Government scrutiny vanished. Still, it would be unfair to credit Trump alone for Hollywood’s pivot.

The shift had begun before the 2024 election, driven by cold economic realities. The traditional business model of cable TV is collapsing. Streaming services, flooded with progressive content, have failed to turn a profit. Worse, many of those “inclusive” productions have sparked controversy, underperformed at the box office, and alienated large swathes of the audience. Family-oriented and religious films, by contrast, often require modest budgets and cater to a mainstream audience. Conservative content, it turns out, is not just safer – it’s more profitable. There’s also the matter of public fatigue. Americans are tired of being lectured. Box office returns, streaming numbers, and network ratings all tell the same story. Once-dominant liberal cable channels are in freefall. As of December 2024, CNN and MSNBC had lost half their prime-time audiences, plunging to 30-year lows.

Fox News, meanwhile, is thriving. So are conservative-leaning podcasters like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, now the dominant voices in America’s ‘new media’ landscape. None of this is a coincidence. The broader cultural and economic environment in the United States has shifted. Hollywood’s liberal monopoly was unsustainable, both financially and ideologically. Trump’s return to power merely accelerated a transformation already underway. Will this rightward turn change the face of global culture? Almost certainly. Will it return Hollywood to its former glory? Time will tell. But what is already clear is that the old narrative is dead – and the new one is being written with a red pen.

Read more …

“..the total collapse which is about to happen, is not “Trump’s fault”. He just happened to be the right person to execute the inevitable downfall of a major monetary era. But even if it is not his fault, history will unfairly blame him as the villain who brought the world economy down, and thus see him as probably the worst president in history. So not the best of timing for Mr Trump.”

• The Big Short and The Bigger Long (Egon von Greyerz)

For at least 35 years, the monetary system has been telling us that the current era is coming to an end. That means a debt collapse, a currency collapse and a collapse of most bubble assets like stocks and property. THUS THE BIG SHORT! As I am writing this on Easter Monday, the Dow is down 1,100 points (2.9%) and the Nasdaq is down 3.3%. Anyone who buys the dips will be slaughtered. As I have said for a very long time, before this is over, stocks will be down 90-99% in real terms, which is gold. More importantly, this total collapse has very little to do with TRUMP. More later.

And don’t for a moment believe that gold is overvalued. As many have used conventional technical tools to predict a gold correction, I have been saying for a long time that gold is in an acceleration phase and will reach multiples of the current price. (Yes, of course, there will be corrections on the way up, but most probably not yet.) THUS THE BIG LONG! As many have used conventional technical tools to predict a gold correction, I have been saying for a long time that gold is in an acceleration phase and will reach multiples of the current price. (Yes, of course there will be corrections on the way up but most probably not yet). THUS THE BIG LONG!

END OF A MONETARY ERA The end of a monetary era is always the same, with bubble assets going up in smoke. The majority of investors haven’t got a clue what is happening. They are hanging on to their stocks, hoping that Trump will save them by firing Powell and telling the next Chairman of the Fed to lower interest rates. But the time of manipulating rates is over. The market will now determine rates, which it should always do. And with uncontrollable debt escalation in the US and many other countries, the cost of debt can only go one way – UP! Remember, there is only one buyer of US debt, which is the Fed. But the Fed can only buy debt if the US government issues more debt. And therein lies the crux. More debt must be created in a futile attempt to save the ever-growing and out-of-control finances of the US. This is without doubt the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Madoff would certainly have enjoyed it.

And still, it would have been so easy, as all of this has been totally predictable. To paraphrase Churchill, the more you study history, the more self-evident the future becomes. Still no government, no central banker, no journalist and virtually no market student spends any time on learning from the past. Why, why, why, you ask yourself. Well, it is clearly sheer arrogance in believing that we know better today and that we have better tools. And of course, “The times are different today”. Hmmm! But they are not and have never been. Every monetary system has collapsed in history, and every currency has gone to ZERO, without fail. As I witnessed Greenspan’s expansionary policy after the property market collapse in the 1990s and how debt and derivatives quickly continued to grow, I was certain that we were seeing the end of a major monetary system.

I had, since the late 1980s, been convinced that gold was the best insurance against yet another coming failure of the monetary system. As major central banks like the UK and Switzerland were selling their gold in the mid to late 1990s, it was clear that we were near the bottom. So we waited until the 1999 gold bottom at $250 and confirmation of the gold price recovery in the early 2000s before buying physical gold. BACK TO TRUMP – the culprit. But everything is, of course, Trump’s fault! All the misery hitting the world now is due to Trump’s capricious actions. Here are just a few examples of how TRUMP is now wrecking not just the US but the whole world economy, according to the general public as well as the media and politicians in most countries:

Stocks crashing, bonds crashing, rates up, dollar crashing, trade wars with massive daily tit for tat yo-yo swinging tariffs between 10% and 145%, much higher Inflation, collapse of global trade etc, etc. Yes, all of the above is happening and much more and it is all Trump’s fault.But is it really? No, Trump is not the culprit. Instead, Trump happens to be the catalyst. An absolutely superb analysis of the US-China trade war was given by this very acute Chinese influencer: “Leaders are instruments of their time, and they appear at the time in the cycle to carry out what was going to happen anyway.

Just like Thatcher and Reagan were the right leaders to lead the upturn in the early 1980s, Trump is perfect for creating the havoc and chaos that comes with the end of a major monetary era. What is happening in the US and global economy today, and the total collapse which is about to happen, is not “Trump’s fault”. He just happened to be the right person to execute the inevitable downfall of a major monetary era. But even if it is not his fault, history will unfairly blame him as the villain who brought the world economy down, and thus see him as probably the worst president in history. So not the best of timing for Mr Trump.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

ivm

 

 

Malhotra

 

 

Hotez

 

 

https://twitter.com/DiedSuddenly_/status/1914837101486518732

 

 

 

 

Phone

 

 

Mom

 

 

Goose

 

 

https://twitter.com/Lin11W/status/1914406273602277705

 

 

Feynman

 

 

Goats
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1914628619722281004

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle April 15 2025

Apr 152025
 
 April 15, 2025  Posted by at 9:32 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  28 Responses »


Mathew Brady Abe Lincoln 1864

 

• Lincoln Was a ‘Threat to Democracy’ (Al Perrotta)
• Trump’s Life’s Work Culminates in Confronting Communist China (Josh Hammer)
• Living on the Edge (Martin Armstrong)
• Temporary Tariff Terror Examined (Steve McKee)
• Zelensky Started The War Then Begged For Missiles – Trump (RT)
• Trump Slams Biden, Zelensky & Putin For Ukraine War: ‘Everybody Is To Blame’ (ZH)
• West Seeks To Partition Ukraine – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)
• Zelensky Urges Trump To Visit Ukraine Before Pressing Negotiations (ZH)
• Trump Slams ‘Dishonest’ CBS After Zelensky Interview (RT)
• We Have Proof Sumy Strike Targeted Ukrainian Troops and Foreign Mercs – Lavrov (Sp.)
• The Sumy Missile Strike: War, Propaganda, and Hypocrisy (Amar)
• Medvedev Brands Incoming German Chancellor ‘Nazi’ (RT)
• Meta’s Monopoly Trial Kicks Off (ET)
• Now We Know Why Democrats Are Losing the Messaging War (Margolis)
• El Salvador’s Bukele Won’t Return MS-13 Gang Member Mistakenly Deported (JTN)
• Why the Beatified MS-13 ‘Father’ Was ‘Mistakenly’ Deported (Victoria Taft)
• Systemic Considerations (James Howard Kunstler)

 

 


Holy Week at the White House

 

 

Tea

5,000 years
https://twitter.com/Zlatti_71/status/1911706962795831524

Speaker

Left

Homeless

Titan

Tariffs
https://twitter.com/ImMeme0/status/1911513456249127332

Cop
https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1911537849276465333

 

 

 

 

Exactly 160 years ago, the US lost a major part of its innocence. That reveberates to this day, and the attempts at Trump’s life.

• Lincoln Was a ‘Threat to Democracy’ (Al Perrotta)

One hundred sixty years ago tonight, at Ford’s Theater, John Wilkes Booth put a bullet in the head of President Abraham Lincoln. What motivated the 26-year-old actor? Fame? No, he had plenty of that. His photos were outsold only by Honest Abe himself. Acclaim? No, contrary to tales told in school that he was jealous of the critical raves afforded his father Junius and brother Edwin, Booth earned reviews any young actor would die for. He even refused to perform under his real name until he earned reviews worthy of the name. To avenge the Confederacy’s defeat? You’re getting closer. Booth raged and despaired over the suffering incurred by the South. Actually, John Wilkes Booth told us his motivation. After shooting Lincoln and making his dramatic leap to the stage, Booth shouted “Sic Semper Tyrannis!” (“Thus always to tyrants.”) Or to put it another way, “Lincoln was a threat to democracy.”

Twice last summer, amid a daily drumbeat from former President Joe Biden, Democrats, and the media that Donald Trump was a “threat to democracy,” a budding tyrant, two would-be assassins came very close to killing him. Ryan Routh was charged Thursday in Florida for his attempt. A recent study indicates 55% of self-described leftists think the assassination of Trump would be “justifiable.” Given the rhetoric, given the vast numbers with a similar heart, it’s no wonder Routh thought he was doing the world a favor. “Everyone across the globe from the youngest to the oldest know [sic] that Trump is unfit to be anything, much less a U.S. president,” Routh wrote in a letter found after his arrest. “U.S. presidents must at bare minimum embody the moral fabric that is America and be kind, caring and selfless and always stand for humanity.”

So did Booth, who wrote while on the run: “Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment. A country that groaned beneath this tyranny, and prayed for this end, and yet now behold the cold hands they extend to me. ” Booth grew increasingly dismayed at being vilified and rejected. “I am here in despair. And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for. What made Tell a hero? And yet I, for striking down a greater tyrant than they ever knew, am looked upon as a common cutthroat.” In a letter attempting to justify his actions, Booth wrote: “When Caesar had conquered the enemies of Rome and the power that was his menaced the liberties of the people, Brutus arose and slew him. The stroke of his dagger was guided by his love of Rome. It was the spirit and ambition of Caesar that Brutus struck at.”
“Oh, that we could come by Caesar’s spirit,
And not dismember Caesar.
But, alas!
Ceasar must bleed for it.”

Booth, a man steeped since birth in Shakespearean drama, sought the death of Lincoln as Shakespeare’s Brutus did Caesar’s. This fear stemmed not from what the president had done, but from the belief that with his enemies conquered, Lincoln would keep his war powers and reign as a tyrant. This gets to one of the most tragic elements of Lincoln’s assassination, positively Shakespearean in its awfulness. John Wilkes Booth failed to realize that with the war over, Lincoln was the best friend the South had. And Booth had a role to play. The greatest of his life. Lincoln wanted a gentle reconciliation between North and South, “with malice toward none, and charity for all.” Many powerful forces around him had plenty of malice toward the Confederacy, and no mood for charity. Those in the South whose towns had been laid waste and their sons laid to rest by the hundreds of thousands, would also have trouble with reconciliation.

Lincoln’s mission of unifying the country in peace looked to be as difficult as winning the war. He would need all the help he could get. Author Michael Kauffman discovered an intriguing tidbit when researching his book “American Brutus.” A worker at Ford’s Theater saw Booth hand an attendant a card, and the attendant bring the card into the Presidential Box. What happened next is not known. But is it not possible that Lincoln received Booth’s card, and knowing Booth’s fame, his oratory gifts and his sympathies, realized the actor could prove very valuable in helping “bind the nation’s wounds”? Who better than America’s First Family of Theater to help bring the nation together? Perhaps the theater-loving president even knew the three acting Booth brothers would be sharing the stage at a benefit the following week.

With the war over and the comedy romp “Our American Cousin” playing out beneath him, did Lincoln see in Booth’s card a golden opportunity? Is it not likely an excited Lincoln told the attendant, “Yes, send Mr. Booth in”? Rather than summon a potential partner, Lincoln summoned his own executioner. Booth killed not only the president, but all hope for a gentle reconciliation. How much better for his beloved South had Booth pulled up a chair instead of a pistol? How much better for our nation and their own dreams if liberals sought Trump’s cooperation rather than destruction? The future is in their hands. The 55% who believe Trump’s assassination would be justified would heed well the lesson of John Wilkes Booth. After being cornered in a barn in Port Royal, Virginia and shot, Booth looked down at his hands and uttered his final words: “Useless. Useless.”

Read more …

Much of what happens with regards to the tariffs surprises people, and they think it’s -largely- new. Donald Trump has been preoccupied with the issues for 40 years. In this 1988 video he says he doesn’t want to be president. But he would probably have been a strong candidate even then. Reagan at that point had just slapped a 100% tariff on a lot of Japanese imports.

• Trump’s Life’s Work Culminates in Confronting Communist China (Josh Hammer)

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump abruptly announced a 90-day pause on most of his planned country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs—with the notable exception of China. In so strikingly singling out China as the focus of America’s economic and geopolitical ire, Trump was not merely clarifying that the United States views China and its regnant Communist Party as our leading 21st-century threat—he was also taking yet another notable step toward fulfilling his own lifelong goal of fundamentally resetting the terms of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. As an “outer-borough” native New Yorker from Queens, Trump has long seen things differently than most of his white-shoe brethren and fellow one-percenters living across the (literal and proverbial) river in Manhattan.

Throughout virtually his entire career, Trump has served as a “class traitor” archetype—someone who, as I wrote in an essay last year, “may hold ‘elite’ ruling class credentials, but whose hearts, minds, concerns, and general sensibilities are decidedly with the country class.” That is the essence of Trump’s nationalist-populist MAGA political coalition. But it’s also who Trump has been since his earliest interviews with the New York City tabloids and TV hosts all those decades ago. There is no better example than trade, Trump’s most consistently held political position. In the 1980s, he was alarmed at the rise of Japan as an economic superpower, arguing that America’s trade deficit with Japan was problematic and that the U.S. should respond with crippling tariffs. (It seems that Ronald Reagan, who in 1987 slapped a 100% tariff on many Japanese goods, was listening.)

In recent decades, Trump has applied the same logic to the newer threat of China. In 2011, for instance, four years before he launched his successful presidential run, Trump railed against widely practiced Chinese currency manipulation: “They have manipulated their currency so violently towards this country, it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies.” During the first year of his first presidential term, Trump directed his Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate Chinese trade practices. The subsequent report was damning, and Trump implemented numerous tariffs on Chinese goods—tariffs that, to his rare credit, former President Joe Biden largely kept in place and even built upon. In addition to his first-term tariffs, Trump also filed a formal World Trade Organization case against China, alleging deceptive trade practices and intellectual property theft.

As Trump put it at the time in a tweet: “Today I directed the U.S. Trade Representative to take action so that countries stop CHEATING the system at the expense of the USA!” Trump’s tariff escalation this week against Communist China—even as he paused many other tariffs to allow for bilateral trade negotiations and give jittery bond markets some relief—is a natural culmination of the work to reset the U.S.-China economic relationship that he commenced during his first term. For that matter, it is also the natural culmination of his short-lived third-party presidential run in 2000 with the trade protectionist Reform Party, as well as his 1988 “Oprah Winfrey Show” interview, where he teased a future presidential run that would focus on trade. Immigration may be the issue most readily associated with Trump’s MAGA movement, but there is no issue that has been nearer and dearer to Trump’s heart over the decades than trade—first with Japan and then with China. Most important, Trump has not just been outspoken on the issue of trade with China—he has been proven correct.

https://twitter.com/benfergusonshow/status/1909047756183785829

Ever since Richard Nixon’s fateful trip to visit Mao Zedong in Beijing in 1972, American elites of all political stripes promised that welcoming China into the global economy would be good for all parties involved. American consumers, we were reliably informed, would get cheaper and more abundant goods; American exporters would get a massive and exciting new market to peddle their wares; and the Chinese people themselves would soon reap the rewards of the “political liberalization” that could only come about through “economic liberalization.” This was the dominant thinking when Nixon visited China over a half-century ago, when the George W. Bush administration welcomed China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and when Barack Obama hosted and toasted Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the White House in 2015.

Read more …

Martin Armstrong highlights the “lose face” angle, “don’t do it in public”. But China has done very little since Trump’s first term, when he’s certain to have brought it up, though not in public, so why would Trump wait now?

• Living on the Edge (Martin Armstrong)

The U.S.-China trade war is an ongoing economic conflict that began in January 2018, characterized by the imposition of tariffs and trade barriers by both countries. Recently, tensions escalated as the U.S. raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%, prompting China to retaliate with tariffs of 125% on U.S. imports, affecting global supply chains and market stability. Trump’s decision not to grant China the same reprieve as other nations explained: “China wants to make a deal, they just don’t know how quite to go about it.” I disagree. If I were China, I would do a full embargo, and the Achilles’ heel in this trade war is more than just the manufacture of values for municipalities – the big ones, steel and aluminum, but also medicines. Personally, I would put a full embargo on everything, and without the medicines, people would be screaming, and their lives would be put in danger. I have dealt with Asia for some 40 years. You do not do this sort of thing publicly. It is an insult and a loss of face that forces China not to yield.

The developing U.S.-China trade war keeps ratcheting up. China has suspended exports of rare earth minerals. Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Lutnick said that the electronics the Trump administration exempted from reciprocal tariffs could be subject to different levies in the future. This is not good. You do not air your dirty laundry in public.

Beijing’s perspective is dramatically different. Xi Jinping has taken the view that his country would lose face if it simply capitulated to what it calls America’s “unilateral bullying.” The danger with this trade war is that publicly, it only supports fervent nationalism, and that feeds into what will become World War III. China has been quietly preparing for a trade war for quite some time. Trump’s actions may spark negotiation in Western circles, but in Asian circles, they create the image that the US doesn’t want to negotiate. My concern is that Xi is brilliant. This trade war is playing into his domestic approval of anti-Americanism. Like the Russian sanctions that boosted Putin’s approval rating calculation, sources say, China is also seeing a rise in popular support to strengthen its position by preparing not just to fight back. Trump’s trade war with China is definitely strengthening Xi’s own position.

All of my sources have said that Xi fully understands that China has entered a period of protracted struggle in both trade and geopolitics with the United States and Europe. This became painfully obvious, and Europe and the Biden Administration confronted Russia. Xi has taken the position that China needs to prepare for these confrontations ever since the Biden Administration put sanctions on Russia and then threatened China if it dared to help Russia. The Neocon Antony Blinken expressed “serious concern” about China’s support for Russia’s defense industry. He went as far as to threaten Xi that he would impose sanctions if China helped Russia.

The Neocon Antony Blinken threw down the gauntlet and views the world only in his desire for imperial power. He never understood the economy, and this insanity of threatening China and removing Russia from Swift undermined the economy and split it in half, with the formation of BRICS for geopolitical security. I don’t believe Trump understands the damage that the Biden Administration inflicted upon the entire world. Now, go after China with a trade war to bring back manufacturing to America; this is pushing China over the edge.

China previously owned 10% of the US national debt. This is what Trump has not considered. Before this trade war began, in January, foreigners sold a net $13.3 billion of U.S. notes and bonds that had more than one year to maturity. As we approach sovereign debt defaults, I have warned that it may start with Japan and be followed by Europe. We saw almost $50 billion was sold in December 2024 in anticipation of a Trump trade war. Last November saw almost $35 billion dumped following the election.

Canada was the largest net seller in January. The UK needed the cash and was the biggest seller last December. I know some have made the outrageous claim that Japan sold US debt, and that made Trump pause the tariffs for 90 days. These people have ZERO understanding of the markets and even less about Trump. The tariffs over 10% are political, and it is part of his art of the deal. Japan is in economic trouble with its own debt crisis, and selling US debt had nothing to do with the tariffs – this is about creating a real debt crisis. That said, China has the capacity to dump US debt in a big way, and that would send US rates higher on the long-end. U.S. stocks rallied with Trump pausing the tariffs, yet this was cyclically on point, which our computer had forecast months in advance. People just try to come up with some fundamentals to explain each move in a market, whether true or false. Our computer is projecting that 2025 will be the low in Chinese interest rates both on the 2-year and 30-year.

While stocks rallied, Treasury yields rose so much that lower rates benefited stocks. China has been quietly selling U.S. debt, which began over a year ago. This was not something new out of the blue in response to new tariffs. Bond markets were flashing warning signs based on the hidden risks behind the entire dynamics of trade and geopolitics. Behind the scenes, U.S. Treasury yields have been rising during the overnight sessions, indicating foreign market selling. Nevertheless, the prospects of war in Europe are reflected in our models, for they do not support a collapse in the bond markets, implying that war will bring still capital inflows. When we look at the Baltic Freight Index, 2025 was a Double Directional Change, indicating that we would have this trade war. We have a Directional Change in 2026 and a Panic Cycle in 2027, with the culmination of this war extending into 2028. This might also be influenced by the war starting in Europe.

Read more …

“No one knows the extent to which he will succeed. But if conventional thinking could solve our existential issues, it would have by now.”

• Temporary Tariff Terror Examined (Steve McKee)

When President Donald Trump made his Liberation Day announcements, his harshest critics immediately declared him an economic arsonist playing with fire he didn’t understand, while his strongest acolytes insisted he was 10 moves ahead, playing 4D chess with geopolitical mastery. Both camps jumped the gun. His was the opening salvo in a high-stakes game. Sometimes, the most effective strategy isn’t conventional. Sometimes it breaks the mold. Trump’s tariff gambit had the same disruptive effect. He was never under the illusion that his first offer would be the last word. That’s not how negotiation works. It’s not even how business works.

Trump’s not playing chess. It’s more akin to Go His announcement was surprising, yes. But that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. In fact, it was reminiscent of a similarly shocking moment in another high-stakes arena: the legendary 2016 Go match between world champion Lee Sedol and DeepMind’s AlphaGo computer program. In move 37 of Game Two of the board game, AlphaGo played an unexpected, unconventional move. At first, it looked like a mistake. But as the game unfolded, it became clear that move 37 wasn’t just valid; it was, literally, game changing. It altered the way top players—and AI developers—understood the game and, to some extent, AI itself. That’s why chess is the wrong analogy in this tariff situation. No president can be expected to know the implications of every move like chess masters do. But they can know there will be implications from their move and as those implications unfold they will have a window to adjust their next move.

Trump understands negotiation This president, in particular, understands the rhyme and rhythm of negotiation. He knew this negotiation, being played out in full public view, would draw out the critics and opportunists and have real world impacts. That was baked into the cake, and it’s why, I surmise, he waited until just hours after the special House elections were decided to do it. This isn’t a private boardroom deal behind closed doors. It’s an unfolding negotiation taking place on the world stage, with millions of spectators and infinite scrutiny. That complicates things. But Trump, being Trump, accounted for that. He knew pushback would be inevitable. He couldn’t know the exact shape or timing, but he knew the opportunity to respond would come. And when it did, he took it.

Whether you agree with his tactics or not, he’s not capitulating or backtracking, he’s managing an unfolding negotiation. What makes Trump different—and maddening to many—is that he’s not cut from traditional presidential cloth. He’s a developer, a dealmaker, someone for whom negotiation is second nature. His presidency brought that skill set into a realm where every feint and pivot is broadcast and critiqued in real time. It’s a high-wire act, sure. But not one he has entered blindly.

The dynamics of the game needed to change The real takeaway here isn’t about trade policy. It’s about process. About resisting the impulse to rush to judgment based on ideology or tribal loyalty. These are dynamic, complex negotiations with layers most commentators either don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge. Yes, last week was a terrifying ride, but so is our future if something doesn’t change. Lest we forget, we’re going bankrupt. Something needs to happen. The U.S.—and by extension, much of the global economy—is hurtling down an unsustainable path. Somebody had to start changing the dynamics of a game which everybody is about to lose. Trump has done so. You don’t have to like him to see that he understands the stakes.

So sure, scratch your head. Raise your eyebrows. Ask hard questions. That’s part of the process. But don’t assume you’re watching 4D chess, and don’t call the man a fool. Instead, hold back the full ire of your fire. Accept that you may not be seeing the whole game board—none of us are. Call balls and strikes as you see them, but don’t call it “game over” when it has only just begun. There are many moves yet to come, and I don’t pretend to know how it’s all going to turn out. But as events continue to unfold, it’s unhelpful—and frankly unfair—to reduce Trump to either a genius or a fool. He is a man with a unique set of skills, forged in a different fire than most politicians, who is doing his best to deploy them in service of long-term trends in dire need of fixing. And he’s doing it none too soon. No one knows the extent to which he will succeed. But if conventional thinking could solve our existential issues, it would have by now.

Read more …

CBS turns on Trump again.

• Zelensky Started The War Then Begged For Missiles – Trump (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky should never have started a war with Russia, US President Donald Trump has said. In a press conference alongside El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump commented on Zelensky’s recent offer to finance $15 billion worth of Patriot air defense batteries with the aid of Kiev’s European backers. “He’s always looking to purchase missiles,” the US presided noted. “When you start a war, you got to know that you can win the war,” he said of Zelensky. “You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.” Trump added that he gave Kiev American-made Javelin man-portable anti-tank missiles during his first presidency.

In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Zelensky called on the US to supply Ukraine with more air defenses. Kiev is ready to buy or lease up to ten Patriot air defense systems, and some European backers have offered to help with the money, he claimed. During the interview, the network suggested that Trump tried to cut Kiev out of peace talks with Russia, and that he lied in his statements about the conflict. Trump allegedly “rewrote history, saying, falsely, that Ukraine had started the war and calling… Zelensky ‘a dictator without elections’,” according to CBS. The US president lashed out at the news network on Truth Social on Monday, calling the interview inaccurate and fraudulent.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Ukraine conflict would never have escalated had he been in the White House, rather than his predecessor Joe Biden. According to the US president, the previous administration invested more than $300 billion into supporting Kiev. Trump has promised to “get back” the money, entering talks with Ukraine about jointly exploiting its mineral resources. He also suggested taking over Ukrainian nuclear power plants. The Kremlin has hailed the Trump administration’s peace efforts, but cautioned that resolving long-standing issues will take time and “painstaking work.”

Read more …

Keeping Zelensky around is counterproductive.

• Trump Slams Biden, Zelensky & Putin For Ukraine War: ‘Everybody Is To Blame’ (ZH)

President Donald Trump while speaking with the press in the Oval Office on Monday once again blasted President Biden for the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, a war which Trump has repeatedly stressed should have never happened. “That’s a war that should have never been allowed to start and Biden could have stopped it and Zelensky could have stopped it and Putin should have never started it,” Trump said. “Everybody is to blame.” Trump added: “If Biden were competent and if Zelenskyy were competent, and I don’t know that he is, we had a rough session with this guy — he just kept asking for more and more.” But he seemed to reserve his most aggressive criticisms for Zelensky, once again blasting him for asking for more and more weapons and money, while knowing full well Ukraine can’t defeat Russia, which is “twenty times your size” – as Trump said. Watch:

Clearly last month’s Oval Office showdown involving J.D. Vance and Zelensky going at it still looms large in Trump’s mind. Trump had separately in a Monday Truth Social post also lamented that Biden and Zelensky “did an absolutely horrible job in allowing this travesty to begin.” Here’s what he said in the post: “The war between Russia and Ukraine is Biden’s war, not mine. I just got here, and for four years during my term, had no problem in preventing it from happening,” Trump wrote, adding that he “had nothing to do with this war” but is working “diligently to get the death and destruction to stop.” “If the 2020 presidential election was not rigged, and it was, in so many ways, that horrible war would never have happened,” he continued. “President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and Crooked Joe Biden did an absolutely horrible job in allowing this travesty to begin. There were so many ways of preventing it from ever starting. But that is the past. Now we have to get it to stop, and fast. So sad!”

Much of this seems in reaction to the Zelensky “60 Minutes” interview from Sunday, wherein the Ukrainian leader claimed that “Russian narratives are prevailing” in the US, while singling out Vance in particular. Zelensky had said, “It’s a shift in tone, a shift in reality, really yes, a shift in reality, and I don’t want to engage in the altered reality that is being presented to me,” And on Vance, he described: “First and foremost, we did not launch an attack [to start the war]. It seems to me that the Vice President is somehow justifying Putin’s actions. I tried to explain, ‘You can’t look for something in the middle. There is an aggressor and there is a victim. The Russians are the aggressor, and we are the victim’.”

Despite Trump’s newest attack on Zelensky, it remains that the United States is still supplying weaponry to Kiev, though reportedly in lesser quantities that previously, and is still providing limited intelligence. Zelensky has likely had to restrain some of the criticisms he wishes to hurl back, give Kiev is deeply fearful the US could once again cut off the flow of arms and ammo, as it did briefly soon after Trump took office.

Read more …

“We intended to partition Russia. Since we couldn’t pull that off, let’s divide Ukraine instead.”

• West Seeks To Partition Ukraine – Senior Russian Diplomat (RT)

European nations hostile towards Moscow are advocating for the partitioning of Ukraine, according to Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large overseeing war crime investigations. Last week, The Times of London reported an alleged US proposal to divide the country, reminiscent of Germany’s division following World War II. Keith Kellogg, the US presidential envoy for Ukraine cited by the newspaper, later stated that his remarks had been misinterpreted by the British outlet. Miroshnik criticized the approach on Saturday as an embodiment of what he called the UK’s colonial mindset. “Europe has a habit of slicing up other continents and nations and parceling them out,” he stated in an interview.

He read the underlying message as the West saying: “We intended to partition Russia. Since we couldn’t pull that off, let’s divide Ukraine instead.” The diplomat drew parallels between the proposal in The Times and the aftermath of World War I, noting that turning Arab regions of the former Ottoman Empire into mandate territories governed by the UK and France did not ultimately bode well for the Middle East. Moscow opposes the presence of any NATO member states’ troops in Ukraine, including the post-ceasefire security force suggested by the UK and France. Miroshnik insisted that an “occupation” by those nations would merely confirm Ukraine’s status as a de facto “mandate territory” with a puppet government, primarily handled by the British. He added that Russia would not accept such a “toxic” neighbor.

“The time Kiev needs to lick its wounds may be alarmingly brief,” he cautioned. “It needs to reflect on its experiences, prepare, and train tens of thousands more militants via Britain before going to war again.” Certain European NATO members have advocated for a “resilience force” to be stationed in Ukraine, presenting them as a deterrent. Kellogg said he did not propose dividing the country but rather discussed with the Times the idea of “zones of responsibility,” controlled by Russia, a British-French contingent, and Kiev itself, respectively. Moscow views the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war. Russian officials have argued that a lasting peace can only be achieved by addressing the fundamental issues, including the expansion of the US-led military bloc in Europe since the 1990s and the “neo-Nazi” character of the current Ukrainian government, which discriminates against ethnic Russians.

Read more …

Not a word about peace.

• Zelensky Urges Trump To Visit Ukraine Before Pressing Negotiations (ZH)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is urging for President Donald Trump to visit Ukraine and see the war’s devastation first-hand before pressing for peace negotiations with Russia. “We want you to come,” the Ukrainian president pleaded in reference to Trump while speaking with CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday. Zelensky hit out at what he strongly hinted was Trump’s lack of understanding of the conflict and Russian brutality. “You think you understand what’s going on here. Okay, we respect your position. You understand. But, please, before any kind of decisions, any kind of forms of negotiations, come to see people, civilians, warriors, “Come, look, and then let’s — let’s move with a plan how to finish the war,” he added. He further suggested that with such a trip, Trump will finally grasp Putin’s true nature.

“You will understand with whom you have a deal. You will understand what Putin did,” the Ukrainian leader said. This comes as the US and Russia are seeking diplomatic normalization through a series of bilateral meetings which have cut out any Ukrainian or EU representation. “We will not prepare anything. It will not be theater, with preparing actors in the streets and the [city] center. We don’t do this. We don’t need it,” he continued. “You can go exactly where you want, in any city which been under attacks, just to come and to understand.” The CBS interview aired the same day that Russian ballistic missiles pummeled the Ukrainian city of Sumy, resulting in a mass casualty event which was quickly condemned by the United States and European Union. Ukrainian emergency authorities said the Sumy attack killed at least 34 people and wounded more than a hundred.

Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, retired lieutenant general Keith Kellogg, reacted by saying it “crosses any line of decency”. He suggested the strikes intentionally targeted civilians. “As a former military leader, I understand targeting and this is wrong,” Kellogg posted on X. He said there are “scores of civilian dead and wounded.” However, Trump’s reaction was one in which the Russians were less singled out and condemned, instead the US president highlighted that this “horrible war” shows the urgency of ending the war before more people die… But the White House has strongly complained over the past months that Zelensky has appeared unwilling to genuinely engage in peace talks with Moscow, also at a moment more hawkish European allies are seeking to fill the gap of waning Washington support. Zelensky knows he’ll have to make serious concessions for peace.

It is especially the tense February meeting in the Oval Office which still stings and looms large. Zelensky in the CBS interview took the opportunity to once again slam Vice President J.D. Vance. “It’s a shift in tone, a shift in reality, really yes, a shift in reality, and I don’t want to engage in the altered reality that is being presented to me,” Zelensky said. “First and foremost, we did not launch an attack [to start the war]. It seems to me that the Vice President is somehow justifying Putin’s actions. I tried to explain, ‘You can’t look for something in the middle. There is an aggressor and there is a victim. The Russians are the aggressor, and we are the victim’.” Below: RT’s Editor-in-Chief responded sarcastically to Zelensky once again complaining that Russian ‘propaganda’ is winning in America…

Meanwhile, Trump has since made clear where he stands concerning 60 Minutes’ repeat efforts to make him look bad.”Almost every week, 60 Minutes … mentions the name ‘TRUMP’ in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s ‘BROADCAST’ tops them all,” the president complained on Truth Social, in apparent reference to both the Ukraine report and another on Greenland. “CBS is out of control, at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Read more …

“..that he “rewrote history, saying, falsely, that Ukraine had started the war and calling… Zelensky ‘a dictator without elections.’”

• Trump Slams ‘Dishonest’ CBS After Zelensky Interview (RT)

CBS News must have its broadcasting license revoked, US President Donald Trump has said. He has accused the network of spreading politically biased misinformation in its coverage of the Ukraine conflict and Washington’s push to acquire Greenland. In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump lashed out at the broadcaster after it aired an interview with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and a segment revisiting the US president’s controversial idea to purchase Greenland. In the Zelensky interview, the network suggested that Trump had sought to exclude Kiev from peace talks with Russia and that he “rewrote history, saying, falsely, that Ukraine had started the war and calling… Zelensky ‘a dictator without elections.’”

The US president’s “dictator” comment in February was referring to the fact that Zelensky’s presidential term expired last year and that he has refused to call a new vote, citing martial law. Trump has since softened his rhetoric about the Ukrainian leader. The CBS report on Greenland focused on the island’s residents’ purported reluctance to become part of the US. “Almost every week, 60 Minutes… mentions the name ‘TRUMP’ in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s ‘BROADCAST’ tops them all,” Trump wrote. “They did not one, but TWO, major stories on ‘TRUMP,’ one having to do with Ukraine, which I say is a War that would never have happened if the 2020 Election had not been RIGGED… and, the other story was having to do with Greenland, casting our Country, as led by me, falsely, inaccurately, and fraudulently,” he added.

“They are not a ‘News Show,’ but a dishonest Political Operative simply disguised as ‘News,’ and must be responsible for what they have done, and are doing,” Trump suggested. “They should lose their license!” The US leader stressed that CBS “should pay a big price” for being “out of control,” recalling his previous stand-off with the network over a heavily edited interview with Kamala Harris, his main Democratic rival prior to the November election. The controversy over the Harris interview erupted in October when CBS aired two versions of an interview with the then-vice president. In one, she gave a long and convoluted answer about the Middle East conflict, but in the other, she gave a much clearer and more concise answer. Trump subsequently lodged a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS, calling the interview “word salad” and accusing the network of “deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news” and favoritism to the Democratic Party. CBS has admitted to editing the interview but rejected allegations that it attempted to doctor it.

Read more …

The Sumy narrative (Russia targets civilians!) carried the international airwaves for a whole weekend.

• We Have Proof Sumy Strike Targeted Ukrainian Troops and Foreign Mercs – Lavrov (Sp.)

Russia possesses information that Ukrainian troops met with their foreign counterparts at the facility targeted by Russian forces in the strike on Sumy, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday. On Sunday, Russian forces carried out a missile strike on the Ukrainian city of Sumy, targeting a site of a meeting of the Seversk tactical and operational command’s leadership. Earlier on Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry said that the strike killed over 60 Ukrainian servicepeople. “International humanitarian law categorically prohibits the placement of military facilities and weapons around civilian objects. Since the first days of the [Ukraine] crisis, and earlier, even during the Minsk agreements … there have been a million cases of artillery and air defense systems being placed in city blocks near kindergartens.

How many videos are posted online of Ukrainian women shouting for the military to get away from stores and playgrounds? But this practice continues. We have facts about who was at the facility that was hit in Sumy. There was another ‘gathering’ of Ukrainian military commanders with their Western colleagues, who were disguised either as mercenaries or I do not know who,” Lavrov told Russian newspaper Kommersant. It is widely known that NATO forces are present in Ukraine, the minister added. “The New York Times recently reported that Americans have been playing a leading role in strikes on Russia. Without this part, the majority of [Ukrainian] long-range missiles would never have taken off at their deployment sites,” he said.

Read more …

“Macron, Merz, Starmer, Kellogg, the New York Times, The Telegraph – to name only a few examples – all follow Zelensky’s and Kiev’s lie that this was a deliberate attack on civilians..”

• The Sumy Missile Strike: War, Propaganda, and Hypocrisy (Amar)

On April 13, Russia launched an attack on a target in the eastern Ukrainian city of Sumy. All reports –Western, Ukrainian, and Russian – agree on some basic facts: The attack consisted of two ballistic missiles; substantial numbers of people were killed (over 60, according to the Russian Defense Ministry; over 20 in Western and Ukrainian reports) and injured (over 80, per Ukrainian reports). Beyond that, however, a thick fog of war has descended. Or rather, a fog of propaganda. Western media and politicians have denounced the Russian strike as, in essence, an atrocity or war crime. The New York Times, for instance, presented it as slamming “into a bustling city center […] on Sunday morning, […] killing at least 34 people in what appeared to be the deadliest attack against civilians this year.” Incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz (to be sworn in at the beginning of May), speaking on one of his country’s most popular TV shows, condemned what he called a “perfidious act” and “serious war crime.”

In the US, President Donald Trump’s special – if largely sidelined – envoy for Russia and Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has invoked his experience as a “former military leader” who “understand[s] targeting” to denounce the Russian strike as “wrong,” adding that the attack “on civilian targets in Sumy crosses any line of decency.” Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, is “appalled at Russia’s horrific attacks on civilians in Sumy.” Both Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron saw an opportunity to call for “imposing” a ceasefire on Russia. Merz, for his part, felt the need to talk, once more, about providing Kiev with German Taurus missiles. The fact that Ukraine has made a point of not complying with the partial ceasefire officially already in place seems to make no difference. Neither, clearly, does the fact that neither France nor Britain has the means to compel Moscow. That the use of the German Taurus to strike at, for instance, the Kerch Bridge may well invite – perfectly justifiable – Russian retaliation against German targets, whether in Germany or elsewhere, seems to appear equally irrelevant to Merz.

More examples could be added, but the trend should be clear: In the West, almost everyone agrees that the Russian attack on Sumy was an atrocity and in the EU there is talk – if we are lucky, it will remain just that – of exploiting it as a pretext to escalate further the proxy war in which Ukraine is being used up against Russia. Yet there are two major problems with this escalatory approach: Most importantly, it is not based on facts but on disinformation originating with the Kiev regime, taken over uncritically and spread enthusiastically by Western mainstream media and many political leaders. Though not, actually, all of them. That is the second, as it were, practical problem for the escalation brigade: The single most powerful Western figure is not playing along. Trump has not condemned Russia. He did call the attack “terrible” and “horrible” and claimed that he was told that “they [presumably meaning Russia] made a mistake.”

Whatever basis (US signal intelligence? Hearsay?) he has – or not – for this statement, politically, the key point of Trump’s first reaction was that he demonstratively refrained from joining the rest of the West in escalating, while stressing that the war as such is the issue and ending it the solution. A similar approach in a statement on X by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirms that this is not a fluke but Trump’s and therefore Washington’s policy, at least for now. America’s president has clearly – and unsurprisingly – decided that his halting and open-ended yet still at least ongoing attempt to achieve a normalization with Moscow is more important than joining the latest propaganda campaign against Russia. Trump – so criminally wrong in the Middle East – is right on this one, even if he is pursuing extremely pragmatic purposes. He is also, as it happens, right here in a more fundamental sense, which brings us back to problem number one with the Western mainstream treatment of the Sumy attack:

Despite Kiev’s endless record of deception, the Western claim that the Russian attack was a crime is once again based on that very murky source alone. Ukraine’s past-due-date president Vladmir Zelensky, for instance, has decried a “horrific” attack hitting “an ordinary city street, ordinary life.” Macron, Merz, Starmer, Kellogg the New York Times, The Telegraph – to name only a few examples – all follow Zelensky’s and Kiev’s lie that this was a deliberate attack on civilians. Yet, in reality, Russia struck at a gathering of Ukrainian soldiers. Soldiers, yes, even on Sunday and also on Palm Sunday, are legitimate targets in armed conflict. It is not criminal to attack them. That is an elementary legal reality, rooted in the Law of Armed Conflict. And, when the boot is on the other foot, the West knows this well: No one there decried a Ukrainian “war crime,” when Kiev’s Western-supplied artillery wiped out almost 100 Russian troops sleeping in their quarters behind the front line in January 2023.

Read more …

“..after he allegedly suggested that Kiev should destroy the Crimean Bridge..”

• Medvedev Brands Incoming German Chancellor ‘Nazi’ (RT)

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has branded incoming German chancellor Friedrich Merz a Nazi after he allegedly suggested that Kiev should destroy the Crimean Bridge. In an interview with state broadcaster ARD, Merz, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the likely future leader of Germany, stated that Berlin could supply long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine, but only if it is done in coordination with other EU nations. Kiev should in the future use Western-supplied missiles to go on the offensive and destroy, for example, “the most important land connection between Russia and Crimea,” Merz said. Merz did not clarify if he meant the Crimean bridge, which stretches from Russia’s Krasnodar Region to Crimea, or the ‘land bridge’ that Russian forces established with the peninsula when the former Ukrainian region off Kherson joined Russia.

However, many critics have interpreted Merz’s words to mean the Crimean bridge, especially given that Kiev has already conducted a number of attacks on it since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. In a post on X on Monday, Medvedev, who currently serves as the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, suggested that Merz was following in the footsteps of his Nazi father. “Chancellor candidate Fritz Merz is haunted by the memory of his father, who served in Hitler’s Wehrmacht. Now Merz has suggested a strike on the Crimean Bridge. Think twice, Nazi,” Medvedev wrote. According to media reports, Merz’s father Joachim was conscripted into the Wehrmacht – the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany – around 1941. His grandfather, Josef Paul Sauvigny, had also been a member of the Nazi party since 1933.

Russia’s ambassador to Germany, Sergey Nechaev, warned that delivering Taurus missiles to Ukraine would not alter the battlefield situation but could escalate the conflict, as the missiles would be guided by German specialists. He suggested this might provoke Moscow to take retaliatory measures. Germany is Kiev’s second-largest military donor, after the US. Earlier this month, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announced that Berlin would provide the country with an additional $12 billion worth of military aid over the next four years and would continue to support it regardless of the upcoming change of government in Germany. Russia has repeatedly slammed continued foreign assistance to Ukraine, arguing that it only serves to prolong hostilities and cause more bloodshed without affecting the ultimate outcome of the conflict.

Read more …

Guess who the judge is? Boasberg.

• Meta’s Monopoly Trial Kicks Off (ET)

The fate of social media giant Meta, billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s primary company, is on the line as a trial begins in Washington on Monday to determine whether the tech giant is violating antitrust laws. The Federal Trade Commission, which has spent the past six years investigating Meta, is expected to argue before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp created an illegal monopoly over social networking. In the worst-case scenario for Meta, the company could be forced to divest both subsidiaries in a breakup on a scale not seen since the dismantling of AT&T’s telephone empire more than 40 years ago. Here’s what to know about the most important trial in Meta’s history.

Trial The case is being held at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, just a few hundred yards from the U.S. Capitol. It’s a bench trial, meaning Boasberg alone will decide the outcome, not a jury. That gives the judge extraordinary influence over the future of one of the most powerful companies in the world.

FTC Claims The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the company began during President Donald Trump’s first term and was aggressively pursued under President Joe Biden . The FTC has taken issue with the company’s 2012 purchase of the image-based app Instagram and 2014 purchase of WhatsApp, a messaging platform that’s particularly popular outside of the United States. During the trial, the FTC is expected to argue that Meta’s purchase of the two platforms was part of a calculated effort to “buy or bury” any potential rivals to Facebook. In a 2008 email presented by the FTC in a past federal court filing, Zuckerberg wrote, “It is better to buy than compete.” FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has said that his agency is “raring to go” against Meta but also that he’ll follow lawful orders from the president to close the case.

Meta’s Response Meta has consistently denied the allegations of operating an illegal monopoly and has argued that the FTC’s case is both outdated and out of step with current market realities. A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement to The Epoch Times that the acquisitions were approved by regulators at the time and that the company has always operated competitively. He cited the presence of competitors such as TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage, and others. The spokesperson said the lawsuit “defies reality” and that it would send a message that “no deal is ever truly final” if Boasberg sides with the FTC. The company has also suggested that dismantling its integrated platforms would harm users, who’ve come to rely on interconnected services and shared back-end systems. Since Trump was elected to a second term, Zuckerberg has visited Mar-a-Lago, ended the company’s controversial fact-checking efforts, rolled back diversity and inclusion programs, and staffed the company with GOP-friendly executives.

‘Creaking Antitrust Precedents ’Boasberg has heard years of pretrial motions in this case and has made clear he isn’t fully sold on the government’s argument He threw out the FTC’s original filing in 2021, citing a lack of clear market definitions. While he allowed the revised case to proceed, he’s continued to express skepticism, warning in recent months that the FTC’s claims “strain this country’s creaking antitrust precedents.” Antitrust statutory law and litigation are among the most labyrinthine areas of the federal code. Boasberg has given both sides a chance to make their case in court. Witness lists include Zuckerberg himself, former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and executives from rival platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat. The trial is expected to last through the summer, with a decision potentially arriving by July.

Read more …

A curious contortion.

• Now We Know Why Democrats Are Losing the Messaging War (Margolis)

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) just reminded everyone why Democrats are losing the messaging war. In what might be the most awkward attempt at political wit this year, Jeffries recorded himself delivering what he apparently thought was a clever takedown of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Spoiler alert: It wasn’t. Picture a middle schooler trying to land an insult at the lunch table—that’s basically what happened when Jeffries attempted to rebrand “DEI” as “dumb effing individuals” in his attack on Hegseth. That’s right, the House Minority Leader, one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress, thought his comment was the kind of zinger that would go viral. Instead, it went cringey. “The DEI hires in the Trump administration, like Pete Hegseth, the so-called secretary of Defense, dumb effing individuals, continue to try to test our resolve and cancel our history,” Jeffries said in a video shared to X.

The irony is rich. Here we have the leader of a party that lives and dies by the DEI religion suddenly using “DEI hires” as a slur. The same Democrats who spent years insisting that DEI is the highest moral good are now tossing around the term like it’s a smear when it suits their narrative. So which is it? Is DEI a noble pursuit, or is it code for incompetence when someone like Hegseth is in the crosshairs? If you needed more proof that the left’s commitment to its pet causes is purely performative, Jeffries just handed it to you. Making matters worse, Jeffries built his entire rant on a foundation of misinformation about the Naval Academy’s book relocation policy. He breathlessly claimed the Academy was banning books about slavery, civil rights, and the Holocaust while keeping Hitler’s works. That’s cute, but it’s also completely false.

The reality? The books were simply moved to a different location in response to President Trump’s executive orders on DEI policies. They weren’t banned, burned, or whatever other dramatic scenario Jeffries conjured up for his social media performance. Hegseth’s response on “Sunday Morning Futures” was the coup de grâce. “It’s astonishing, not surprising,” he said. “Of course, they don’t like the fact that we’re ripping DEI out of the military and making it colorblind and merit-based. If their whole strategy is, I don’t even know how long the video was, didn’t see it, minute-long videos on TikTok to call us names while we secure the southern border, kick out Chinese influence, provide the warrior culture inside our military, that’s why they lost in a historic fashion to President Trump last time, and their future looks bleak as well.”

Read more …

It’s easy to feel sorry for the guy. Maybe don’t.

• El Salvador’s Bukele Won’t Return MS-13 Gang Member Mistakenly Deported (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Monday declined to ask El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to return an El Salvadoran citizen whom authorities mistakenly deported. Bukele, for his part, suggested that to return the man to the U.S. would be to smuggle a terrorist into the United States and that he would not do so. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, was deported by the Trump administration by mistake, though the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must facilitate his return. During an Oval Office meeting between Trump and Bukele, neither leader committed to returning the man. “Well, I’m supposed to have suggested that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States, right?” Buekele retorted when pressed on returning the man to the U.S. “Return him to the United States. I smuggle him into the United States. I’m not going to do it.”

“How can I smuggle a terror[ist] to the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Buekele said. Trump also asked White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to weigh in. “So it’s very arrogant, even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens. As a starting point, as two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13,” Miller said. “When President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law… for any form of immigration relief in the United States.”

“So he had a deportation order that was valid, which meant that, under our law, he’s not even allowed to be present in the United States and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation,” he added. “This issue was then by a district court judge completely inverted, and a district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and flying back here. That issue was raised to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed.”

Read more …

“..in 2019, two judges refused to grant him bond because he was a verified member of the MS-13 gang..”

• Why the Beatified MS-13 ‘Father’ Was ‘Mistakenly’ Deported (Victoria Taft)

It’s worth reminding readers of the reasons the man being described as the innocent “Maryland father” was “mistakenly” deported from Los Estados Unidos. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is now cooling his heels in the most famous El Salvadoran prison in the world. He’s gotten more love from America’s left than, say, the 14-year-old girl MS-13 hacked up with machetes in 2019 in Maryland. It’s strange, isn’t it? Ariana Funes-Diaz was hacked with a machete and hit with a baseball bat, and her lifeless and bloodied body was left in a ditch, but nobody seems to remember or care. Now, I’m not suggesting that Abrego Garcia had anything to do with the gang murdering that girl; no one has ever suggested or proven any connection whatsoever. It’s just that MS-13 is tied, if you will, with Tren de Aragua for brutality. They intentionally shock the conscience to stay in power like the Third World knuckle draggers they are.

Rachel Morin was murdered by a man illegally in the country from El Salvador. He was found guilty of her murder by a Maryland jury after one hour of deliberation on Monday evening, after a two-week-long trial. We contend that the United States stop importing violent criminals from other countries. But the left would have us believe that Señor Abrego Garcia is just a normal family man who’s done nothing wrong and has never put a toe out of line and that he’s sorta kinda quasi-legally here. In 2019, his Holiness, St. Abrego, was rolled up by the feds while hanging around in a Home Depot parking lot, allegedly looking for work. Sounds normal. Lots of illegal aliens do this. But don’t ask him why he hadn’t found more than day jobs since he’d illegally come into the country years before because that’s racist. His attorney says he had a job in construction.

Anyway, the truth is, the local Maryland cops didn’t actually believe he was just looking for a day gig. Indeed, he showed up to work in his Chicago Bulls gear. MS-13 shares its affinity with the Bulls’ colors and gear with the Bloods and the Latin Kings. MS-13 also likes to use devil horn symbology in hand signals, and some members carry their tell-tale machetes. And of course, there are always the MS-13 tattoos. There are reports that he has one, but authorities have offered no photos of the granddaddy of all symbols proving unmistakably that he’s an MS-13 gang member. But in 2019, two judges refused to grant him bond because he was a verified member of the MS-13 gang and a “danger to the community.” The conundrum for most is that a guy who came into the U.S. illegally in 2011 and was identified by Maryland police and U.S. immigration officials as an MS-13 member by 2019 isn’t a benign presence in Los Estados Unidos. Capice?

And now in 2025, President Trump has issued a directive that all members of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua are members of designated terrorist organizations. El Salvador President Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez was asked by reporters in the White House Oval Office today if he would bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. “How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” was his reply. So here’s the issue. St. Abrego was put on a deportation list as an alternate without anyone noticing that he should not be sent back to El Salvador. He was bumped up the list of deportees and was indeed sent to the El Salvadoran prison by mistake.

The “mistake” the feds made in sending this guy out of the country was that they sent him back to El Salvador, where a rival gang threatened him and his family years back. His parents moved to other Central American countries, but he moved to the U.S. at the age of 16. If DOJ officials had sent him to another country, such as Guatemala with which we have a third-party agreement, we likely wouldn’t be having this issue right now, and St. Abrego would have disappeared into the ether — maybe even with his family in tow. Issues involving due process are serious. We should demand that people receive theirs. Attorney General Pam Bondi in the above video said Abrego received two court hearings when he was designated an MS-13 member. Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left’s lies, new legislation wasn’t needed to secure our border, just a new president.

Read more …

“The vast bottom of humanity already has plenty of nothing, and their abundance will abide…”

• Systemic Considerations (James Howard Kunstler)

Whatever else you think is happening in our world, contraction is the reality-based order-of-the-day, and everything else is downstream of that. The world has to get by with less. Nothing is going to fix this for everybody, though any number of schemes for redistributing what’s left will preoccupy the political mojo. Right now, it’s tariffs, which are an attempt to restore industry ceded to the formerly left-behind people elsewhere in the world — taking back what we used to do. You are correct to wonder if this is even possible. The wish is surely understandable, if a bit fuzzy and over-simplified: to be again a nation of people occupied purposefully in the service of a bright future. Redemption stories are deeply appealing.

Many of us are aware that the hour for this is late. We’ve already lived through our decades of pumping cheap oil out of American ground, extracting the ores, fashioning the metal into I-beams and rails, raising the skyscrapers, laying the asphalt ribbons of highway, and strewing the landscape with split-level houses and strip-malls. Let’s not try a re-run of that. What have we got to work with? An overly-complex matrix of systems and subsidiary systems operating on the verge of failure at excessive scale. For example, our cities and their asteroid belts of suburbs. The rot is already well-advanced in many of them from their centers outward, and we can see the process underway of strip-mining the remaining assets on-the-ground. Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore. . . all occupy important geographically strategic sites. All are populated by dwindling societies of the cope-less, floundering their way out of existence. The geographies will abide without them. Others will come along and make something of these places’ virtues.

Agri-business is a method for strip-mining the value from what remains of our fruited plains. Everything about it is on an arc of failure, mortgaged to a futureless giantism. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and now that time has passed. The remaining soil itself can probably be rescued with heroic ant-like peasant labor over generations, which is to say a long and rather desperate project with no quick resolution. Even if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., hadn’t come along to read America the riot act on food, anyone can see that the age of Froot Loops is drawing to a close. Town and country, what human society at its best was composed of, has got to be rearranged. This is something that MAGA is not talking about. MAGA looks like it is seeking a reenactment of the years 1950 to 1964. That isn’t going to happen. What then? The tech broz propose something that looks like an A-I printed robotic future. They are drunk on their own Stanford University brand Kool-Aid, hallucinating a future that is little more than math dressed in spandex.

It is nearly impossible to grok the size of their vast fortunes, their billions. Thousands upon thousands of millions. From what? From marshaling squadrons of lawyers to draw up ownership documents for this and that venture enabling idiots with nose-rings to lecture each other about sexual etiquette on cell-phone screens? Warning: don’t become infatuated with singularities, journeys beyond biology and the ecology of planet earth. That’s a story for saps, cargo-cultists, the mentally ill. Speaking of all that money, one thing you can surely depend on is a violent unwinding of global finance. The vast bottom of humanity already has plenty of nothing, and their abundance will abide. The hedge fund broz and related broz in the shared hallucinations of capital can make some provision for wealth preservation if they have half-a-brain. It’s the great wad in the middle that has the worst problem: they get wiped out and then they discover they have no Plan B. That’s when the fun really kicks off in America (and other sovereign lands, of course.)

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Hep B
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1911479588535882235

 

 

Vax

 

 

Bhattacharya
https://twitter.com/sophiadahl1/status/1911580633035334115
https://twitter.com/Humanspective/status/1911680285772849217

 

 

https://twitter.com/mamboitaliano__/status/1911367206371275242
https://twitter.com/mamboitaliano__/status/1911512270149919189

 

 

AI Jesus
https://twitter.com/mamboitaliano__/status/1911292594669425151

 

 

Amur
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1911392004862263730

 

 

Orangutan

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 31 2025

Mar 312025
 
 March 31, 2025  Posted by at 10:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Keith Haring Untitled 1984

 

• Trump and Putin Could Bring Peace to the World (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Trump Teases New Putin Call – NBC (RT)
• Trump ‘Very Angry’ & ‘Pissed Off’ At Putin, Threatens New Tariffs (ZH)
• Kremlin Blasts EU For ‘Not Wanting Peace’ As It Refuses To Ease Sanctions (ZH)
• Baltic States Fear Ukraine Ceasefire – FT (RT)
• Zelensky Has Plan To Take Out Election Rivals – Economist (RT)
• Diplomat Explains Putin’s Proposal For Temporary Ukraine Administration (RT)
• Inside President Trump’s Ambitious Policy Strategy (Devlin)
• Trump Inks $100 Million Deal With Skadden Law Firm (ET)
• ‘100%’ US Gets Greenland – Trump (RT)
• Trump Says He Is ‘Not Joking’ About Running for 3rd Presidential Term (ET)
• Interest Costs On US Debt To Exceed Economic Growth By 2045 (JTN)
• Biden Admin Accused of Burying Conflicting Climate Change Report (Turley)
• The Party That Woke Broke (Suzanne Bowdey)
• What Made America Great In The Gilded Age (Loyola)

 

 

 

 

Elon Ukr

40 years
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1906423104391561632

Big election in Wisconsin tomorrow

DOGE SS

Leavitt

Tesla

 

 

 

 

“..we could enter a golden era of peace. Of course, the military-security complex would assassinate both Trump and Putin. Nevertheless, I believe both would risk it if only they could think of it.”

• Trump and Putin Could Bring Peace to the World (Paul Craig Roberts)

England and France, American puppet states for decades until the advent of Trump 2, are visibly at work disrupting Trump’s effort to reach a deal with Putin that ends the conflict in Ukraine. The Russian Defense Ministry said that the second strike on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region last Friday, which completed the destruction of the facility, was the work of Britain and France. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the targeting and navigation of the American HIMARS missiles (missiles Biden said he would not give to Zelensky but did) was provided by France. British specialists input the target coordinates and the launching command came from London.

What explains two American puppet states working against the United States government? Is it another CIA operation against Trump? Is it the US military-security complex paying the British and French governments to keep the profitable (for the US military-security complex) conflict going? Is it the Israeli-backed US Zionist neoconservatives continuing their efforts to diminish Russia’s influence in world affairs? Whatever is the answer, the Russian Foreign Ministry has no better idea than I do. The spokeswoman, Zakharova, blames Zelensky for failing to observe the negotiated agreement that both sides cease attacking the other’s energy infrastructure. Russia agreed to Trump’s proposal as a way of protecting nuclear power plants, the destruction which could be deadly for large numbers of civilians in Russia, Ukraine, and Europe.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov blamed the Ukrainian military for not following Zelensky’s orders. It is a mystery how Zakharova and Peskov can continue to describe the situation as a Ukrainian issue when the two nuclear-armed (armed by Washington) NATO countries, Britain and France, are at work undermining the Trump-Putin peace negotiations. If Trump and Putin were in the league with the great strategists in history, what would they do to bring this clown act to an end? They would announce a military alliance. Putin can have Ukraine, the Baltics and as much of Europe as he wants. Trump will take Canada, Greenland, and Panama. No one on earth could do anything about this.

Putin does not want Ukraine, the Baltics, or Europe. He only wants Russia to be left alone and to engage freely with the countries that comprise the world. What Trump really wants, we don’t yet know. But a Trump-Putin alliance would establish dominion over the rule of earth, Israel included. Israel’s agenda of Greater Israel could easily be deep-sixed, Israel’s nuclear weapons destroyed, and justice given to the Palestinians. Israel would be reduced, instead of expanded, in boundary, and the Jews could use their talent for business to make the Middle East a prosperous area of the world.

President Trump seems to have the idea that the pursuit of mutual interests in business is far superior to the pursuit of war. Putin has shown himself to be the least combative of leaders of powerful countries. If only Trump and Putin could realize that a US-Russia military alliance would establish peace in the world, no more NATO, no more CIA overthrowing governments, no more propaganda about false news threats, we could enter a golden era of peace. Of course, the military-security complex would assassinate both Trump and Putin. Nevertheless, I believe both would risk it if only they could think of it.

Read more …

“..he was “very angry” and “pissed off” about Putin’s statements about the legitimacy of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky..”

• Trump Teases New Putin Call – NBC (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said he may have another phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the coming days, NBC News reported on Sunday. Trump and Putin last spoke over the telephone on March 18 and agreed to work toward a peaceful end to the Ukraine conflict. Following the call, Russia and Ukraine carried out a prisoner swap and agreed to a partial ceasefire, although Moscow claims that Kiev has repeatedly broken it since. In an interview with NBC news on Sunday, Trump said the two presidents plan to speak again this week. The US president also stated he will sanction Russia if he considers that it is to blame in the event a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict fails.

“If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault – which it might not be – but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,” he was quoted as saying. He added that he was “very angry” and “pissed off” about Putin’s statements about the legitimacy of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. In a speech on Thursday, Putin said that because Zelensky has not held elections, both he and the officials he has appointed have no legitimacy. The Ukrainian leader’s presidential term expired last May. Neo-Nazi units such as the notorious Azov are now effectively beginning to run Ukraine, empowered by continued Western military support, he emphasized.

The repeated Ukrainian ceasefire violations show that officials in Kiev no longer have control over the country’s military, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday. Putin and Trump had their first call on February 12 in what was the first time that the leaders of Russia and the US had spoken in years. This was followed by two rounds of high-level talks between Russian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia. Additional discussions have also been held in Istanbul, focusing on diplomatic funding and a proposal from Moscow to reinstate direct flights between the two countries. Peskov said on Thursday that the next conversation between Trump and Putin had not yet been planned.

Read more …

“Trump’s attacking Putin for denouncing Zelensky as illegitimate will surely not be taken as a very serious critique by the Kremlin, given the irony of Trump himself not too long ago having himself blasted Zelensky as a “dictator without elections”.”

• Trump ‘Very Angry’ & ‘Pissed Off’ At Putin, Threatens New Tariffs (ZH)

Why should Russia’s refusal to make big concessions come as any surprise to either the White House or mainstream media, given Russian forces are clearly steadily gaining on the battlefield? In a phone interview with NBC on Sunday, President Donald Trump said, “if Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia.” Trump went on to say he’s “very angry” and “pissed off” particularly at President Vladimir Putin’s attacking the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s and his leadership:

“I was very angry, pissed off” when Putin “started getting into [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky’s credibility” and “started talking about new leadership” in Ukraine, Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker in a phone call. Trump said that Putin’s comments on Zelensky are “not going in the right location.” This was in reference to a Friday plan pitched by Putin for a “transitional administration” for Ukraine under the auspices of the UN. The immediate aim would be ceasefire leading toward “democratic” election, followed by the negotiation of a peace agreement with the new authorities.

“We could, of course, discuss with the United States, even with European countries, and of course with our partners and friends, under the auspices of the UN, the possibility of establishing a transitional administration in Ukraine,” Putin said while visiting the northwestern Russian city of Murmansk. He laid out that “we could discuss the possibility of introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine,” while Ukraine holds “democratic elections, to bring to power a capable government that enjoys the trust of the people.” After this, he explained, the two warring sides would “start talks with them about a peace treaty.” Putin has in the recent past complained that Zelensky is ‘illegitimate’ and thus can’t legally be negotiated with, since he has canceled democratic elections on an indefinite basis.

So Trump has clearly brushed this aside in the new Sunday comments… However, Trump’s attacking Putin for denouncing Zelensky as illegitimate will surely not be taken as a very serious critique by the Kremlin, given the irony of Trump himself not too long ago having himself blasted Zelensky as a “dictator without elections”. Trump confirmed to NBC that he will speak again with his Russian counterpart this week. Russia has indicated that the question of the Black Sea ceasefire is still being negotiated, and is awaiting the removal of sanctions on agricultural exports which necessitates specific banks being reconnected to the Swift payment system. But Europe has that no, it won’t go along with any plan which results in easing sanctions.

Read more …

War gives Brussels access to unlimited funds. That they themselves vote for. Re-armament, threat of Putin conquering all of Europe.

In case of peace, no such money flows.

• Kremlin Blasts EU For ‘Not Wanting Peace’ As It Refuses To Ease Sanctions (ZH)

Moscow has blasted the European Union’s declaration that it will not lift sanctions on Russia in the context of the US-backed Black Sea ceasefire deal. The Russian side has made clear that for the deal to be implemented the West must remove sanctions from the state-owned Rosselkhozbank as a precondition. “An integral part of the Black Sea deal is the lifting of sanctions on a Russian bank,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in reference to the primary financial entity overseeing Russian agricultural products. “If European countries don’t want to go down this path, it means they don’t want to go down the path of peace in unison with the efforts shown in Moscow and Washington,” he added. Rosselkhozbank has remained cut off from the SWIFT financial messaging network due to EU sanctions, and Russia is seeking immediate reconnect if peace is to be secured in the Black Sea.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explained at the end this week, “The sanctions are very significant; they are painful; they have an impact on the Russian economy, and they represent a powerful lever.” So clearly Europe is not ready to let go of this ‘power lever’. Von der Leyen made clear that the sanctions “will remain in effect until a just and lasting peace is established in Ukraine.” But she did also say that “when the war is over, the sanctions might be removed.” Other European leaders have echoed this viewpoint, for example with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling sanctions relief a “grave mistake” which “makes no sense” without a ceasefire first. The Zelensky government too stands against the easting of anti-Russia sanctions.

The Kremlin has further described that Europe is actively blocking Trump’s good-faith efforts to establish peace, and that this is ultimately behind the EU’s refusal to lift sanctions. Russian sources have meanwhile pointed out that Russia is still thriving despite the West’s record number of sanctions on the country. Trump admin is increasingly openly clashing with the EU on the Black Sea deal…

https://twitter.com/FiorellaIsabelM/status/1905033950084370863?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1905033950084370863%7Ctwgr%5E551bca574affbef7d0775d8124338bc30c8af20c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fkremlin-blasts-eu-not-wanting-peace-it-refuses-ease-sanctions

“Earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin asserted that the Russian economy has become the fourth largest in the world in purchasing power parity terms after those of China, the US and India, despite a record 28,595 sanctions being placed on it by Washington, Brussels and their allies,” wrote RT. “According to the Russian government’s data, the country’s economy grew 4.1% in 2024, surpassing the official forecast of 3.9%,” the same report said.

Read more …

Another way of saying the same thing; peace is a bigger threat than war.

• Baltic States Fear Ukraine Ceasefire – FT (RT)

The Baltic nations believe a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict would increase the security threat they face, the Financial Times has reported, citing the defense ministers of the countries. In recent weeks, a 30-day pause on strikes against energy infrastructure by Moscow and Kiev has been agreed upon, while there have been moves toward reviving the Black Sea grain deal as part of efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The FT said in an article on Sunday that “a full ceasefire is still seen as far off,” but officials in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, who have been among the most vocal backers of Ukraine in the EU and NATO since the escalation between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, are already concerned that it might be achieved at some point.

“We all understand that when the war in Ukraine will be stopped, Russia will redistribute its forces very quickly. That means also the threat level will increase significantly very quickly,” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur told the outlet. Pevkur claimed that Moscow could redeploy 300,000 troops from the contact line with Ukraine to Russia’s western borders once a ceasefire takes effect. Meanwhile, the Estonian defense minister rejected a plan by the UK and France to send a so-called “reassurance force” made up of Western European soldiers to Ukraine after the fighting stops. “We cannot jeopardize the security of the eastern flank of NATO. We cannot fall into the trap that our forces are somehow fixed in Ukraine. Then we will have risks at our border,” he explained.

The article also cited Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakaliene, who said earlier this week that “Russia will use this time following a ceasefire to speed up its military capabilities. They already have a huge, battlefield-trained army, which is going to get even bigger.” “Let us not have any illusions. Let us not lie to ourselves that Russia is going to be done after Ukraine,” she said. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly dismissed claims that Moscow has any aggressive plans towards NATO as “nonsense” that is meant to scare the European population and justify increases in military spending. US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who met with Putin at the Kremlin earlier this month, told American journalist Tucker Carlson last week that Russia is “100% not” interested in invading NATO countries. Suggesting that Moscow harbors such plans is “preposterous,” according to Witkoff.

Read more …

How to say Azov without saying Azov. Problem is, Zelensky will not be accepted as winner.

• Zelensky Has Plan To Take Out Election Rivals – Economist (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky and his team have begun laying the groundwork for a summer presidential election in Ukraine in order to “catch rivals off guard” and be reelected before the fragmented opposition has a chance to regroup, The Economist reported, citing senior government sources. Zelensky’s five-year presidential term expired in May 2024, but he refused to call new elections, citing martial law. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that his status prevents him from signing legally binding documents, including a peace deal with Moscow. US President Donald Trump once referred to Zelensky as a “dictator without elections.” According to the Economist article published on Sunday, Zelensky “called a meeting last week to task his team with organising a vote after a full ceasefire, which the Americans believe they could impose by late April.”

A senior government source claimed that Zelensky intends to move quickly to reduce electoral competition by giving potential rivals little time to prepare and virtually “run unopposed.” The source justified the move by saying, “a long campaign would tear the country apart.” Zelensky claimed in an interview last month that the “population is against elections,” arguing that holding a vote would undermine the country’s defense posture. “If we suspend martial law, we will lose the army,” he said. The Ukrainian parliament is set to vote on whether to extend martial law for another 90 days before it expires on May 8. Most sources cited by The Economist expect Zelensky to push for a summer election, with early July cited as the earliest possible date under Ukraine’s 60-day minimum campaign law.

Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, described by the outlet as “a sworn foe” of Zelensky, predicted that elections could take place “any time from August to October.” Poroshenko claimed the campaign had already de facto begun in February, when Zelensky placed him under sanctions in an attempt to write off his candidacy and dissuade former commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny from challenging him.Zelensky’s sanctions also targeted exiled Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk. Medvedchuk led the Opposition Platform – For Life party, formerly the second-largest faction in the Ukrainian parliament, until his arrest in April 2022. The party was later banned, and Medvedchuk was transferred to Russia in a prisoner exchange in September 2022.

Putin has claimed that Zelensky has “absolutely no chance” of winning a fair election due to his low approval ratings, “unless something is grossly rigged.” An internal poll last month suggested that Zelensky would be defeated by Zaluzhny 30% to 65%, as many Ukrainians are “clearly frustrated with their war leader.” Critics also say that a fair election would require dismantling censorship and ending government control over media coverage. In 2022, Kiev introduced what it called the United News TV telemarathon – a 24/7 joint information program produced by the country’s major media outlets – while cracking down on alternative narratives viewed as pro-Russia propaganda.

Read more …

Medvedev: “The nit is illegitimate. There’s nothing to respect him for. He failed, his people are dying, and his country is disappearing.”

• Diplomat Explains Putin’s Proposal For Temporary Ukraine Administration (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to establish a temporary international administration in Ukraine under UN supervision is based on historical precedents, according to Kirill Logvinov, who heads the Foreign Ministry’s Department of International Organizations. He told TASS on Sunday that the UN already has experience with this process. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is not possible to sign a peace agreement with Kiev because the current Ukrainian leadership lacks legitimacy. Vladimir Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, though he has remained in office without holding elections, citing martial law.

Putin suggested earlier this week that creating “external management or temporary administration” under the UN could facilitate elections in Ukraine and provide a legitimate foundation for negotiations. A peace deal signed with a newly elected leader, he said, “would be recognized around the world” and could not be overturned later. There is no formal mechanism for creating such administrations in the UN,” Logvinov acknowledged. However, he noted that the UN has established transitional authorities in several post-conflict areas, including Cambodia, East Timor, and Eastern Slavonia, setting a precedent for this type of arrangement. “In all cases, the first step was reaching an agreement between the parties to the conflict – directly or through intermediaries – on the appropriate transfer of powers to the UN,” he explained.

Once an agreement is reached, the parties or their mediators would then submit a formal appeal to the UN. The Security Council would instruct the secretary-general to prepare a framework for the temporary administration, including a timeline and budget. Logvinov stressed that the final decision rests with the UN Security Council following a report by the secretary-general outlining the form and functions of the proposed administration. Officials in Kiev have rejected the idea. Andrey Kovalenko, the head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, claimed on Telegram that the plan is an attempt by Moscow to delay peace talks.

Washington has not formally commented on the proposal. However, Reuters quoted an unnamed White House national security spokesperson who said Ukraine’s governance should be determined by its constitution and people. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres dismissed the proposal on Friday, insisting that “Ukraine has a legitimate government, and so obviously that must be respected.” Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently the deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, criticized Guterres’ remarks, calling them a “double lie.” Referring to Zelensky in a post on X, he said: “The nit is illegitimate. There’s nothing to respect him for. He failed, his people are dying, and his country is disappearing.”

Read more …

“It is catastrophic for [Congress] to not act and to let individual judges nullify laws nationwide in a preliminary postur..,”

• Inside President Trump’s Ambitious Policy Strategy (Devlin)

President Donald Trump’s pace since returning to the White House has surprised the president’s friends, perhaps even more than his enemies. On the 66th day of his administration, Trump signed the 100th executive order of his second term, breaking FDR’s record of 99 executive orders in the first 100 days. While Trump plows ahead, the leftist lawfare complex that once sought to imprison the president is attempting to handcuff his second term by filing more than 130 lawsuits against the administration. As a deputy assistant to the president and Trump senior policy strategist, May Mailman is one of those administration staffers tasked with executing President Trump’s game plan. She sat down for a special episode of “The Signal Sitdown” filmed at the White House. “I think actually the president’s speed has always been this fast,” Mailman said of the offensive posture of the administration. It has always been, ‘I need this, I need this, let’s go, let’s go, let’s go.’”

Mailman said this strategy emerged during the transition to ensure that on Day One, President Trump was keeping his promises. “Everything that he said he was going to do on Day One, we’re going to do on Day One. So there was just that capturing of promises and making sure that that was executed.” The added advantage to the strategy? The president’s opponents are caught off guard: “They can’t keep up if you just keep executing,” Mailman said. The second Trump administration’s personnel, she suggested, are reflecting the dynamism coming from the Oval Office. “I think what you’re seeing with personnel this time is people who are oriented toward action. And so a lot of people are oriented towards process, they’re oriented toward contemplation, they’re oriented toward a lot of other things. But these people? They want to get things done.”

In this administration, “a staffer recognizes that we are here to execute the president’s agenda,” Mailman said. “That is your job, and you should do it smart, and you should do it right, and you should ask questions, and you should do it in a way that’s not idiotic, but your job is to execute.” But, as a four-year veteran of the first Trump White House, Mailman didn’t anticipate coming back to the White House in 2025. “I wasn’t going to do it, but then I worked on the transition and there was so much momentum,” Mailman told The Daily Signal. “So how could you not? And so here we are.”Nevertheless, the administration’s opponents would like nothing more than to kill the president’s momentum. That much has been made clear by the more than 130 lawsuits, an overwhelming majority of them filed by leftist groups, against the administration. Some activist judges are granting these leftist groups injunctions blocking Trump policies.

“The lawfare has been alarming,” Mailman said. “The number, I think, is probably to be expected [because] everybody loves to fundraise off of this,” Mailman explained. “The problem is what happens next… If the Supreme Court continues to allow nationwide injunctions, which is before any trial, before any evidence, before any final legal determination… I think it will forever harm the standing of the judiciary in the minds of the American public.” Part of solving the problem of rogue judges lies with Congress. It’s not only the executive branch being challenged by the judiciary, either. Mailman argued, “the Legislature [is] seeing their laws just get totally shredded by the judiciary,” as well.

Now, Republicans on Capitol Hill are currently weighing impeachment, investigations, and legislation, among other potential solutions. “It is catastrophic for [Congress] to not act and to let individual judges nullify laws nationwide in a preliminary posture,” Mailman said. “And they need to carve back this power if they care at all about their own power.” “The Legislature kind of needs to think about that as an institution,” she told The Daily Signal. “Do we care about the people? Because … when judges take over, who loses? The people.”

Read more …

“$100 million in pro bono legal services..”

• Trump Inks $100 Million Deal With Skadden Law Firm (ET)

A prominent Wall Street law firm has struck a deal with the White House to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP will dedicate the services to causes supported by both the firm and the Trump administration, including assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in the U.S. justice system, and combating anti-Semitism. The firm also committed to funding at least five law graduates under a fellowship dedicated to supporting the causes each year and employing merit-based hiring practices, vowing not to deny representation to members of politically disenfranchised groups. This deal comes as President Donald Trump has, in recent weeks, issued executive orders targeting multiple major legal firms, directing government agencies to revoke their security clearances and terminate contracts.

While Trump has not issued one against Skadden, the deal seems to be a way to prevent that from happening. “This was essentially a settlement,” President Donald Trump said in announcing the deal at a White House event. “We appreciate Skadden’s coming to the table. As you know, other law firms have likewise settled the case. And … what’s gone on is a shame.” A White House statement explained that Skadden had approached Trump about its “strong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.” Jeremy London, the firm’s executive partner, said the two parties worked “constructively” to reach an agreement. “The firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his administration. We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm,” London said.

News of the agreement came just hours after two other law firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, sued the president for ordering the retraction of their security clearances and the termination of their government contracts.
In WilmerHale’s case, Trump cited the firm’s employment of former special counsel Robert Mueller and his aides as one of the top reasons for the move. Mueller “wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history,” Trump wrote in the executive order, referring to Mueller’s investigation of claims Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Those claims proved to be unfounded.

Jenner, on the other hand, hired Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s top prosecutor. In separate legal actions filed in the District of Columbia, the two firms accused the administration of punishing its political opposition and asked the court to find Trump’s orders unconstitutional. Paul Weiss, another Wall Street law firm, brokered a deal with the White House last week to provide $40 million in free legal services for mutually supported causes. In return, the administration revoked an order similar to those targeting Jenner and WilmerHale.

Read more …

The art of the deal incoming. Patience.

• ‘100%’ US Gets Greenland – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has said he is sure that Washington will take over Greenland and that he has already had “absolutely” real conversations about annexing the Danish autonomous territory. “We’ll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%,” Trump told the US broadcaster NBC in a phone interview on Saturday. There is a “good possibility that we could do it without military force,” he stated, adding that he would not “take anything off the table.” According to the American president, the annexation of Greenland is an issue of “international peace” and “international security and strength.” When asked what message the move would send to the rest of the world, Trump stated: “I don’t really think about that. I don’t really care.”

A video shared by Trump earlier this week claimed that the island was threatened by “Russian aggression” and “Chinese expansion.” The clip stated that the partnership between Greenland and the US “is not just history. It is destiny.” Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic.” The interview came just a day after US Vice President J.D. Vance visited the resource-rich Arctic territory. During his stay, he accused Denmark of doing a poor job for the people of Greenland. “I think that you’d be a lot better coming under the United States’ security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s,” he said while visiting a US base on the island.

Trump initially proposed buying the Danish autonomous territory during his first term in 2019 and has reignited the discussion after returning to office. He has since repeatedly promised to make the island a part of the US, arguing that it is needed for security purposes. The American president’s statements have drawn an angry reaction from Copenhagen. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen stated this week that such actions were not appropriate for a close ally and were only “escalating tensions.” He also accused Trump of going “too far.” Danish MP and Defense Committee Chairman Rasmus Jarlov warned in mid-March that the US’ aspirations to annex the island could lead to a war between NATO nations. Greenland’s prime minister, Mute B. Egede, also denounced what he called “aggressive pressure” by the US.

Read more …

“..Trump was asked about why he wants to continue to be president, which Welker described is “the toughest job in the country.” “Well, I like working,” replied Trump, who would be 82..”

• Trump Says He Is ‘Not Joking’ About Running for 3rd Presidential Term (ET)

President Donald Trump on Sunday said that he is “not joking” about recent talk of him potentially seeking a third term in office, although such a move would likely face significant legal hurdles. “A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump told NBC News on Sunday morning. “But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration.” When asked about whether he is serious or joking about the third term comments, Trump said, “I’m not joking.” “It is far too early to think about it,” he said, adding elsewhere in the interview that he is “focused on the current” term in office.

Since taking office, Trump has, on multiple occasions, suggested that he wants to run for a third term, which could pose a legal challenge, because the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” That amendment was ratified in 1951 after President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected four consecutive times. Roosevelt was the only president in U.S. history to be elected to either a third or fourth term.

Days after Trump took office in January, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) proposed an amendment to the Constitution that could allow presidents to be elected for three terms. However, amending the Constitution would require two-thirds of Congress members to vote for its approval, which would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of state Legislatures. Explaining why he would want to seek a third term, Trump said that, “You have to start by saying, I have the highest poll numbers of any Republican for the last 100 years.” “We’re in the high 70s in many polls, in the real polls, and you see that. And, and you know, we’re very popular,” Trump said. When asked about how he could be elected to a third term, Trump told NBC News there might be ways to do so.

NBC’s Kristen Welker then provided him with a hypothetical situation: “Well, let me throw out one where President Vance would run for office and then would, basically … if he won, at the top of the ticket, would then pass the baton to you.” In response, Trump said, “Well, that’s one. But there are others, too. There are others.” “Can you tell me another?” Welker asked Trump. “No,” he said. The 12th Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Also in the interview, Trump was asked about why he wants to continue to be president, which Welker described is “the toughest job in the country.” “Well, I like working,” replied Trump, who would be 82 at the end of his current term.

Read more …

DOGE addresses real problems.

“The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run out of reserves by 2033 – when today’s youngest retirees turn 70 – leading to an immediate 24 percent benefit cut under the law..”

• Interest Costs On US Debt To Exceed Economic Growth By 2045 (JTN)

The U.S. is on track to hit a dangerous milestone by 2045, according to an analysis of the new Congressional Budget Office’s long term budget outlook. The average interest rate on debt will exceed the economic growth rate by 2045, sparking the beginning of a debt spiral. “Interest costs will reach a record 3.2 percent of GDP this year – exceeding the cost of defense and Medicare – and further grow to 5.4 percent of GDP by 2055,” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s review of the latest CBO data that was released on Thursday. “The average interest rate on debt will exceed the economic growth rate by 2045, sparking the beginning of a debt spiral,” the CRFB added. The watchdog group said that “high and rising debt and deficits would have many negative consequences for the budget and the economy including slower income growth, higher interest rates and interest payments on the national debt, increased geopolitical risks, undue burden on future generations, reduced fiscal space to respond to emergencies, and an increased risk of a fiscal crisis.”

The U.S. national debt is on pace to set new concerning records between now and 2055. “Federal debt held by the public will rise from 100 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to 156 percent of GDP by 2055 – 50 percentage points above the prior record,” according to the CRFB analysis. “Annual deficits will grow from 6.2 percent of GDP in 2025 – already twice as high as they were as recently as 2016 – to 7.3 percent of GDP by 2055. This is the highest they’ve ever been outside of a crisis.” The CBO is warning that Social Security is just 8 years from insolvency. “The Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run out of reserves by 2033 – when today’s youngest retirees turn 70 – leading to an immediate 24 percent benefit cut under the law,” read the CRFB analysis of CBO data. “If combined with the disability insurance trust fund, the combined trust fund would be insolvent by 2034.”

The CRFB said policymakers will need to make tough decisions this year with respect to the debt and deficit. “CBO’s latest long-term budget outlook reminds us that the federal budget is on an unsustainable long-term path, and policymakers will be faced with decisions this year that will have major implications for the trajectory of our debt over the next 30 years,” read the analysis. The group said extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without ways to fully cover the cost would drive debt to higher than 200% of GDP. The CRFB has encouraged lawmakers to find enough offsets to fully cover the cost of tax reform. “Even without this additional borrowing, the annual budget deficit will reach 7.3 percent of GDP in FY 2055 – higher than at any point outside of World War II, the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 pandemic,” they said.

Scott Hodge, former president of the Tax Foundation, shared his reaction to the CBO’s latest report with Just the News. “CBO’s latest long-term budget forecast should be a wakeup call to the White House and Congress that they must do more to get spending under control or the federal debt will rise to unsustainable levels,” said Hodge, a tax and fiscal policy fellow at Arnold Ventures in Washington, D.C. Arnold Ventures describes itself as a philanthropy “dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through evidence-based policy solutions that maximize opportunity and minimize injustice.” Hodge noted that the CBO assumes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which expires at the end of this year, would “potentially raise more than $4 trillion in new taxes over a decade” if it is extended, but this new tax revenue still falls short of closing the deficit gap since spending is rising faster than taxes.

“We should also note that CBO is forecasting sluggish economic growth for the next decade, which puts a premium on the need to renew the 2017 tax cuts to boost economic growth. Lawmakers will have to find responsible ways to offset the cost of these tax cuts so as to not add to the mounting debt. It will take leadership to meet this twin challenge,” he said.

Read more …

“..they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.”

• Biden Admin Accused of Burying Conflicting Climate Change Report (Turley)

There is a major story developing on Capitol Hill after House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, revealed that a long-withheld report from the Biden Administration directly contradicted the claims of climate change used to limit increased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. The suggestion is that this was an knowing effort to cap carbon admissions rather than carbon emissions. The impact that new U.S. LNG exports have on the environment and the economy was reviewed by U.S. Energy Department scientists and completed by September 2023. It appears that neither President Biden nor Secretary Jennifer Granholm liked the science or the conclusions. Rather than “follow the science,” they buried the report while allegedly making claims directly refuted by their own experts.

The report was finished while Biden was still running for reelection and would have likely enraged environmentalists. The draft study, “Energy, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports,” found that, under all modeled scenarios, an increase in U.S. LNG exports and natural gas production would not change global or U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It further found that it would not increase energy prices for consumers. Biden and Granholm reportedly buried the report and then announced a pause on all new U.S. LNG export terminals in January 2024, citing the danger to environmental and economic impacts. Comer’s office told Fox News Digital that DOE repeatedly declined to provide this study to the House Oversight Committee or comply with other requests for information.

What is most concerning is that our LNG exports help reduce the dependence on Russia and would have decreased the revenues to that country to support its war in Ukraine. However, critics charge that Biden ignored the national security and economic benefits. Supporters note that we still exported a massive amount of LNG. When the U.S. ramped up exports to Europe, progressive Democrats like Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., went ballistic. This appears to have worked in shelving the study while slowing demands for further increases. The Biden Administration later released data in December 2024 suggesting that a rise in exports could cause consumer prices to rise by as much as 30%. There are obviously two sides to this debate. The problem is that it seems that only one side was allowed to be publicly presented by the delay in the release of the study.

Read more …

“Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., dared to say he didn’t want his daughters to play sports against biological boys—like 80% of his country—only to turn around and vote against his girls three months later.”

• The Party That Woke Broke (Suzanne Bowdey)

Democrats have been wallowing in the despair of last November’s elections for months, unable—or maybe unwilling—to crawl out of the pit of public opinion they find themselves in. “It’s hard to win if you don’t know why you lost,” Axios’ Alex Thompson observed. But it’s even harder, some would say, if you know and do nothing about it. To most people, the solution to the party’s problems is simple. After a year of losing ground with virtually every demographic—men, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, young people, Independents, suburban moms—the polling all points to Democrats being completely out of step with everyday voters. So why not just abandon the extremism Americans rejected? For the party of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the answer is much more complicated.

The crisis facing Democrats isn’t about their identity; they have one. The crisis is that they can’t moderate their ideology—or embrace it—without severe consequences. As National Review’s Rich Lowry put it, “The reason Joe Biden won in 2020 is he didn’t seem like a progressive, and one reason that his party lost in 2024 is that he governed like one.” For Democrats, ideological extremism is their kryptonite and their lifeblood. It’s what excites the base and repels the populace. In other words, it’s a recipe for long-term political disaster. And yet, in several instances, the Democrats who’ve tried to soften their positions or build a temporary bridge to sanity have been beaten back into conformity. After the election, Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., dared to say he didn’t want his daughters to play sports against biological boys—like 80% of his country—only to turn around and vote against his girls three months later. “I was just speaking authentically as a dad about one of many issues where I think we’re just out of touch with the majority of voters,” he explained to the angry mob in November. “ … I stand by my position.”

Or at least he stood by it until the time came to act on it, Americans learned. But lately, even the barest hints of compromise are punished. Look at the hysteria over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who needs increased security simply for voting with Republicans to stop a government shutdown—something his own party argued would be a disaster for hard-working families a month earlier. For sticking to that position, there’ve been furious calls for his ouster and a leadership mutiny in party ranks. Then, there’s California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who tested the waters earlier this month with his whiplash comments on Title IX. Sitting down with Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk on his podcast, the governor was asked about the issue of trans-identifying athletes in girls’ sports. To most people’s surprise, the progressive replied, “I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that.” He emphasized his point by adding, “It’s deeply unfair.”

Newsom, who, by his own admission, has been a “leader” in the “LGBTQ” movement, encouraged his party to admit that a lopsided playing field is cause for concern. He said, “We’ve got to own that. We’ve got to acknowledge it.” His sudden openness to a broader discussion was met with horror on the Left and deep skepticism on the Right—a perfect illustration of the conundrum facing Democrats. As California Family Council President Jonathan Keller pointed out on a recent episode of the “Outstanding” podcast, “He’s trying to set it up in such a way that … he’s going to look like he’s a moderate.” But frankly, Keller said, “I’m not positive that’s actually going to be an effective strategy from him. I think what it may be effective in doing is getting him destroyed in the primaries,” he said, referring to the root problem for Democrats, which is that what wins primaries is the same thing that loses general elections.

In Newsom’s case, even an insincere shift to the middle is next-to-impossible to pull off, thanks to years of activist baggage. As Kirk wrote after the interview, “I’m under no illusions about why I was invited: Gavin Newsom wants to run for president in three years, and he thinks that talking [to] conservative figures like me increase his recognition, help him present as a centrist, and cast him as a champion of the Left in a time when the [L]eft has no real leaders. … We shouldn’t fall for this … ” he warned. “[A]nd fortunately, swerving to the center won’t be that simple for Gavin. … He knows his current record can’t win him the White House, and so he’s trying to rewrite what that record is.” Polling proved the governor’s flirtation with rationality didn’t help his case. Of 1,000 California voters, only 24% said the podcast helped them see Newsom as more moderate, while 17% insisted it made them less likely to see him as a moderate. A majority, 59%, said it made no difference. Americans are not so easily fooled. A few soundbites does not a record make.

“Like the national Democrat[ic] Party and the legacy media,” John Nolte stressed, “Newsom has painted himself into a corner where the only way to survive is through the fealty to the 20% of hard leftists that make up the Left’s base of activist and financial support. … With all their lies and lunacy in support of things like open borders and this transsexual nonsense, Newsom, Democrats, and the corporate media have alienated all the normal people, probably forever. So that 20% is all they’ve got.” The foot soldiers of the Democratic Party grasp the paradox. They’ve tried, unsuccessfully, for the last nine years to turn the heads of leadership to mainstream positions on things like gender, immigration, education, and energy. “I don’t want to be the freak show party like they have branded us,” one DNC member from Florida complained after the election when it was obvious the Left’s social radicalism had cost them every lever of power in Washington.

“When you’re a mom with three kids,” she pointed out, “and you live in middle America, and you’re just not really into politics, and you see these ads that scare the bejesus out of you, you’re like, ‘I know Trump’s weird or whatever, but I would rather his weirdness that doesn’t affect my kids.’” Others echoed her alarm. “The progressive wing of the party has to recognize—we all have to recognize—the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle,” said Joseph Paolino, a DNC committeeman for Rhode Island. It felt like, at least from those comments, that the party was finally going to pivot. “This is basically a rebuild job from the bottom up,” former DNC Chair Donna Brazile emphasized. But what happened when push came to shove?

Against the pleas of their non-elite base, the far-left won even greater control of the party—electing woke, anti-gun, pro-trans, defund-the-police, ICE-abolishing, climate change-pimping DNC leaders in Chairman Ken Martin and Vice Chair David Hogg. To the everyday Democrats, who’d been “begging the party to ditch the radical Left,” it was an astonishing betrayal. “The weaknesses of Democrats among non-white voters, particularly Hispanic and black working-class voters, is pretty significant,” authors of a new book, “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” insist. “They’re sort of realizing this is a problem. On the other hand, they’re so invested in this whole vector of cultural issues. They’re worried about the blowback on social media and from the college-educated ‘liberalish’ voters who are increasingly a loyal base of the Democratic Party. Trump understood that and he played upon it. He continues to play upon it. He continues to get votes upon it. And the Democrats are oblivious to it.”

Not all Democrats, it seems. A growing chorus of disillusioned officials are starting to speak up about the continued reckoning that awaits the party in future elections. During snippets of his interview with NPR Monday, Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., sounded outright logical in his assessment. “We can’t just resist. It can’t just be why we’re against Trump and what’s wrong with Trump. … The Democratic brand has been damaged.”

“When you ask people … ‘What do the Republicans stand for?’ They say, ‘Well, Make America Great Again. They want to cut the size of government, they want to give tax cuts, stuff like [that].’” Then, Suozzi said, when you ask, “‘What do the Democrats stand for?’ And I think the people are kind of scratching their head a little bit, they believe in, like, [abortion] and LGBT rights—which I believe in those things too—but I don’t know that you can build a whole party around that.” He talked about running on the border issue in 2024, and his consultants protested, arguing, “‘Well, Tom, that’s a Republican issue. I don’t know if you should be talking [about that].’ I said, ‘No, this is what the people of my district are talking about. We can’t ignore what the people are talking about.’”

Read more …

“States competed for capital and labor by keeping their taxes and regulations light and efficient. As a result, America became the world’s most competitive economy, attracting a flood of foreign capital and workers.”

• What Made America Great In The Gilded Age (Loyola)

“We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country,” said President Donald Trump recently, and he’s not wrong. But tariffs aren’t the whole story. The genius of the Gilded Age was interstate regulatory and tax competition. That economy boomed. From 1870 to 1913, America’s gross domestic product grew at nearly 5% per year. Even though America’s population nearly tripled during that time, with 30 million immigrants, per capita GDP doubled. Steel production boomed, surpassing Britain, France, and Germany combined. Railway miles quadrupled. A period that began amid the ruins of civil war ended with America in first place among the world’s great economic powers. Washington collected lots of tariffs then, but little else.

Before the 16th Amendment paved the way for federal income taxes in 1913, Congress was spending barely 1% of GDP—compared with nearly 25% today. Meanwhile, the federal power to regulate commerce was limited to transactions that actually crossed state lines, leaving the vast majority of regulation to the states. States competed for capital and labor by keeping their taxes and regulations light and efficient. As a result, America became the world’s most competitive economy, attracting a flood of foreign capital and workers. It’s no surprise that the booming economy of the Gilded Age was able to sustain tariffs. Of course, that period had its dark sides—political corruption, “Robber Barons,” child labor, and environmental degradation. These excesses sparked the progressive movement.

The sprawling administrative state created by President Woodrow Wilson was soon dictating prices for nearly every major commodity and service, leading to massive economic distortions. By the stock market crash of 1929, the economy was no longer competitive. A new round of tariffs—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930—devastated the economy, deepening the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal doubled down on progressivism, dramatically expanding the reach of the federal government. His court-packing scheme coerced the Supreme Court into dismantling the crucial constitutional limits on the federal power to regulate commerce, and the federal leviathan was born.

Progressives viewed interstate competition as a “race to the bottom” and held that it was the federal government’s role to stop it. What this meant in practice was protections from competition for every special-interest group that could hire lobbyists in Washington. Government became a system for wealth redistribution through subsidies, unfunded mandates, and government-created cartels—from the farm program to the National Labor Relations Act to socialized medicine. America’s private sector remains the world’s most innovative and productive, but a century of progressive policy has driven companies and jobs offshore. Such policies have proven particularly toxic in areas of low-skill labor, as attested by today’s Rust Belt towns, Appalachian communities, and inner cities.

Investment flows where taxes and regulations are low and production factors like labor and electricity are reliable and affordable. In all those metrics the U.S. is falling further and further behind much of the world. In the energy sector, heavily subsidized renewable energy is pushing America’s electricity rates toward European levels. America could soon be facing the same deindustrialization that Germany and Great Britain are facing today. Even in America’s most innovative sectors—like high technology—warning signs are everywhere. The entire supply chain for semiconductor manufacturing has moved offshore, with only high-end engineering remaining in the U.S. China is already making inroads into these areas, and if America doesn’t act fast, it could soon start falling behind even in the high-tech race.

Today, both parties are trapped in the maze of progressive government, a system that subordinates the public interest to special-interest groups seeking protection from competition—from the Jones Act to the sugar program. That is the real swamp, and escaping it will require thinking outside the box, with ideas such as Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. As President Donald Trump recognizes, the U.S. must become once again the world’s most attractive place to do business. Tariffs alone will not get us there. We must free America’s economy from the stifling burdens of progressive government and tax policy, and return to the interstate competition that made America great in the Gilded Age.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Midwives

 

 

Soon Shiong

 

 

Vietnam

 

 

Bittern

 

 

Caracal

 

 

Zoetrope
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1906214825484578864

 

 

Small world

 

 

Emanuel

 

 

Bell
https://twitter.com/TheFigen_/status/1906132035220979887

 

 

Whale

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 24 2025

Mar 242025
 
 March 24, 2025  Posted by at 10:44 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Henri Matisse Still Life with Apples on Pink Cloth 1925

• Pam Bondi Destroys Judge Boasberg for Meddling in Immigration Policy (Margolis)
• The Agony of John Roberts (Kurt Schlichter)
• Trump Goes Nuclear Against Activist Lawyers Undermining His Presidency (Margolis)
• “The Most Intuitive Man Who Ever Lived” (CTH)
• Zelensky Regime Likely to Collapse Soon – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)
• US Sets Easter Target For Ukraine Ceasefire Deal (RT)
• Trump Hails ‘Rational’ Putin Conversations (RT)
• Waltz Reveals Topics Of Russia-US Talks in Riyadh (RT)
• Trump Is The First Leader Who Is Looking To Rebuild Trust With Putin (Proud)
• Putin and Trump Could Have Other Contacts Alongside With Official Ones (TASS)
• Europe’s Policy On Ukraine Conflict ‘Paradoxical’ – Kremlin (RT)
• EU Afraid Trump Will Cut Off Weapons Support – WaPo (RT)
• The Führer of Germany – Friedrich Merz – In A War And Spending Frenzy (Hanseler)
• Hungary’s Orban Continues Blocking EU’s ‘Pro-War’ Stance On Ukraine (ZH)
• Musk Slams South Africa Over ‘White Genocide’ (RT)
• My Time in the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts)

 

 

 

 

Modi -highly recommend-

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

Lutnick

Rescission

 

 

 

 

“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.

Read more …

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?

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Self harm

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

Moose

 

 

Plank

 

 

Dogsbabies

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 18 2025

Mar 182025
 
 March 18, 2025  Posted by at 11:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  51 Responses »


Robert Campin Portrait of a woman 1430-35

 

• Trump-Putin To Hold Tuesday Call On Ending War In Ukraine (ZH)
• Judge Demands DOJ Reveal Classified Information On Deportation Flights (ZH)
• Trump Slams Federal Judge’s ‘Dangerous’ Ruling on Fired Federal Workers (DS)
• Welcome to FAFO-Land (Kunstler)
• Trump Says Biden’s Autopen-Signed Pardons “Null and Void” (ZH)
• The Brilliance Behind Trump’s Move Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ (Margolis)
• Trump Says JFK Files Will Be Released Tuesday Without Redactions (JTN)
• Key to Uncovering Truth About MLK Assassination Lies With Congress (DS)
• The Strongest Case for Trump’s Tariffs I’ve Heard Yet (Margolis)
• Why Has Trump Finally Pulled The Plug On Deep State Propaganda? (Amar)
• NATO ‘Peacekeepers’ in Ukraine Would Snatch War From the Jaws of Peace (Sp.)
• Musk: Feds’ “Magic Money Computers” Issue Payments “Out Of Thin Air” (ZH)
• Bukele: New Partnership With US Advances Fight Against Organized Crime (JTN)
• Celebrate Saint Patrick by Chasing Censors Out of Ireland (Turley)
• Study Destroys Basis of EPA Climate Regulations (Jayaraj)
• People Becoming More Stupid (RT)
• Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station (BBee)

 

 


© AP / Manuel Balce Ceneta (I like this photo)

 

 

https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1901305613721702854

NASA

14

Isaacson

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today: Putin-Trump call, JFK files release (80,000 pages), the astronauts come home.

Call starts at 9AM EDT. Putin doesn’t have a lot of room to move. And he will demand suspension of all weapons deliveries to Ukraine. Not an easy call for Trump.

• Trump-Putin To Hold Tuesday Call On Ending War In Ukraine (ZH)

Both the US and Russian sides have confirmed that Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will hold another phone call on Tuesday. Trump previewed that he plans to continue discussions to end the war in Ukraine, and he cryptically referenced negotiators having already discussed “dividing up certain assets.” “I’ll be speaking to President Putin on Tuesday. A lot of work’s been done over the weekend,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One while en route back from Florida to Washington.n “We want to see if we can bring that war to an end. Maybe we can, maybe we can’t, but I think we have a very good chance,” Trump said. The US is still proposing a 30-day temporary ceasefire, which Putin has already questioned as a likely means by which Ukrainian forces can simply rearm, replenish, and regroup.

“We will be talking about land. We will be talking about power plants,” Trump said when asked by a reporters about concessions. “I think we have a lot of it already discussed very much by both sides, Ukraine and Russia. We are already talking about that, dividing up certain assets.” Trump’s special envoy who met with Putin in Moscow last week, Steve Witkoff, has said that the Russian president “accepts the philosophy” of Trump’s ceasefire. Still, the Kremlin has repeatedly said it will not accept anything that’s a short-term solution. Putin and Trump had an initial phone call spanning 90-minutes less than a month after Trump was inaugurated, to talk about moving toward a potential Ukraine peace plan. The Russian Defense Ministry has meanwhile indicated that Moscow will demand Kiev’s neutral status and that NATO can never accept Ukraine for membership.

This appears to be Moscow’s only and main ‘security guarantee’ that it wants in place: “Part of these guarantees should be the neutral status of Ukraine, the refusal of Nato countries to accept it into the alliance,” Russia’s deputy foreign minister Alexander Grushko said Sunday. Of course, this is to include a ban on NATO building up military infrastructure in Ukraine as well. But other Western allies are challenging the progress made, and are likely even trying to sabotage any potential deal. “If Ukraine requests allied forces to be on its territory, it is not up to Russia to accept or reject them,” French President Emmanuel Macron has said.

Read more …

A district judge issues orders to the President and his government. Well, Boasberg is all over. Tanya Chutkan, Jack Smith, J6, etc. This is not an accident, it’s the lawfare machine. The only way to stop it is to cut off the money: NGOs. And the Magic Money Computers (see below).

• Judge Demands DOJ Reveal Classified Information On Deportation Flights (ZH)

US District Judge James Boasberg on Monday held a hearing after the Trump administration refused to turn two plane-fulls of criminal migrants around mid-flight, and may have allowed a third plane to depart following his Saturday order halting the deportations of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg on Saturday temporarily halted the Trump administration from using the 1789 Alien Enemies Act to deport the illegal immigrants, however DOJ lawyers told the judge that there were already two planes in the air – one headed for Honduras, and the other headed for El Salvador. While the judge verbally ordered the planes to be turned around, the directive was not included in his written order. As journalist Julie Kelly reports, Monday’s hearing was a complete power play by Boasberg. Kelly documented the exchange on X:

Boasberg: I have scheduled this hearing for fact finding on government’s response to my order. Focus on timeline involved and get a sense of numbers of people here. I just want “facts” not planning to issue any ruling about the government’s conduct.
Boasberg asks DOJ if it’s still true that the 5 individual plaintiffs are in the US. DOJ says yes.
“How many planes departed the US on Saturday under the proclamation?” DOJ says flights complied with his order but won’t disclose more to anyone.
Boasberg: “Anyone including me?”
DOJ: “Yes.”
Boasberg: “Based on what?”
DOJ cites national security concerns, flight patterns.
Boasberg: “You’re saying it’s classified? I can receive classified information. Or there is some other basis? Why are you showing up today without answers?”

Nothing but a power play.
“I’m just asking how you think my equitable powers do not attach to a plane that has departed the U.S., even if it’s in international airspace,” Boasberg said.
Boasberg then demanded the DOJ answer a list of questions, including;
How many planes left at any time Saturday based solely on the proclamation.
How many people were on each plane.
In what country did the planes land.
What time did they take off and land.
When were they in air space.
What time were individuals on the plane transferred to custody.

As Kelly notes further, “There are three flights at issue: two that left before any written order (and that DOJ says did not include individuals covered under the Alien Enemies Act) and one that might have departed after Boasberg’s minute order posted around 7:30pm on Saturday,” adding “ACLU wants a sworn statement that third flight did not include illegals covered by proclamation. Boasberg tells DOJ he will order the govt to file a sworn declaration as to the third flight.” Boasberg then made the argument that the DOJ should not have allowed any planes to take off on Saturday because they knew Boasberg had a hearing scheduled for 5pm… In other words, he’s arguing that the Trump administration should not have executed the President’s lawful order because he (Boasberg) was going to hold a hearing, and maybe stop the government from deporting the immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act.”This is batshit crazy,” said Kelly, adding that she would “love to see Boasberg’s comms with ACLU before lawsuit was filed Saturday morning.”

Miller

Read more …

Different case, same principle.

“..it’s a judge that’s putting himself in the position of the president of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes,” Trump said. “That’s a very dangerous thing for our country..”

• Trump Slams Federal Judge’s ‘Dangerous’ Ruling on Fired Federal Workers (DS)

President Donald Trump said it’s “ridiculous” that a federal judge ruled that the government must rehire fired government employees. “I don’t think that’s going to be happening, but we’ll have to see,” he told The Daily Signal aboard Air Force One on Sunday. A judge appointed by President Bill Clinton ruled Thursday that the Trump administration must reinstate some fired probationary government employees. He ruled that six agencies must give jobs back to thousands of recently hired employees who President Donald Trump fired in an effort to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” from the federal government by cutting the federal workforce.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous, absolutely, it’s a judge that’s putting himself in the position of the president of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes,” Trump said. “That’s a very dangerous thing for our country,” the president continued, ”and I would suspect that we’re going to have to get a decision from the Supreme Court, but that’s a very dangerous decision for our country.” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said employees the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury must get their jobs back. “These are people, in many cases, they don’t show up for work,” Trump said. “Nobody even knows if they exist, and a judge wants us to pay them even if they don’t know they exist.”

Read more …

“Where did we get the idea that federal judges can just act with impunity, jerking around the public interest like some show-off with a yoyo?”

• Welcome to FAFO-Land (Kunstler)

It’s as simple as this: the orgy of judicial lawfare put on by blob-adjacent Democratic Party seditionists trying to make the USA ungovernable is looking to get swatted. Hubris is a harsh mistress, but Nemesis is more like the gods’ re-po man, and he comes to the door with attitude, meaning bidness. Blob judges will get flushed out of their humid conclaves naked and find themselves, astoundingly, in the FO zone of FAFO-land. Do you think AG Bondi is playing tiddlywinks in Main Justice or that Kash Patel is just sitting there buffing his nails over at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW? Where did we get the idea that federal judges can just act with impunity, jerking around the public interest like some show-off with a yoyo? Case in point: Judge James Boasberg, head honcho of the DC federal district court stepped into the FAFO waiting room over the weekend when he ordered two planeloads of deported toxic human trash known as Tren de Aragua, bound for jail in El Salvador, to return to the USA.

Mr. Trump’s White House refused, saying the planes were already over international waters, outside the judge’s jurisdiction. Dem-blob lawyer Mark Zaid made the predictable next move, claiming that the matter will be grounds for Impeachment No. 3 against Mr. Trump post the 2026 midterm election. But, of course: strategery! The general purpose in this latest phase of lawfare is to choke the federal courts with so many restraining orders and injunctions that the White House lawyers find themselves locked into an endless Chinese fire drill of counter-filings, motions, writs, and appearances. It’s all that the so-called “resistance” has left, what with DOGE breaking up the racketeering operation that has funded the Dem’s defense of the blob for a decade. By which I mean the government funding of non-governmental orgs (ha!) to distribute payola to Dem foot-soldiers who do all the dirty work of protecting the rogue bureaucracy in a circle-jerk of power and payoffs. This includes the dirty work of Dem-blob lawyers such as Mark Zaid, Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Marc Elias, Barbara McQuade, Joanna Lydgate et al.

The history of Judge Boasberg in particular presents a disturbing picture of a tool covering-up every act of the shadowy blob’s war against American citizens. Boasberg presided in the FISA court that fraudulently enabled the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane operation to attempt ousting newly-elected Donald Trump in 2017, and the many RussiaGate pranks that followed. As chief judge of the DC District, he oversaw the Jack Smith Special Counsel op and all the cases associated with it, including the Mar-a-Lago raid and the J-6 case in Tanya Chutkan’s crooked court. Boasberg allowed the prosecution of J-6ers under the unlawful use of the corporate fraud obstruction statute, 18USC§1512c2, a.k.a. the Enron law. He presided over the trial of Ray Epps, the shady character recorded on video repeatedly urging J-6 protestors to “go into the Capitol.” Boasberg gave Epps a suspended sentence while grandmothers who merely “paraded” through the rotunda between velvet ropes that day got sent to jail.

What can be done about judges like Boasberg? The prevailing view is: not much. I’m not so sure that’s true. While Rep. Brandon Gill (D-TX) announced last week that he will file articles of impeachment against Boasberg, a two-thirds majority would be required to convict him in any eventual Senate trial, so fuggeddabowdit. But federal judges are not immune from criminal investigation and prosecution, which is where AG Bondi and FBI Director Patel ought to come in. What’s probably standing in plain sight is a RICO conspiracy involving the aforesaid lawfare artists — Norm Eisen & Co — and the federal judiciary to deliberately bury the executive branch under burdensome fraudulent process, impede the executive branch’s ability to carry out its constitutional duties, and to obstruct justice.

Would you like to know if correspondence exists between these parties? Mr. Patel can ask them to produce it, and if they fail to, there’s a strong possibility that DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard can root it out of the NSA’s server farm. Depositions can be demanded. The lawfare lawyers will have to hire lawyers — just as all the targets of “Joe Biden” and Merrick Garland were obliged to lawyer-up when they were systematically persecuted from January, 2021 to January, 2025. The meters will run, ka-ching, ka-ching. It will be interesting to see who is footing the bill for that. You can be sure that it will be found out. Reid Hoffman? George and Alex Soros? Note: Dan Bongino was sworn in as Deputy Director of the FBIat 8:00 o’clock this morning. Nemesis is open for bidness. The lawfare gang would love all of this to ramp into a king-hell constitutional crisis. Could happen. Let them try. They don’t hold any of the levers of power the way they used to. A lot could go wrong for them. Welcome to FAFO-land.

Read more …

To be precise, he didn’t “declare” it: “It’s not my decision — that’ll be up to a court — but I would say that they’re null and void,.”

• Trump Says Biden’s Autopen-Signed Pardons “Null and Void” (ZH)

Ten days or so after the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project disclosed that nearly every document bearing former President Biden’s signature during his first term had been signed by an autopen—except for one—questions arose over whether executive orders and pardons could be deemed invalid, as we noted that Biden’s staff likely leveraged his rapid cognitive deterioration to sign those documents via autopen. Overnight, President Trump declared that the 11th-hour pardons, including those given to members of Congress who investigated the January 6 insurrection, were “void, vacant, and of no further force or effect, because of the fact that they were done by autopen.” Some of those last-minute pardons include Deep Staters, such as former Representative Liz Cheney, retired General Mark Milley, and government scientist Anthony Fauci.

“The “Pardons” that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late Sunday night. The president continued: “In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them! The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden. He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime.”

He went on to say that members of that House committee are “subject to investigation at the highest level”… “Therefore, those on the Unselect Committee, who destroyed and deleted ALL evidence obtained during their two year Witch Hunt of me, and many other innocent people, should fully understand that they are subject to investigation at the highest level. The fact is, they were probably responsible for the Documents that were signed on their behalf without the knowledge or consent of the Worst President in the History of our Country, Crooked Joe Biden!”

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One late last night: “It’s not my decision — that’ll be up to a court — but I would say that they’re null and void, because I’m sure Biden didn’t have any idea that it was taking place, and somebody was using an auto pen to sign off and to give pardons.”

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1901530391598555271?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1901530391598555271%7Ctwgr%5Eb15225da52c37de9c468fe65a7fe74f6bab0c219%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ftrump-declares-bidens-autopen-signed-pardons-void

Read more …

“This isn’t about political parties anymore; it’s about the integrity of the highest office in our land.”

• The Brilliance Behind Trump’s Move Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ (Margolis)

President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell Sunday evening. As my PJ Media colleague Catherine Salgado reported, Trump declared Joe Biden’s pardons void due to the suspicious use of an autopen and serious questions about whether Sleepy Joe even knew what he was rubber-stamping. “The ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. But here’s what’s really fascinating — and telling. Biden’s social media team remains suspiciously silent. Not a peep from his X account disputing the autopen accusations. These are serious allegations that merit a response, yet we got nothing. Really makes you think, doesn’t it?

Trump’s second Truth Social post cuts right to the heart of the matter: “The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden. He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime.” This isn’t just about pardons; it’s about who was really running our government. How is this going to play out? Proving that Biden wasn’t aware of these pardons might be an uphill battle. But something tells me that’s not the point. While I suspect that it will be virtually impossible to prove that Biden didn’t authorize those pardons, I still think this may have been a brilliant move by Trump. Here’s why. Every legal challenge, every court filing, every public statement will keep this scandal front and center.

Even if the pardons ultimately stand, the damage to Biden’s legacy and the Democratic Party will be done. Why we’ve been reporting on this scandal for several days, mainstream media coverage of the scandal has been virtually nonexistent. However, I’m starting to see reports from mainstream outlets trickle out. So far, I’ve seen reports from NBC News, Axios, Bloomberg, The Hill, USA Today, NewsNation, and ABC News. The story is out there now, which means that the American people will see exactly how the Deep State operates behind the scenes with its cognitively challenged puppet, Biden.

Why focus specifically on pardons and not Biden’s executive orders or judicial nominations? Because Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. By challenging these pardons, he’s forcing several sitting Democrats who received preemptive pardons from Biden to publicly defend their get-out-of-jail-free cards and attack Trump for declaring Biden’s pardons void. The mainstream media can’t ignore this story when their favorite Democrats are squirming under the spotlight. The mere fact that we’re having this conversation about whether the President of the United States actually knew who he was pardoning should terrify every American. This isn’t about political parties anymore; it’s about the integrity of the highest office in our land.

As I’ve pointed out in previous coverage of the scandal, the use of an autopen isn’t unprecedented in presidential actions, but using one to sign executive orders and pardons while serious questions exist about the president’s mental faculties and consent? That’s a whole different ballgame. The Trump administration hints at having evidence to support these claims, and given its track record of exposing Democratic corruption, I wouldn’t bet against it. Will that be enough for them to be declared legally void? I’m skeptical, but again, that may not be the actual point. The Democrats thought they could quietly slip these pardons through without scrutiny. Thanks to President Trump’s strategic move, the American people will get to see exactly how the sausage is made in Biden’s White House, and it’s not pretty.

Read more …

“..It’s approximately 80,000 pages..”

• Trump Says JFK Files Will Be Released Tuesday Without Redactions (JTN)

President Donald Trump announced on Monday at the Kennedy Center that the files regarding former President John F. Kennedy’s assassination will be released on Tuesday without redactions. “We are tomorrow announcing and giving all of the Kennedy files,” Trump said. “So people have been waiting for decades for this, and I’ve instructed my people that are responsible, lots of different people, put together by Tulsi Gabbard, and that’s going to be released tomorrow.” The release will happen Tuesday afternoon, The Daily Wire reported.

“We have a tremendous amount of paper. You’ve got a lot of reading. I don’t believe we’re going to redact anything. I said, just don’t redact. You can’t redact,” Trump added. “But we’re going to be releasing the JFK files, and that would be tomorrow.” “It’s approximately 80,000 pages,” he said. “So it’s a lot of stuff, and you’ll make your own determination.” Trump said that the documents will be released without summaries so the public and media could drawn their own conclusions.

Read more …

“..because these were congressional records, the president lacked the authority to release them to the public without the assent of the House of Representatives.”

• Key to Uncovering Truth About MLK Assassination Lies With Congress (DS)

Since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump is close to signing 100 executive orders. The deluge has put the corporate media, and sometimes Congress, on their heels. Nevertheless, Congress is coming alongside Trump to keep one of his more interesting campaign promises: to declassify records related to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., recently announced the formation of a congressional task force whose purpose is to examine declassified material in the public interest. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., will lead the task force, which will examine the government records that are declassified pursuant to Trump’s Jan. 23 executive order, among other things.

Luna explained that the “mission” of the task force is “to ensure these documents are released swiftly and in their entirety, giving the American people the truth they deserve.” As Luna has repeatedly noted on social media, the task force itself has no declassification authority, which is the exclusive prerogative of the president. Nonetheless, it can support the declassification of government records related to these assassinations by holding government officials accountable for any attempts to obstruct the timely release of these records to the public.Indeed, in a recent post on X, Luna stated, “If @POTUS’ executive order to declassify these files is obstructed, we won’t hesitate to hold those responsible accountable. Remember: [Attorney General] Pam Bondi is at the DOJ [Department of Justice] now. If Congress votes to hold someone in contempt, she’ll back us.

”While it is true that Congress has no declassification authority over records of the executive branch, this does not mean that Congress has no role to play in the complete declassification and public release of government records related to these assassinations. This is particularly true with respect to the assassination of King. In 1977, the House of Representatives established the Select Committee on Assassinations, which was tasked with reinvestigating the assassinations of President Kennedy and King. Two years later, the committee released its findings. Albeit couched in highly tentative terms, the committee concluded that both Kennedy and King were assassinated “as a result of a conspiracy.”

Per House rules at the time, all records associated with these investigations were sealed from public access for 50 years—until Jan. 3, 2029. With the passage of the JFK Records Act in 1992, however, the timeline for the public release of the committee’s records related to the Kennedy assassination was superseded and became subject to immediate release with only the most sensitive records being withheld until Oct. 26, 2017. Although some of these records required declassification by executive agencies prior to public release, the vast majority did not. More importantly, because these were congressional records, the president lacked the authority to release them to the public without the assent of the House of Representatives.

Thus, if Trump intends to declassify and publicly release “all records in the federal government’s possession” pertaining to the assassination of King, he will need the House of Representatives to assent to the release of all its records relating to the committee’s investigation of the assassination in advance of its original Jan. 3, 2029, deadline. Accordingly, Luna and her colleagues can strike an immediate blow for full government transparency by requesting that House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., instruct the House Clerk to make these records available immediately to the public. Undoubtedly, the House Clerk will determine that some of these records require a declassification review by the president, but that doesn’t mean the public has to wait for declassification to see the rest of the evidence committee investigators relied upon to support their conclusion that King was assassinated “as a result of a conspiracy.”

Read more …

Independence.

• The Strongest Case for Trump’s Tariffs I’ve Heard Yet (Margolis)

Donald Trump’s tariff policies remain a lightning rod for debate. Democrats are sounding the alarm, warning of dire economic fallout and painting a picture of looming catastrophe. Batya Ungar-Sargon, deputy opinion editor of Newsweek, made one of the strongest, most effective cases yet for former President Donald Trump’s tariffs during the latest episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher.” She broke down exactly why these tariffs are necessary, and by the end, she left Bill Maher flustered. Ungar-Sargon’s explanation couldn’t have been clearer: manufacturing jobs and economic nationalism are crucial for the American middle class.When the conversation turned to the economy of the 1970s, Ungar-Sargon wasted no time explaining why so many Americans look back on that era with nostalgia. “In the ‘70s, the largest share of our GDP was in the middle class,” she said. “And that was not separate from the fact that 25% of our economy was in manufacturing.”

Maher sought clarification, asking if that meant “most of what was produced came from the middle, and now it comes from the rich.”“Now, the top 20% controls over 50% of the GDP,” Ungar-Sargon confirmed, highlighting how economic power has been funneled away from the working class. “That manufacturing is still being done; it’s just being done in other countries.”Maher interjected, noting that the jobs have moved overseas for “wages we will not work for.”This, of course, is true, but it also proved Ungar-Sargon’s point. “Yes, that’s exactly right. You’re right, Bill,” Ungar-Sargon responded. “That’s what the tariffs are for. They are to make American workers more competitive in the global market.” She then challenged the defeatist attitude that has allowed China to dominate industries once vital to the American workforce.

“Why are we accepting that there should be a race to the bottom? You know, China, what is its competitive advantage over us? It’s that it pays slave wages. Why should we accept that?” She laid out Trump’s argument for protecting key industries, explaining that his trade policies aren’t just about economics but national security. “Trump says there are five industries that we cannot have any kind of national security without having a stake in them—pharmaceuticals, lumber, steel, aluminum,” she said, adding that she had momentarily forgotten the fifth. “These are really important, that we have a stake in the manufacturing of the things that we need as a nation. So that when China decides that it wants to go to war against us, we’re not relying on them for steel and aluminum in order to fight them.”Maher, clearly caught off guard by the well-reasoned argument, could only muster a flustered response: “Okay, well, at least that’s an answer.”And it was an answer—one the left refuses to confront, because deep down, they know she’s right. Maher certainly seemed to. He had no rebuttal. Why? Because there isn’t one.

Read more …

“..what made them “radical” and “crazy” is actually how very American-as-applepie they were.”

• Why Has Trump Finally Pulled The Plug On Deep State Propaganda? (Amar)

He’s done it again. Or rather, they have. As part of their curious slash-and-burn crusade to dismantle – for better or worse – large swathes of the American state from the top, President Donald Trump and his bestie-in-chief Elon Musk with his gang of enforcers at DOGE have put the axe to yet another seven government agencies. Carried out by presidential executive order, this particular blitz is aimed at offices busy with things as diverse as labor dispute mediation and the mitigation of homelessness. The method of Trumpist attack is simple and already familiar: The targeted agencies are not literally shut down, which Trump cannot legally do by decree. Instead, their budgets and staff are pruned so aggressively that they have to cease operations. Yet, tellingly, there is only one kind of cut that has really made centrists, liberals, and the mainstream media furious. Nope, not the hit on the homeless; and not the one on labor relations either.

What caused a ruckus instead is that Trump and Musk have gone after state propaganda. To be precise, state propaganda for the rest of the world. For one of the offices that has been given the Trumpist flamethrower treatment this time is the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). And that is, in reality, the US ministry for propaganda abroad. While it’s a fairly new (2018) label, USAGM’s roots reach deep into the fetid soil of the last century’s Cold War. Originally, there were Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty. Voice of America was founded during World War II and was quickly retooled afterwards to be used as a Cold War propaganda weapon by the CIA. Its younger cousins, Radio Free Europe, founded in 1950, and Radio Liberty (1951) were, literally, CIA fronts.

But that “involvement was kept secret until the late 1960s for fear of Soviet retaliation,” as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it with fine British understatement as well as a whopping portion of brute disinformation: The fact that the CIA remained in hiding was, of course, not due to the big bad Russians (the Soviets at the time) being so terribly scary. It was simply a means to manipulate publics in the East and the West and present what was geopolitically driven propaganda as ‘independent news’. After 1971, the CIA (officially) ended its (direct) control. If you believe that means an agency specializing in lying – and so much worse – was no longer pulling the strings, I have a Ukrainian ‘democracy’, complete with ‘civil society’ and all the fixings, to sell you. Formally, the Board for International Broadcasting took over. It was appointed by the president, which tells you all you need to know about how important this global propaganda machine was to Washington.

Finally, after further label changes, the board morphed into the USAGM. It ended up controlling not just Voice of America, as well as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty – long merged into RFE/RL – but a host of other outlets, including Radio Free Asia, and the very honest-sounding (not) Office of Cuba Broadcasting. According to USAGM’s own website, it was reaching an audience of 427 million per week in 64 languages, and via traditional broadcasting as well as the internet. Those lucky viewers, listeners, and readers were fed an unhealthy diet corresponding to the US “national interest” (in USAGM’s own terms) of “more than 3,000 hours of original programming each week.”

Say what you will about this American ministry of foreign propaganda, but it was bigger and richer than anything comparable the poor old Soviets ever managed to rig up. And that is the organization that Trump and Musk have just cut down. The Cold War, of course, has long been over. Any reasonable person’s response to this overdue move would be: ‘What took you so long?’ Elon Musk had a point when posting that the propaganda outlets are “just radical crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1bn/year of US taxpayer money.” Except, they were by no means only talking to themselves, unfortunately. And what made them “radical” and “crazy” is actually how very American-as-applepie they were.

Read more …

“..peacekeeping and NATO are actually incompatible things..”

• NATO ‘Peacekeepers’ in Ukraine Would Snatch War From the Jaws of Peace (Sp.)

Russia’s demands for “ironclad” guarantees on Ukraine include a firm rejection of NATO “peacekeeping forces” on Ukrainian soil, no matter the “nameplate” the alliance may try to insert them under, Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko has said. What are the uncertainties Russia faces amid peace talks with the US? We asked a top political risk consultant. “Any so-called ‘ironclad’ guarantees for Russia will likely come down to one thing: keeping Ukraine out of NATO. That, along with a promise that Western powers will stop meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs, would be the only realistic foundation for any lasting settlement,” foreign affairs analyst, political risk consultant and lawyer Adriel Kasonta explained.

“But here’s the problem —when has the West ever been good at keeping its promises to Russia? Time and again, Western leaders have made commitments only to walk them back when it suits their interests. NATO expansion was never supposed to reach Russia’s doorstep, yet here we are. Obama and Bush both spoke of ‘resets’ with Moscow, only for relations to deteriorate further,” Kasonta told Sputnik. “Now, Trump is pushing for a deal with Russia, not out of goodwill, but because he sees China as the bigger threat,” the observer said. “The question is, what happens after him? What stops a future U.S. administration from reversing course once again? If history is anything to go by, Russia has every reason to stay on high alert.” “If we’re talking about NATO peacekeeping forces, peacekeeping and NATO are actually incompatible things,” Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said in an interview with Russian media on Sunday.

“We know the history of NATO, and although they boast very much about being a defensive alliance, the real history of NATO consists of military operations, aggression against unarmed states without justification, just to emphasize once again its hegemony in global and regional affairs,” Grushko said. “Therefore, all these conversations” about NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine “are absolutely inappropriate. They are absurd. And I think that even the average person in the West understands the real cost of this kind of deployment…We absolutely do not care under which nameplate NATO contingents could be deployed on the territory of Ukraine, whether the EU, NATO or in a national capacity. In any case, if they appear there with the consent of Ukraine, that means they are located in the conflict zone, with all the consequences” this entails, Grushko stressed.

“Moscow already views Western involvement in Ukraine—whether through arms shipments or foreign fighters—as an indirect war,” Kasonta said, commenting on the deputy foreign minister’s remarks. “Sending NATO troops would remove any ambiguity, risking escalation on a whole new level.” As for the UK, whose government is reportedly prepared to deploy peacekeeping troops of its own to Ukraine “for years,” “London is just following Washington’s lead,” the observer said.“The UK doesn’t have the military capacity or public support to play a serious role in Ukraine. No one in Britain is eager to send troops to die in a war that doesn’t concern them. The only people who seem to care are politicians who have spent years hyping up the conflict and now can’t admit they were wrong. Rather than face reality, they double down, pretending that the war is still winnable.” Kasonta summed up.

Read more …

Another way to feed the lawfare machine: print money wherever and whenever you want.

• Musk: Feds’ “Magic Money Computers” Issue Payments “Out Of Thin Air” (ZH)

Elon Musk says that DOGE has discovered the US government has “magic money computers” that make payments “out of thin air.” Sitting down with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his podcast that was recorded at the White House, Cruz said: “One of the things you told me about is what you called, ‘Magic Money Computers.’ So tell us about it, ’cause I never heard of that ’til you brought it up.”

Musk: “Okay, so, you may think like the government computers all talk to each other, they synchronize, they add up what funds are going somewhere. And, that they’re coherent … And that the numbers that you’re presented as a Senator are actually the real numbers.”
Cruz: “One would think!”
Musk: “One would think – they’re not … I mean they’re not totally wrong, but they’re probably off by five percent or 10 percent in some cases. So, I call it ‘Magic Money Computer’: any computer that can make money out of thin air. That’s magic money.”
Cruz: “So how does that work?” Cruz asked.
Musk: “It just issues payments.”
Cruz: “And you said there’s something like 11 of these computers at Treasury that are sending out trillions in payments?”
Musk replied that they’re mostly at the Department of Treasury, and others are at the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Department of Defense.
Musk: “We’ve found now 14 ‘Magic Money Computers. They just send money out of nothing.”

Musk also told Cruz that DOGE will save taxpayers $1 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2026… “If you look at DOGE now, you look at the government and what you’re finding, what percentage have you guys even gotten to and how much of it is ‘mars’ where you haven’t even gotten there yet because there’s so much you’re finding out here,” asked co-host Ben Ferguson. “You seem like a timeline guy – when you say ‘I want to get in there and get numbers and things’ – how far are we from the endgame, where you’ve seen it all – you know, to process it all, and fix it. Are we years away? Months away?” Musk: “Not years. I’m reasonably confident that we’ll be able to get a trillion dollars of waste and fraud out, meaning that it will have, we’ll have a net savings of FY26 of a trillion dollars, provided we’re allowed to continue and our progress is not impeded.”

Read more …

Very tough and dehumanizing. But the gang members appear dehumanized anyway.

• Bukele: New Partnership With US Advances Fight Against Organized Crime (JTN)

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said it’s partnership with the U.S. on transferring illegal immigrants linked to gang activity to prison in El Salvador helps both countries crack down on crime. Under Bukele, the homicide rate has dropped to its lowest point since the civil war in El Salvador in 1992.”The first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country. They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable). The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us,” Bukele wrote on X.”Over time, these actions, combined with the production already being generated by more than 40,000 inmates engaged in various workshops and labor under the Zero Idleness program, will help make our prison system self-sustainable. As of today, it costs $200 million per year,” he added.

Bukele said the partnership is helping dismantle the MS-13 gang. “On this occasion, the U.S. has also sent us 23 MS-13 members wanted by Salvadoran justice, including two ringleaders. One of them is a member of the criminal organization’s highest structure. This will help us finalize intelligence gathering and go after the last remnants of MS-13, including its former and new members, money, weapons, drugs, hideouts, collaborators, and sponsors,” he said. “As always, we continue advancing in the fight against organized crime. But this time, we are also helping our allies, making our prison system self-sustainable, and obtaining vital intelligence to make our country an even safer place. All in a single action. May God bless El Salvador, and may God bless the United States,” he added.

Bukele

Read more …

“..before he became associated with green beer and leprechauns, Saint Patrick was a symbol of freedom of speech.”

• Celebrate Saint Patrick by Chasing Censors Out of Ireland (Turley)

With the arrival of Saint Patrick’s Day, our nation’s close affinity to Ireland was on full display in the White House as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance hosted Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin. We are two countries joined by blood and tradition. Of course, there are tensions over trade conflicts with the European Union and Ireland, which quickly came to the surface in the meeting. In the end, however, we are likely to resolve those trade problems. The fact is that we need each other, both economically and culturally. Yet, there is one chasm between the two countries that not only remains wide but is widening: the gap between how each country handles free speech. And Martin would much prefer to talk about Irish socks than Irish censorship. Ironically, before he became associated with green beer and leprechauns, Saint Patrick was a symbol of freedom of speech.

Although there is no evidence beyond pious legend that he chased snakes out of Ireland (there likely never were snakes in Ireland), he did chase slavery and human sacrifice out of the country, despite the initial unpopularity of his reforms. A former slave himself, St. Patrick’s public statements against slavery, paganism and longstanding traditions were viewed as harmful to social tranquility and harmony. Does that sound familiar? Today, Ireland, like many of our European allies, is shredding free speech with laws criminalizing viewpoints and regulating speech by its content. “Irish eyes [may be] smiling,” but Irish tongues are increasingly silent in the face of government investigations and prosecutions. The growing conflict between the U.S. and the Irish could not be more telling.

Irish immigrants, including some of my relatives, came to this country to live freely, and many soon became lawyers fighting for individual rights. Just before Martin’s arrival in Washington, his government was hammering Elon Musk and conservative sites in the latest crackdown on free speech. The most recent flashpoint was a small pro-life platform called Gript, a rallying point for many in his Catholic country who oppose abortion. The government demanded that X turn over Gript’s data on sources and users. An Irish court on June 13, 2024, sought the data on private accounts as well as IP addresses and messages linked to Gript coverage of the April protests against Ireland’s housing of documented migrants. The violence in those protests gave the Irish government another justification to curtail free speech.

In yet another defining moment for Musk on free speech, he not only resisted but informed Irish citizens what the government was doing. That transparency and opposition sent the Irish government into a full-on rage. After the arrest of 34 people and extensive property damage in the anti-immigration protests, the government moved to expand on its already draconian anti-free-speech laws. A new bill was introduced criminalizing “preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.” That includes any material concerning national or ethnic origin, as well as protected characteristics including “transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”

The bill included crimes relating to “xenophobia” and can be committed merely by the “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material.” Then-Prime Minister Leo Varadkar declared his intent to “modernize laws against hatred” by criminalizing speech that his government decides is “incitement.” He stated an intention to not only stop those engaged in violence but those who say things that might arouse their anger. The powerful Irish Green Party was all-in with censorship and speech prosecutions. As Green Party Sen. Pauline O’Reilly admitted, “We are restricting freedom, but we’re doing it for the common good.”

Read more …

“This incomplete picture painted a grim outlook of crop yields declining with only modest warming..”

“The additional information showed “positive average output gains for all crop types across the warming scenarios even up to 5 degrees Celsius..”

• Study Destroys Basis of EPA Climate Regulations (Jayaraj)

For two decades, the public has been bombarded with dire warnings of an impending climate-induced agricultural apocalypse. The claim is that a climate warmed excessively by the carbon dioxide emissions of human activity will ravage the food supply and plunge humanity into famine and chaos. For many reasons, none of this ever made sense. Now, a new study published in Scientific Reports has turned this narrative of catastrophe on its head, revealing that a global temperature rise of even 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) would not reduce crop yields—and might even increase harvests. The paper, written by economist Ross McKitrick, dismantles a key pillar of the Biden administration’s always-suspect upward revision of the “social cost of carbon”—a metric used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to quantify the supposed economic damage of carbon dioxide emissions.

The fivefold increase of the social cost of carbon—from $51 per ton of carbon dioxide to more than $250—was based partly on the assumption that warming would devastate agriculture. The new findings aren’t just a minor correction to the scientific record; they are a reversal of dangerous conclusions drawn from sloppy—perhaps even fraudulent—analyses. Everything we’ve been told about climate change and food security is wrong. How did the EPA arrive at a social cost of carbon that equates with mass starvation? In 2014, a widely cited meta-analysis of crop-model studies claimed that a warming climate would slash global crop yields, an assertion that fed into subsequent models that influenced the Biden EPA’s social cost of carbon hike.

That original dataset, however, was flawed—crippled by missing variables. Of its 1,722 records, nearly half lacked critical data, such as changes in CO2 concentrations, leaving only 862 usable entries. This incomplete picture painted a grim outlook of crop yields declining with only modest warming. McKitrick, undeterred by what had become climate orthodoxy, dug deeper. By revisiting the source material, he recovered 360 additional records, bringing the total to 1,222—about a 40% increase in usable data. The additional information showed “positive average output gains for all crop types across the warming scenarios even up to 5 degrees Celsius”—a temperature jump far beyond warming predictions of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change. This isn’t cherry-picking; it’s what happens when the full scope of evidence is examined.

“If over the next 100-200 years, yields of all crop types increase, it does not stand to reason that a global trade model could generate global welfare reductions,” writes McKitrick in his concluding remarks. McKitrick’s findings, grounded in a more comprehensive dataset, suggest the doomsday assumption was built on sand. Far from heralding a collapse, the data show crop yields at least holding steady and even improving with significant warming. Moreover, plants are not too frail for a warming world. They’re built to thrive in the contemporary temperatures of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Most crops fall into two categories: C3 and C4 plants, so named to reflect their different photosynthetic processes. C3 crops, such as wheat, rice, and soybeans, flourish in elevated CO2 conditions characteristic of the 21st century.Carbon dioxide is food to plants, necessary for the process of photosynthesis—a process where oxygen is a byproduct. Higher levels of CO2 act like a supercharger, boosting photosynthesis and water-use efficiency. Studies have long shown that CO2 enrichment in greenhouses can increase C3 yields by 20% to 40%. C4 crops—like corn and sorghum—are less responsive to CO2 but do well in hotter, drier conditions. In summary, if crop yields don’t crash—if they hold steady or grow—the rationale for a sky-high social cost of carbon disappears.

Read more …

“..possibly due to increased exposure to visual media..”

• People Becoming More Stupid (RT)

Human intellectual abilities such as reasoning and problem-solving are diminishing, possibly due to increased exposure to visual media, the Financial Times (FT) has reported. Human intelligence appeared to peak in the early 2010s and has been in decline since, the FT added, citing PISA, an international benchmarking test for 15-year-olds that includes reading, mathematics and science, and adult cognitive evaluations. The reported trend comes amid a rise in artificial intelligence (AI) which, by some estimates, may surpass human IQ in a matter of years.The recorded spike in the share of high school students who reported difficulties in PISA tests coincides with a broad change in people’s relationship with information, such as the transition away from reading and towards visual content, the publication explained.

While active, intentional use of digital technologies can often be beneficial, being passively exposed to infinite content on social media coupled with frequent context-switching has been shown to negatively impact attention span, memory, and self-regulation. The documented decline in reading among Americans reportedly comes alongside a decrease in numeracy and other forms of problem-solving in most countries. Human intellectual capabilities, such as critical thinking, have also been impacted by generative AI, according to recent research by Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University. Outsourcing thoughts to AI leaves people’s minds “atrophied and unprepared,” which can lead to “the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved.”

Companies and governments have poured billions into AI research, focusing on areas such as machine learning, natural language processing, and automation. Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI have introduced increasingly sophisticated models, such as ChatGPT and Gemini, capable of performing complex cognitive tasks.AI could become smarter than humans in the next three years, tech billionaire Elon Musk warned in December, shortly after his AI company, xAI, launched its first image generation model, Aurora.

Read more …

Sums up the day.

• Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station (BBee)

A district judge has issued a ruling saying Trump lacked the Constitutional authority to pick up two astronauts who have been stranded at the International Space Station for several months. SpaceX has been ordered to return the astronauts immediately. “I will not stand by while Donald Trump abuses his power like a dictator,” said Judge Earl Flanders in his ruling. “Trump has no authority to pick up these astronauts, and I can say that because I’m a federal judge, and no one is allowed to argue with me, and everyone has to do what I say.” Eyewitnesses say the judge then donned a Keffiyeh and spray painted a Cybertruck while screaming “Black Lives Matter.”

Sources in Washington say Trump plans to brazenly ignore the lawful order and bring the astronauts home anyway. “This is just the kind of wanton lawlessness we should expect from a dictator who is literally Hitler,” said one legal analyst. The SpaceX craft docked at the ISS on Sunday and was preparing for the return journey to Earth when the orders stopped the process short. “Please bring us home, I just want a cheeseburger and a nap in a horizontal bed,” said one of the crew. At publishing time, Trump was polling at 100% approval among the stranded astronaut demographic.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Extremism

 

 

Feynman
https://twitter.com/21WIRE/status/1901604907519467850

 

 

 

 

Scent
https://twitter.com/Yoda4ever/status/1901267216043024582

 

 

Mozart

 

 

Scott

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 17 2025

Mar 172025
 
 March 17, 2025  Posted by at 10:20 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  50 Responses »


James Ensor The oyster eater 1882

 

• White House Ignores Activist Judge, Deports Plane Full Of Criminals (ZH)
• Trump Plans To Speak With Putin On March 18 (RT)
• The West Lives In A Simulation While Russia Is Shaping The Real World (CvH)
• Kiev Rejects Putin’s Offer of Mercy For Troops In Kursk (RT)
• Some 30 Officers From NATO Countries Surrounded in Kursk Region (Sp.)
• The Trump Cards That Trump Thinks He Has On The Ukrainian Issue (Dionísio)
• Who Really Provoked the Ukraine War? Was It Russia? (Rehak)
• Lavrov and Rubio Discuss ‘Next Steps’ In Restoring Russia-US Ties (RT)
• The Prospects for an End to the Ukraine Conflict (Paul Craig Roberts)
• UK Mulls Open-Ended Troop Deployment In Ukraine – Times (RT)
• NATO ‘Peacekeepers’ In Ukraine Mean War – Medvedev (RT)
• What’s Really Behind Trump’s Surprise Bombardment of Yemen (Sp.)
• Democrat Civil War Watch: AOC and John Fetterman Duke It Out (Margolis)
• The Democrats’ Path Out of the Wilderness (RCW)
• Trump Worse Than Covid – Deputy ECB Chief (RT)
• How Barack Obama Built An Omnipotent Thought-Control Machine (Samuels)
• China Unveils Quantum Processor ‘A Million Times Faster’ Than US Rival (RT)

 

 

 

 

Delivery
https://twitter.com/21WIRE/status/1901254646326292531

Ad

Ursula

Brussels

Butler

Sacks

 

 

 

 

Guess this judge falls under lawfare. Every move the government wants to make, can trigger a court case. That makes the land ungovernable.

“They were already outside of US airspace. We believe the order is not applicable..”

“This is headed to the Supreme Court. And we’re going to win..”

• White House Ignores Activist Judge, Deports Plane Full Of Criminals (ZH)

Update (2112ET): The Trump administration says it disregarded a judge’s order to turn around two planeloads of Venezuelan criminals because the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling did not apply, Axios reports, citing two senior officials – one of whom made clear that it’s “Very important that people understand we are not actively defying court orders.”The Trump administration argues that US District Judge James Boasberg overstepped his authority when he issued an order blocking the president from deporting roughly 250 alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, a wartime law that gives the executive branch immense power to deport noncitizens without judicial hearings.

“This is headed to the Supreme Court. And we’re going to win,” a senior White House official told Axios, adding “It’s the showdown that was always going to happen between the two branches of government.” “And it seemed that this was pretty clean. You have Venezuelan gang members … These are bad guys, as the president would say.” Axios then cites Democrat attorney Mark S. Zaid……who posted on X “Court order defied. First of many as I’ve been warning and start of true constitutional crisis,” adding that it could eventually lead to another Trump impeachment, according to Axios. According to the report, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller “orchestrated” the flights in the West Wing in tandem with DHS Secretary Kristy Noem.

More via Axios:The timeline: The president signed the executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act on Friday night, but intentionally did not advertise it. On Saturday morning, word of the order leaked, officials said, prompting a mad scramble to get planes in the air. At 2:31 p.m. Saturday, an immigration activist who tracks deportation flights, posted on X that “TWO HIGHLY UNUSUAL ICE flights” were departing from Texas to El Salvador, which had agreed to accept Venezuelan gang members deported from the U.S. Hours later, during a court hearing filed by the ACLU., Boasberg ordered a halt to the deportations and said any flights should be turned around mid-air. “This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately,” he told the Justice Department, according to the Washington Post. At that point, about 6:51 p.m., both flights were off the Yucatan Peninsula, according to flight paths posted on X.

An internal discussion was had in the White House as to whether they should order the planes to turn around – only to press ahead per administration lawyers. “There was a discussion about how far the judge’s ruling can go under the circumstances and over international waters and, on advice of counsel, we proceeded with deporting these thugs,” said the senior official. “They were already outside of US airspace. We believe the order is not applicable,” said the other official.

Read more …

1/ Ceasefire plan, which looks dead right now.
2/ Surrender of troops in Kursk region.

• Trump Plans To Speak With Putin On March 18 (RT)

US President Donald Trump has announced that he expects to hold a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on Tuesday to discuss the prospects of a peace agreement in the Ukraine conflict. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said he plans to speak with Putin on March 18, according to the AP. “We will see if we have something to announce maybe by Tuesday. I will be speaking to President Putin on Tuesday. A lot of work’s been done over the weekend. We want to see if we can bring that war to an end. We will be talking about land. We will be talking about power plants,” Trump was quoted as saying.

US special envoy Steve Witkoff previously stated that Trump and Putin were expected to hold a telephone conversation this week to discuss efforts toward establishing a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict. Witkoff, who recently met with Putin in Moscow, described the discussions as “positive” and indicated that both Russian and Ukrainian parties are now “a lot closer” in negotiations. “I expect that there’ll be a call with both presidents this week, and we’re also continuing to engage and have conversations with the Ukrainians,” Witkoff said. On Saturday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a separate phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during which the two top diplomats discussed further steps to reestablish direct communication between their countries.

The first formal telephone conversation between the Russian and US leaders in years took place on February 12, 2025. It was followed by high-level talks in Saudi Arabia on February 18, where Washington and Moscow agreed to assign teams to work on resolving the Ukraine conflict, restore embassy operations, and address other points of contention in bilateral relations. Since then, additional discussions have been held in Istanbul, focusing on diplomatic funding and a proposal from Moscow to reinstate direct flights.

Following negotiations in Jeddah last week, Ukraine agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. Shortly after, Witkoff traveled to Moscow on Thursday to present Putin with the details of the proposal. The Russian president welcomed the ceasefire in principle but insisted on addressing several key issues first, including the fate of Ukrainian troops encircled in Russia’s Kursk Region. While the details of Witkoff’s meeting with Putin have not been made public, Trump hinted at progress, stating that the White House had received “some pretty good news” regarding the ceasefire efforts and that US-Russia meetings over the past several days had been “very productive.”

Read more …

Constantin von Hoffmeister.

“This is why the West cannot win in Ukraine. It fights as a bureaucratic entity, not as a people. And Russia, for all its flaws, fights as a people.”

• The West Lives In A Simulation While Russia Is Shaping The Real World (CvH)

The conflict in Ukraine is not about Ukraine. It is the West’s last delirious attempt to exert control over a world that no longer needs it. The West, lost in the labyrinth of its own technocratic nightmare, flails like a dying beast, mechanized and blind. The German historical philosopher Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), in ‘Man and Technics’ (1931), wrote of the Faustian civilization’s ultimate downfall, where technology, once an extension of organic culture, becomes an iron cage, trapping its creators in a world they no longer understand. The Western response to Ukraine is precisely this: Drones, sanctions, media narratives manufactured in real-time, an illusion of omnipotence maintained by algorithms, and artificial intelligence. But reality is slipping through the cracks. The more the West mechanizes, the more it loses its ability to perceive the living, breathing cultures it seeks to control.

A ceasefire? A negotiation? The West proposes them like a bureaucrat offering a new tax code, as if war were a spreadsheet that could be adjusted to fit quarterly projections. US President Donald Trump’s emissaries meet with Russian officials, not because they believe in peace but because the old America – his America – has sensed the shift. A world order of raw power is replacing the West’s dream of digital hegemony, and Russia, China, and a thousand-year-old history stand against it. Spengler saw it coming: The machines would overtake the soul, and the West would become incapable of organic thought. This is why they cannot understand Russia – not because they lack intelligence, but because their intelligence has been reduced to an algorithmic process, stripped of cultural depth. The West is thinking in the way that a machine thinks, and Russia, still a creature of history, is thinking like an empire.

Russian President Vladimir Putin dismisses the ceasefire offer because he knows it is a mirage. He speaks of root causes, of history, of a world that is not reducible to transactions and diplomatic maneuvers. The West recoils in horror. This is the fundamental difference: Russia still understands what war means, while the West sees only an endless data stream of casualties, arms shipments, and strategic objectives. Spengler called this the tragic turn of Faustian civilization – when man, having created his machines, no longer controls them. The West does not wage war for power or territory but to maintain the facade that it is still in control. War as process. War as algorithm. The end goal is never victory, only perpetual management of crises.

Meanwhile, the financial technocrats of the G7 conjure $50 billion from thin air, leveraging interest from Russia’s frozen assets, a sleight of hand that Spengler would recognize as the final stage of Western decay – economic manipulation replacing genuine production, artificial wealth replacing true cultural strength. The West no longer builds. It merely extracts, redistributes, and sanctions, hoping that the machinery of global finance can replace the natural momentum of a rising civilization. Russia, in contrast, returns to the old ways: Industry, military strength, self-reliance. The difference is stark. One civilization grows more entangled in its own mechanical hat tricks, the other returns to the fundamental logic of history.

Spengler saw technology as both the great achievement and the final undoing of the West. It began as a tool, an extension of man’s will, but in the late stages, it turns against its creators, reducing them to mere components in a system that no longer serves them. The West’s obsession with sanctions, surveillance, and narrative control is not an expression of power. It is a sign of weakness. True imperial civilizations do not need to micro-manage the world; they shape it through sheer will. This is why Trump, despite his flaws, represents the only real possibility for a Western resurgence. He rejects the managerial ethos. He understands power instinctively, like the rulers of old. The new Conservative Revolution in America is not about ideology. It is about reclaiming agency from the machine.

And yet, the media apparatus, a monstrous organism birthed by technics, continues its relentless march, shaping reality through distortion. Spengler wrote that the press, in the late stages of Western civilization, ceases to inform and instead dictates what must be believed. Ukraine is reduced to a symbolic battlefield in this grand narrative. Russia is the villain because the system requires a villain. The truth is irrelevant. The headlines are written before the events occur. The war exists less as a physical struggle and more as a media spectacle, a grotesque ritual in which Western leaders play-act as warriors while ensuring they remain far from the consequences of their own actions. But while the West is trapped in its simulation, Russia operates in the real. The battlefield is not a metaphor. It is a place where men kill and die. Spengler warned that the civilizations of the late stage would become incapable of true war – they would engage in conflicts but only as technocratic exercises, devoid of the deep, existential struggle that defined the great wars of history. This is why the West cannot win in Ukraine. It fights as a bureaucratic entity, not as a people. And Russia, for all its flaws, fights as a people. The difference is everything.

Read more …

Have you asked the troops?

• Kiev Rejects Putin’s Offer of Mercy For Troops In Kursk (RT)

Ukraine’s forces in Russia’s Kursk Region will continue their operations, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga stated in an interview on Saturday, despite the troops being largely encircled, according to both Moscow and Washington. Speaking with Japan’s NHK, Sibiga claimed that Kiev had achieved its main objectives in the offensive but sees having a continued presence on Russian territory as providing leverage in future peace negotiations. Ukraine launched its incursion across the internationally recognized Russian border into Kursk Region last August, capturing the town of Sudzha and numerous villages. However, the Russian military quickly halted the advance and has since been reclaiming lost ground. Russian General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov said on Wednesday that 86% of the land previously occupied by Ukrainian forces had been retaken, leaving the remaining troops “encircled” and “isolated.”

“As officially announced by General [Aleksandr] Syrsky, we are continuing the operation in Kursk Region and will continue to do so,” Sibiga stated. “The operation in Kursk Region is an important factor and a key point of discussion in future peace negotiations,” he added. The fate of the Ukrainian troops fighting in Kursk was addressed by Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this week. Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, he said that he was open to the idea of a 30-day ceasefire proposed by Washington and Kiev at their recent talks in Saudi Arabia but stressed that the issue of the incursion forces, among others, must be resolved before Moscow could agree.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump acknowledged that “thousands of Ukrainian troops are completely surrounded by the Russian military and in a very bad and vulnerable position” in Kursk Region and urged Moscow to “spare” their lives. In response, Putin offered the servicemen guaranteed safety and merciful treatment if they surrender. Kiev, meanwhile, has staunchly denied that its forces in Kursk Region are surrounded. In a post on Telegram on Saturday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky acknowledged that the situation in the area is “difficult” for Ukraine but stated that “there is no encirclement of our troops.”

Read more …

It gets better.

• Some 30 Officers From NATO Countries Surrounded in Kursk Region (Sp.)

About 30 officers from NATO countries, who have been providing coordinates for Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia, are surrounded in the Kursk Region, the coordinator of the pro-Russian underground network in Nikolayev Sergey Lebedev told Sputnik. “According to the information of the underground network, there are about 30 NATO career officers, who were engaged in commanding troops on the ground as well as handling incoming intelligence data from NATO satellites and adjusting strikes deep into Russian territory, are surrounded in the Kursk Region” Lebedev said.

Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov said at a command meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin this past Wednesday that Russian forces had liberated over 86% of the territory, or 1,100 square kilometers (425 square miles), previously occupied by Ukraine in Russia’s Kursk Region. He said Ukrainian troops were encircled in the Kursk Region and were being gradually eliminated, while Russian forces advanced into Ukraine’s Sumy Region across several segments of the border. On Friday, US President Donald Trump said that he “strongly requested” Russian President Vladimir Putin to spare the lives of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers currently surrounded in the Kursk Region. Putin said he would guarantee Ukrainian servicepeople life and decent treatment if they lay down their arms.

Read more …

“..contrary to what was announced, the U.S. never actually stopped supplying weapons and intelligence to Ukraine..”

• The Trump Cards That Trump Thinks He Has On The Ukrainian Issue (Dionísio)

In a week where the expectations of many Atlanticists regarding the Kursk adventure continue to deteriorate, we continue to witness successive media circus episodes surrounding the conflict in Ukraine. Between a Trump apparently concerned with a “lasting” peace in Ukraine, a “Europe” that insists on classifying the Russian Federation as a “threat,” a Zelensky aligned with EU powers but seemingly more open to starting negotiations, a Macron who claims to speak for all of Europe and states that “Putin cannot be trusted,” a Von Der Leyen who insists on a massive increase in military spending, and a Ukrainian delegation in Riyadh that, after the degrading spectacle at the White House, ultimately, a few days later, and after a decisive defeat in the Kursk adventure, comes to accept a proposal for an immediate ceasefire—all these episodes, seemingly contrasting, end up fitting together perfectly, complementing each other like a deck of cards at Trump’s service.

To understand how they fit together, the best way to approach them is to start with the last of these episodes: the farce of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia. It is no secret to anyone, whether they agree with the position and aspirations of the Russian Federation or not, what is intended with what has been termed the “Special Military Operation”: to demilitarize, denazify, neutralize Ukraine militarily, preventing its integration into NATO, and to protect Russian populations from the xenophobic persecutions recorded after the Euromaidan coup.

Nevertheless, the Russians have never shied away from leaving open lines of dialogue, as demonstrated when they went to Saudi Arabia to confer with the U.S. delegation. True to their nature, they did not mince words, play games, or send smoke signals. They were very clear that they are not prepared to negotiate fragile and temporary solutions, but only solid, lasting understandings that consider the Russian Federation’s security concerns. This situation has not changed, as the mainstream press now reports that Russia has made a list of demands for them to accept the ceasefire.

Nevertheless, Marco Rubio, after negotiating an agreement with the Ukrainian delegation for the famous “rare earths,” ensuring their supposed exploitation by the U.S., told anyone who would listen that the progress would now be the subject of a concrete proposal to the Russian Federation. The tone was clear and aimed to make people believe that the Americans are hopeful about the outcome of this entire mediation process. Are they?

Let us return to the Russian Federation and ask the following question: to what extent will the proposal for an immediate ceasefire, made at a time when Moscow’s forces have achieved a resounding and humiliating victory in the Kursk region, be to the liking of the Russian delegation? Will any of the objectives so often emphasized by the Kremlin be guaranteed? Can it be inferred from the immediate ceasefire that Ukraine accepts all the demands of the Russian side? And is it believable that, with the Russian Federation in a position of primacy in the conflict, it would throw it all away with a ceasefire? Especially when, contrary to what was announced, the U.S. never actually stopped supplying weapons and intelligence to Ukraine?

As we all heard in the mainstream press, Marco Rubio informed journalists that the supply of weapons to Ukraine had resumed. This means that it was never actually suspended. The time between one act and the other, just two days, would make the materialization of the suspension impossible considering the necessary bureaucratic deadlines. Therefore, if the U.S. did not suspend the supply of weapons to Kiev’s forces, and, on the contrary, supposedly even resumed it, what signal does this send to the Russian Federation? A signal that they want to negotiate? That they are acting in good faith? That they are genuinely interested in pressuring Kiev to accept negotiations?

It does not seem so to me, and, on the contrary, the message that may be conveyed is the opposite, namely that the ceasefire will serve the Kiev regime to regroup, consolidate forces, and rearm. If this were not the case, what would be the purpose, in a phase of discussing a ceasefire proposal, of resuming a supply that was never, in fact, suspended? What message will this send to Russia? That the U.S. wants to stop the war, but does not want to stop the supply of weapons? At the very least, it is contradictory and seemingly pointless.

Therefore, given this reality, it is not at all credible that the Russian Federation will accept the proposal for an immediate ceasefire—let us note that Lavrov has already mentioned several times that the Kremlin will no longer be swayed by “naivety”—we must ask ourselves, considering all these factors, whether it is acceptable to assume that the American proposal is genuine and that the intentions of the White House are genuine. How can they, who have access to all the information, believe that the Russian Federation will accept, without further ado, a proposal of this type, without any guarantees being provided and while continuing to supply weapons to Kiev? As Ushakov, Putin’s advisor, said, the Kremlin is interested in a lasting peace, not an “interval.”

Read more …

“Zelensky’s regime prohibited the Russian language in schools, political opposition was outlawed, the Orthodox church was banned, and all Russian shows and programs from TV were removed. Russian websites were blocked from the internet.”

• Who Really Provoked the Ukraine War? Was It Russia? (Rehak)

Ukrainian “president” Vladimir Zelensky lied when he called Russia the aggressor. Since 2014 his military forces have been shelling their own civilians in the east of Ukraine, killing at least 14,000 people and arresting thousands more with the SBU, the Ukrainian secret police, a de facto Gestapo-like terror organization. Zelensky’s regime prohibited the Russian language in schools, political opposition was outlawed, the Orthodox church was banned, and all Russian shows and programs from TV were removed. Russian websites were blocked from the internet. Zelensky called Ukrainian Russians in the east a “species”, as if he were referring not to his fellow countrymen, but to animals. Yet he speaks and behaves as if none of this ever happened. He portrays himself as a victim and a hero and ungratefully expects more money ($350 billion sent already!), some of which he and his fellow cronies have been found to spend on luxury cars, large fancy villas, and skiing resorts in Europe. It’s an open secret!

Russia simply stepped up for Russian people in Ukraine after eight years of doing nothing in the face of this injustice. Clearly Russia didn’t start it. They didn’t want this war. Period. And fundamentally speaking, Zelensky’s presidential term ran out in May 2024. He blocked new elections, apparently because polling showed his approval rating at four percent, so he’s not even the legitimate president of Ukraine anymore – not even on paper as a puppet. Clearly he is in no position to negotiate anything now. There is so much more that Vice President Vance and President Trump could have said to Zelensky in that historic and heated exchange before the cameras in the Oval Office. It was he, Zelensky, who initialled and then reneged on the peace agreement after Russian forces withdrew from around Kiev and other parts. And Zelensky walked out on the peace deal early on in March and April 2022, not Putin.

Although it was Zelensky’s regime which from 2014 to 2022 was bombing the Donbas and killing the 14,000 Ukrainian Russians, Zelensky turns around and hypocritically blames Putin for everything that he, Zelensky, did. And Crimea? Crimea is Russian, historically speaking, and 75 percent of the population is ethnically Russian. Relatively few Ukrainians live there. It was always the southern jewel of Russia but was unlawfully ”gifted” to Ukraine in the 1950s by the Soviet dictator Khruschev, who was also leader of the Ukrainian Communist Party at the time.

Just after the US-led 2014 coup against Ukraine’s elected government, US and NATO forces were moving naval fleets into the Black Sea. Russia saw this as a provocation, a threat to its national security, and a hindrance or blockage of its own access to those waterways, so in response to this development, Crimea was annexed in 2014 by Russian forces. Democratic referendums were soon held in Crimea that same year and again in Luhansk and Donetsk in 2022, and the vast majority of residents overwhelmingly voted to re-join Russia. There was no presentation of credible evidence of voter fraud, yet the results were rejected and deemed illegitimate by the international community. But Russia felt justified that it had to react to hostile action in the Black Sea and near its land border.

The Russians had been promised many times that NATO would not expand eastward beyond Germany after the Russians completely withdrew from eastern Europe with the dissolution of the Soviet Empire and communism. But this promise to Russia was broken by EU countries and NATO expansion started and continued in the 1990s and beyond. Missile systems aimed at Russia were installed in Poland and Romania. All of this was quite unnecessary and very provocatively hostile action against Russia. These are the plain, unbiased facts. Could Putin have reacted differently? If the Chinese or Russian military was arming and using the Mexican military as a proxy to try to provoke the US into attacking it, what would the US government do? It would quickly react with overwhelming military force in Mexico, that’s indisputable. It would consider Mexico’s actions as a clear and present threat to US national security.

Read more …

“..reestablish direct communication..”

• Lavrov and Rubio Discuss ‘Next Steps’ In Restoring Russia-US Ties (RT)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Saturday, as Washington and Moscow work to restore bilateral relations and advance negotiations for a Ukraine ceasefire. According to a statement from the US State Department, Rubio and Lavrov discussed steps to reestablish direct communication between the two countries. “Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke today with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. [They] discussed next steps to follow up on recent meetings in Saudi Arabia and agreed to continue working towards restoring communication between the United States and Russia,” the statement read.

The call follows high-level talks in Saudi Arabia on February 18, in which Washington and Moscow agreed to assign teams to work on resolving the Ukraine conflict, restore embassy operations, and address other points of contention in bilateral relations. Since then, additional discussions were held in Istanbul, focusing on diplomatic funding and a proposal from Moscow to reinstate direct flights between Russia and the US. In the phone call, Rubio also briefed Lavrov on US military strikes against Houthi militants in Yemen, stressing that continued Houthi attacks in the Red Sea “will not be tolerated.” US President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on Saturday that the US had launched a military action against the group, citing its “unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against American and other ships, aircraft, and drones.”

No further details were provided on the US-Russia call. Following talks with US officials on March 11 in Saudi Arabia, Kiev agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, arrived in Moscow on Thursday to present Russian President Vladimir Putin with the details of the proposal. Putin has welcomed the ceasefire in principle, but insisted on addressing several issues before its implementation, including the fate of Ukrainian forces currently encircled in Russia’s Kursk Region. While the details of Witkoff’s meeting with Putin have not been made public, Trump hinted at progress, stating that the White House had received “some pretty good news” regarding the ceasefire efforts and that US-Russia meetings over the past several days have been “very productive.”

Read more …

PCR still likes to blame Putin. Who apparently should have razed Kiev when he could.

• The Prospects for an End to the Ukraine Conflict (Paul Craig Roberts)

The prospects are not good as it seems the negotiations have already failed. Putin was excluded from participation in the agreement that Trump is threatening to shove down Putin’s throat with threats. On March 13 Nima hosted on Dialogue Works a discussion between myself and Professor Geoffrey Roberts of the prospects for negotiations ending the conflict between Washington, NATO, and Ukraine on one side and Russia on the other. https://www.youtube.com/live/VSnRCWBuF20. Geoffrey is optimistic about the prospects, whereas I emphasized the realism of the situation. Whereas I sincerely hope Geoffrey’s optimism is justified, I introduced the many overlooked problems that might stand in the way. A major challenge to ending the conflict is the pretense that it is a conflict between Russia and Ukraine whereas in fact the conflict is Washington’s proxy war against Russia.

It is difficult to resolve a conflict when the reality of it is denied. Essentially, I think Trump blundered by not first working out the terms of settlement with Putin and then taking them to Zelensky who would have had no alternative but to accept them. I was also concerned that having coerced Zelensky into agreeing to a cease fire, Trump would get pushy with Putin, and Trump has. Another major concern is that the Americans do not understand that they have much more to gain from ending the conflict than Russia and Ukraine together. An important result of ending the conflict would be the removal of sanctions. Washington in its characteristic stupidity thinks the sanctions harm Russia, whereas the sanctions have severely impacted the European economies, denying them business deals and cheap energy, and could yet wreck the dollar as world reserve currency, which is the basis of American power.

By weaponizing the dollar with sanctions and by stealing Russia’s central bank reserves held in US Treasuries, Washington made central banks around the world aware that should their governments get on the wrong side of Washington in some way, they could lose their reserves. This realization led to growing interest in BRICS and an alternative means of settling international balances. BRICS is Putin’s response to the West’s hostility toward Russia. If central banks move away from dollar reserves, Washington’s ability to finance its budget and trade deficits diminishes. Russia has won the conflict, and the West and Ukraine have lost. It is not Russia that needs a cease fire. It is not clear that Trump understands this. Trump enjoys being the player on the domestic and world scene. It is possible that what I said was Trump’s blunder in working out a cease fire deal with Zelensky instead of with Putin was actually a calculated move to box Putin in.

Trump can say only Putin’s agreement is needed for peace and put Putin on the spot for dragging his feet in reaching agreement. French President Macron has joined Washington in taking this line. Putin must stop making “delaying statements,” commands Macron. “Russia must now accept the US-Ukrainian proposal for a 30-day ceasefire.” The British foreign secretary adds “a ceasefire with no conditions.” In other words, Putin must immediately accept a deal made by Trump and Zelensky. Putin got himself in this situation because of all his stupid talk about his commitment to negotiations. Putin should emphasize nothing but military victory, and he should have produced one long ago. Instead, Putin has set himself up for blame for blocking a negotiated peace. The only way he can avoid this is by not capitalizing on Russia’s military victory.

Putin wants to know the details of the cease fire, such as: How can the cease fire be prevented from being used as a recovery and rearmament opportunity for retreating Ukrainian forces? How can the cease fire be made permanent when Ukraine is full of neo-Nazi elements antagonistic to Russia? What are the guarantees and how are they enforced that keep Ukraine neutral and not another base for American missiles like Poland and Romania? It is unclear at this time whether Trump is sympathetic with these and other questions or whether he sees them as foot-dragging on Putin’s part. On the morning of March 13 prior to the exchange of views between Geoffrey and myself, the London Times headline read: “Back peace or I’ll ruin you, Trump tells Putin.”

Twenty-four hours before our discussion the London Daily Mail reported “breaking news”: “Trump threatens Putin with devastating punishment and sanctions if he does not accept the 30-day ceasefire deal agreed with Ukraine.” Of course, this could just be the Western whore media determined to ruin the settlement to Trump’s discomfort, but Trump himself actually said in response to a reporter’s question: “I can do things financially that would be devastating for Russia,” which sounds like a veiled threat. In another likely ill-fated statement, Trump’s Treasury Secretary said that the Trump administration, if necessary, will coerce Russia into a settlement with “the toughest sanctions.” Putin must wonder about the origin of the settlement into which he is going to be forced. Whose settlement? Trump and Zelensky’s?

Trump and his advisors don’t seem to understand that Washington and Ukraine have lost the war. Russia dominates the battlefield. It is Russia’s prerogative to dictate the terms of the West’s surrender. As Putin doesn’t know what the settlement is, he doesn’t know what, if anything, Russia is getting out of it. As it is not Russia that needs a settlement, why should Putin give up anything in order to get one? In place of acknowledging the reality of the situation, idiot questions such as this one are being asked: “What does Putin want and will Trump give it to him?” It seems that mindlessness in the West knows no limit. The appropriate question is, “What does Trump want, and will Putin give it to him?”

It seems clear to me that Putin’s idea of what constitutes a settlement is entirely different from Zelensky and Trump’s. Perhaps Trump will realize his blunder in making a cease fire deal with Zelensky before clearing it with Putin. If not, Trump faces the failure of his boast that he will immediately end the conflict, and he will move into the coercive mode to force an agreement and thereby further erode any Russian faith in negotiations. I think the danger remains of this ending in a bad way. I have always thought that Putin’s decision to have a war without really fighting a war would end badly. As I said it would, it led to increasing Western involvement in the war which widened the conflict. Putin and Lavrov’s sophomoric calls for negotiations have now led to the losing side taking control of the negotiations. Putin and Lavrov now find themselves boxed in by their own unwillingness to win a conflict that they let drag on for three years, longer than it took the Red Army to clear the Wehrmacht out of Russia and Eastern Europe and arrive in Berlin.

Read more …

They don’t want peace but war. And they plan on dragging Trump in too.

• UK Mulls Open-Ended Troop Deployment In Ukraine – Times (RT)

The UK plans to station thousands of troops in Ukraine “for years” as part of a Western peacekeeping force to oversee a future ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev, The Times reported on Sunday, citing sources. The proposal was reportedly outlined by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at a virtual meeting of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ on Saturday. Starmer first announced plans for the coalition alongside France earlier this month, aiming to rally nations willing to continue military support for Ukraine amid concerns over potential US aid cuts. At a press briefing following Saturday’s meeting, Starmer said dozens of partner nations back the idea of deploying a peacekeeping force, with UK Defense Secretary John Healey set to meet with military chiefs in London this week to discuss details, including troop numbers and deployment timelines.

According to The Times, the force could comprise up to 30,000 troops, with the UK and France supplying the majority. An unnamed senior official said the British deployment in particular would be open-ended. “It would be a long-term commitment, we are talking about years. As long as it takes to preserve a peace deal and deter Russia,” the official added. Starmer noted, however, that the troops would be sent only after Moscow and Kiev agree on a peace deal with the aim of monitoring and upholding it. Asked whether the peacekeeping force would have the authority to engage Russian forces, Starmer declined to answer, saying this and other matters would be discussed in the coming days.

Russia has categorically rejected any Western military presence in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last month that the idea is “completely unacceptable to Russia” due to security risks. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the current deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, warned on Sunday that the deployment of NATO forces, even under a peacekeeping mandate, would trigger direct war between Moscow and the military bloc. Starmer’s coalition talks come amid US-Russian efforts to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine. US President Donald Trump has said he expects to discuss the prospects of a peace agreement in the Ukraine conflict with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on Tuesday.

Read more …

No NATO. Out of the question.

• NATO ‘Peacekeepers’ In Ukraine Mean War – Medvedev (RT)

The deployment of “peacekeepers” from NATO member states to Ukraine would trigger an all-out war between the military bloc and Moscow, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned. In recent weeks, the leaders of the UK and France have ramped up discussions about such a mission. In a post on X on Sunday, Medvedev, who currently serves as the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, stated that French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer “are playing dumb.” “Time and again they are told that peacekeepers must be from non-NATO states. No, we will send tens of thousands – just lay it out – you want to give military aid to the neo-Nazis in Kiev,” Medvedev charged. “That means war with NATO. Consult with [US President Donald] Trump, scumbags,” he concluded.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov previously similarly argued that the deployment of NATO military personnel to Ukraine, even under the guise of peacekeepers, would be tantamount to the “direct, official, undisguised involvement of NATO countries in the war against Russia.” Earlier this month, Starmer announced that Britain and France were ready to lead a “coalition of the willing” to provide military support to Kiev, including the deployment of troops and aircraft. Speaking following an emergency summit in London, he said that “not every nation will feel able to contribute, but that can’t mean that we sit back. Instead, those willing will intensify planning now with real urgency.”

“The UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air, together with others,” Starmer further clarified. Macron said Western troops would arrive in Ukraine only if and when the situation on the ground was safe for them. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who attended the meeting along with several other leaders, stressed that “the presence of Italian troops in Ukraine has never been on the agenda.” In contrast, former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau indicated that Ottawa was considering all possible options and was not ruling out sending troops to Ukraine.

Reiterating his readiness to deploy British military personnel to the conflict zone, Starmer told Parliament earlier this month that this effort would be contingent on securing US backing.On Monday, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told DR radio that “if it comes to the point where a European presence is needed for a ceasefire or peace agreement to be reached, then Denmark is in principle prepared for that.” Commenting on the prospect of NATO troops arriving in Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated last month that such a development would be “completely unacceptable to us,” citing the ramifications it would have for Russia’s national security.

Read more …

Still nobody takes the Houthis serious.

• What’s Really Behind Trump’s Surprise Bombardment of Yemen (Sp.)

President Trump announced “decisive and powerful military action” against the Yemeni militia Saturday, demanding they halt attacks on shipping and warships in the Red Sea or face “hell” “like nothing [they] have ever seen before!” Sputnik reached out to a veteran observer of Middle East politics to find out what’s actually behind the US aggression. “Trump’s decision” to launch airstrikes on Yemen revolves around Washington’s desire “to protect and help extend Israeli domination over the larger region,” Isa Blumi, an associate professor of Middle East studies at Stockholm University, told Sputnik. The strikes have less to do with the Houthis than they do with trying to ensure the survival of the State of Israel, and Israeli and US projects to expel the Palestinians from Gaza, turn the strip into a glitzy Las Vegas-style resort, and exploit its offshore gas resources, the academic said.

“This is not possible if Ansar Allah is able to undermine Israel’s economy,” Blumi stressed, pointing to the colossal impact the militia’s partial blockade of the Red Sea in support of Gaza has had on Israeli shipping income, including the bankruptcy of the port of Eilat. This, not Trump’s claims about “freedom of navigation” in the region, accounts for the surprise US attacks, the observer said. Going forward, the professor fears that if the Yemeni crisis turns into a prolonged, regional crisis, Houthi missile power could be directed at neighboring countries providing direct or indirect support for the US, Britain and Israel. This would fundamentally “change the dynamics of the Middle East” and its resource-based economic well-being, Blumi said. US warplanes attacked the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, as well as Saada, Dhamar, Al-Bayda, Radaa, Hajjah, and Marib.

Yemeni Health Ministry spokesperson Anis Al-Asbahi said 31 people were killed and over 100 injured in the attacks, mostly women and children. CENTCOM said its “precision strikes” were carried out “to defend American interests, deter enemies and restore freedom of navigation.” The strikes were launched by F/A-18 jets from the USS Truman supercarrier in the Red Sea, and aided by P8 Poseidon, RC-135V and MQ-4C Triton jets and drones flying out of US bases in the Gulf. A British KC2 Voyager out of Cyprus also took part, per Yemeni media reports. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, touching on Yemen. Lavrov called for an “immediate” halt to the use of force, and stressed the need for dialog “to find a solution that would prevent further bloodshed.”

The Houthis’ political bureau warned the militia was “prepared to confront escalation with escalation.”Militia spokesman Yahya Saree announced Sunday that the Houthis had targeted the USS Harry Truman supercarrier and its escorts in the northern Red Sea with 18 ballistic and cruise missiles and a drone. Saree warned that Ansar Allah “will not hesitate to target all American warships in the Red Sea and in the Arabian Sea in retaliation to the aggression against our country.” CENTCOM has yet to comment on the Houthi operation, and whether the Truman or its escorts were threatened or damaged in any way. US and UK commercial vessels and warships have been added back on to the Houthis’ list of legitimate targets. Houthi Brig. Gen. Abdullah bin Amer recalled that ten years ago, a Gulf coalition sought to oust Ansar Allah in “two weeks,” but “months and years passed…and Yemen has not been subdued.”

The same fate will meet today’s aggressors, who were “disappointed before,” and “will definitely be disappointed again,” Amer said. Houthi political bureau member Hussein al-Azzi sent Trump a letter Sunday following the strikes, telling him he has “very stupid advisors,” and warning that the US president could “dream of breaking the will of the Yemeni people” when he becomes “able to uproot” the Brooks Mountain Range with his teeth.” Preparations for Saturday’s strikes began after Trump put the Houthis back onto the US’s “terror” listing, and accelerated after they downed another US Reaper drone March 4, per sources cited by Axios. The strikes come days after the Houthis’ announcement that they would resume attacks on Israeli vessels in the Red and Arabian Seas, citing Israel’s refusal to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Read more …

“..AOC can afford to treat governance like some academic exercise because she’s safely ensconced in the bubble that is her deep-blue district. Fetterman has to deal with the reality that he represents a battleground state..”

• Democrat Civil War Watch: AOC and John Fetterman Duke It Out (Margolis)

The radical left’s grip on the Democratic Party is finally starting to crack, and it’s about time. The latest evidence? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s public tantrum over Chuck Schumer’s sensible decision to advance the House GOP’s continuing resolution. In a stunning display of performative outrage, AOC blasted Senate Democrats for what she dramatically called a “betrayal” of their House colleagues. The socialist superstar from New York couldn’t contain her fury, particularly at the thought of Democrats gasp working with Elon Musk. “I think there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal. And this is not just about progressive Democrats. This is across the board, the entire party. There are members of Congress who have won,” the former bartender said.

“Trump held districts in some of the most difficult territory in the United States, who walked the plank and took. Took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people, in order to defend Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Just to see Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think it is a huge slap in the face.” Ocasia-Cortez continued, “And I think that there is a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as currently planned. How will House Democrats and Senate Democrats work together now? If there is such a sense of betrayal, I think that creates a real challenge. And that, in and of itself, I think, is part of what makes the leadership of this moment so crucial.” But here’s where it gets interesting. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) delivered a serious smackdown on AOC. “I hope you can relay how little I care about her views on this,” Fetterman told The Hill.

Fetterman didn’t stop there. He challenged AOC to explain her exit strategy in case of a shutdown, pointedly noting that while she’d keep collecting her cushy congressional paycheck, millions of Americans would suffer. “What about all the millions of Americans who are going to have their lives damaged?” Fetterman asked, exposing the hollow nature of AOC’s supposed concern for working Americans. This isn’t just another day of Democrat infighting—it’s a symptom of a deeper crisis within their party. While AOC and her squad of socialists perform their social media activism, more Americans are abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of Republican values. This isn’t conjecture. Polls show that the Democratic Party’s approval ratings are in the toilet, and Trump’s agenda is actually quite popular.

The left’s obsession with opposing Trump has morphed into their only coherent policy position, and voters are noticing. The truth is, AOC can afford to treat governance like some academic exercise because she’s safely ensconced in the bubble that is her deep-blue district. Fetterman has to deal with the reality that he represents a battleground state that is trending red and, despite being a leftist, has to at least pretend to be a moderate sometimes. While many of us see through that, it’s at least nice to see that some Democrats recognize that they can’t pander to the radical left 100% of the time like AOC does. The question is, will this tear the Democratic Party apart?

Read more …

It’ll be a long and winding path.

• The Democrats’ Path Out of the Wilderness (RCW)

Even in their darkest nights, politicians trust that their steady savior will once more ride to their rescue – their fiercest opponents. That’s why Democrats, as lost and bereft as they may be, are not engaging in soul-searching following their crushing defeat in November but instead banking on Donald Trump’s missteps to reverse their fortunes. We’re just one more trade war from relevance. Hoping the other guy fails may be a time-honored strategy embraced by both parties, but it is no way to govern. That helps explain our country’s fiscal mess. The reasons Democrats lost to a man they cast as an unhinged threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are legion. President Biden was old and weak in a world that demands strength – especially the power to stand up to radical elements of his party that pushed unpopular policies.

But the knottier problem Democrats must address – and which Republicans should now be wary of as they hold the reins of power – is the towering belief in their own goodness, which robbed them of their moral compass, leading to corruption and deceit. In fairness, this is not a partisan kink but a human foible. Most every person and institution makes themselves the hero of their own story. We instinctively explain away, justify, and forgive even our most abject shortcomings. We seek to elevate ourselves by exposing the speck in our brother’s eye so we can ignore the log in our own. Even as we abhor this all-too-human behavior in others, it is a near universal survival strategy that allows us to feel good about our fallible selves. Democrats, however, turned this mindset into a giant chalice of Kool-Aid when Trump emerged on the scene in 2015.

As they described their opponent in apocalyptic terms, they truly came to see themselves as the embodiment of all that was right and good – the sole champions of truth and justice, democracy and the rule of law, women and children and non-GMO apple pie. Once you know you are on the right side of history, anything is permitted because the ends always seem to justify the means. This belief drove the Democrats’ staggering deceit. Saddled with a senescent but compliant president, these self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution lied about Biden’s decline while advancing a vigorous program of change. The identities of those who were actually running the government during the last four years is one of the great mysteries of our time – a high-stakes whodunit that only deepened with the revelation that it was not Biden himself but a mechanical marker that signed many of the presidential orders that aimed to transform America.

Autopen-gate raises the troubling question: Did Biden even know what he wasn’t signing? Perhaps CNN’s Jake Tapper will reveal all in his forthcoming book, “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, It’s Cover-Up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” But that seems unlikely given how complicit he and his legacy media colleagues were in dismissing the president’s obvious decline. If they had their way, Biden would be embarking now on his second term. It seems much more likely that Tapper et al. will embrace the narrative offered by the New York Times in its stab at damage control – that a tight-knit group of Biden’s “family and inner circle” engineered a massive cover-up. This is quite a stretch. An overwhelming majority of Americans – a majority of rank-and-file Democratic voters – doubted that Biden was all there. His failings weren’t covered up; they were brazenly denied.

The turn of mind that justified this deception is also why Democrats and their media allies continued to insist against all evidence that Trump had defended the neo-Nazis who marched at Charlottesville and had instructed Americans to inject bleach to thwart COVID. History, of course, is littered with such people, who convince themselves that lies are tools of the truth. This belief led progressives to embrace Orwellian actions that directly contradicted their self-proclaimed values – weaponizing the justice system to defend the rule of law and seeking to censor free speech in the name of open and honest debate. Even as they cast Trump as a kleptocrat who saw high office as a tool for personal enrichment, they dismissed and downplayed the Biden family’s extensive corruption.

In the final days of the 2020 election, future Secretary of State Antony Blinken corralled 51 former intelligence officials to sign a letter falsely suggesting that Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop – filled with emails and other documents showing how he sold access to his father’s foreign entities – was, as Joe Biden put it, “a Russian plan.” After these pay-for-play schemes dried up, Hunter turned his hand to art. It all seemed fishy, as the first son commanded high prices, which were mostly paid by Democrat donors and a Biden appointee. The legacy media had no interest in probing whether this was yet another scheme to funnel money to the sitting president’s family – evidence of such malfeasance would do nothing but hurt the cause. Hunter appears to have answered in a court filing earlier this month, reporting that “In the 2 to 3 years prior to December 2023, I sold 27 pieces for art at an average price of $54,481.48, but since then I have only sold 1 piece of art for $36,000.”

We are now learning that this hallowed corruption extended to policies concerning the poster child for progressive virtue, climate change. As James Varney reported for RealClearInvestigations, much of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act has been awarded to groups with minor track records but major ties to the Democrat party. Citing just one of the many examples. Varney unearthed a group called Power Forward Communities that was awarded $2 billion just one month after gaining nonprofit status from the IRS. Its CEO, Tim Mayopoulos, led Fannie Mae during the Obama administration. The fund engaged in so many other questionable practices that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin moved this week to terminate the program.

The Biden administration did not invent hypocrisy, cronyism, and greed. But its corruption and deceit stand out because of the Democrats’ decision to cast themselves as the guardians of morality in an epic political battle between good and evil. This out-of-touch self-regard drove them to ignore ethical guardrails and advance deeply unpopular policies. If we are god, then everything is permitted. Now that it can wield the cudgels of power, the Trump administration should learn from its opponents’ hubris. As it seeks to expose and punish the excesses of the last administration, it should remember Nietzsche’s timeless warning, “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” Otherwise, they will end up rescuing their foes.

Read more …

“Tariffs are taxes, they are bad,” EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said..”

• Trump Worse Than Covid – Deputy ECB Chief (RT)

Washington under President Donald Trump has created more “uncertainty” than the Covid-19 pandemic, Luis de Guindos, the vice president of the European Central Bank (ECB), has claimed. The official made the remarks in an interview with The Sunday Times during which he bemoaned Trump’s use of tariffs, as well as plans to reform corporate taxes and deregulate the financial system. The actions of the new US administration have been causing short-term volatility in markets while making inflation expectations and interest rates hard to predict, he said. “We need to consider the uncertainty of the current environment, which is even higher than it was during the pandemic,” the ECB vice president said.

“What we’re seeing is that the new US administration isn’t very open to continuing with multilateralism, which is about cooperation across jurisdictions and finding common solutions for common problems. This is a very important change, and a big source of uncertainty,” he added. Concerns over what Trump might do next have also damaged consumer confidence, de Guindos believes, noting that the long-awaited increase in business investment and household consumption has not arrived. He blamed the decline in Eurozone growth projections on the actions of the new US administration.

“Real wages have increased, inflation is declining, interest rates are coming down and financing conditions are better. But still, the reality is that consumption is not picking up,” he said. “This is because consumers don’t always react to developments in their short-term real disposable income. They also consider what might happen with the economy over the medium term, which is clouded in uncertainty. The possibility of a trade war or wider geopolitical conflict has an impact on consumer confidence,” the official added, describing trade wars as a “lose-lose situation for everybody.”

Trump’s 25% tariff hike on steel and aluminum supplies from the EU took effect last week after previous exemptions and exclusions expired. Brussels has already vowed to retaliate, promising what it called “swift and proportionate” countermeasures. The European Commission has condemned Trump’s disruptive and “unjustified” tariffs, pledging to impose counter-tariffs on €26 billion (over $28 billion) worth of US goods starting in April. “Tariffs are taxes, they are bad,” EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said when announcing the retaliatory measures.

Read more …

500 years ago: the printing press. Today; the internet. I get it. But what does it have to do with Obama?

• How Barack Obama Built An Omnipotent Thought-Control Machine (Samuels)

If anyone in the future cares enough to write an authentic history of the 2024 presidential campaign, they might begin by noting that American politics exists downstream of American culture, which is a deep and broad river. Like any river, American culture follows a particular path, which has been reconfigured at key moments by new technologies. In turn, these technologies, which redefine both space and time—canals and lakes, the postal system, the telegraph, railroads, radio and later television, the internet, and most recently the networking of billions of people in real time on social media platforms—set the rules by which stories are communicated, audiences are configured, and individuals define themselves.

Something big changed sometime after the year 2000 in the way we communicated with each other, and the means by which we absorbed new information and formed a working picture of the world around us. What changed can be understood as the effect of the ongoing transition from the world of 20th-century media to our current digital landscape. This once-every-five-centuries revolution would have large effects, ones we have only just begun to assimilate, and which have largely rendered the assumptions and accompanying social forms of the past century obsolete, even as tens of millions of people, including many who imagine themselves to reside near the top of the country’s social and intellectual pyramids, continue to imagine themselves to be living in one version or another of the long 20th century that began with the advent of a different set of mass communications technologies, which included the telegraph, radio, and film.

It took three powerful men, each of whom had the advantage of operating entirely in public, and with massive and obvious real-world consequences, to rupture the apparatus of false consciousness that Obama built. In doing so, they saved the world—for the moment, at least. While history will judge whether their achievements were lasting, it is clear that if they hadn’t acted as they did, we would still be living inside the machine.

The first of these men was Elon Musk, who is notable for having purchased Twitter in 2022, after Joe Biden had been safely installed in the White House, and the social media site appeared perhaps to be reaching the end of its usefulness, for what was presented at the time and since as the wildly overblown price of $44 billion. Twitter was hardly identical with the permission structure machine that Barack Obama, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Dan Pfeiffer, Ben Rhodes, and the rest of Obama’s operatives constructed in their takeover of the Democratic Party. The machine they built was much, much bigger than any social media platform. However, due to its first mover advantage, and the role it played within the sociology of journalism and other alloyed professions, Twitter was positioned to play an obvious and key role in the work of social signaling and coordination by which the party’s permission structure machine functioned.

Twitter’s significance, as part of the party’s permission structure machinery, was key in part because, as the history of platforms and companies like Facebook, Google, Uber, Instagram. and TikTok shows, advantages of scale tend naturally toward localized monopolies. Twitter could play the signaling and coordinating function that it did in part because it was a monopoly, which is why Obama, Axelrod, Plouffe, etc. all had Twitter accounts. It’s why the FBI came on board Twitter, to ensure that the tilt of the platform was coordinated with the FBI’s role in the party’s “whole of society” censorship efforts—whether directed against “disinformation,” or COVID measures, or “white supremacy,” or Donald Trump, or “insurrectionists.” So why sell a key module in the permission structure machine to Elon Musk?

Part of the reason appears to be price. The $44 billion that Musk eventually paid appears to be at least twice what any other plausible team of bidders offered. It is certainly possible that having decided to sell Twitter, the company’s board was stuck—both practically and legally—when Musk decided that price was not an object, and that he was willing to massively outspend any other possible bidder. Twitter’s board, and whoever they consulted within the ODP vertical, may have imagined that Musk would find an excuse to pull out of the deal—which he appeared at several points to be doing, though his reluctance may well have been a negotiating tactic.

It is certainly plausible that someone in Obama’s universe saw the danger in selling Twitter to Musk. That it happened anyway suggests—as in the case of the lawfare campaign against Trump—that they hubristically believed in their own propagandistic accounts of their adversary as venal, corrupt, and weak, and of their own practical and moral superiority. Unable to think outside their own box, they may have reasonably expected that Musk could be constrained by the need to keep his advertisers by retaining the existing tilt of the platform’s algorithms for as long as the platform itself continued to matter. To keep Musk in line, the party could cut the platform’s advertising revenues by half or more at will by having its adjuncts in the censorship business label it a sinkhole of racism and depravity, and getting it banned from Europe and other global markets. As the reputational cost spread, Musk would have no choice but to eat a loss of tens of billions of dollars and sell, or else face the destruction of his other businesses—which the party could speed up by canceling contracts with NASA and other government agencies and opening multiple SEC and Justice Department investigations that would further augment his reputational risk—until he agreed to kiss the ring.

Read more …

“Zuchongzhi-3’s computational speed outpaced that of the world’s most powerful supercomputer by 15 orders of magnitude (a quadrillion times faster)..”

• China Unveils Quantum Processor ‘A Million Times Faster’ Than US Rival (RT)

Chinese scientists have unveiled a new superconducting quantum computing prototype they say operates a million times faster than Google’s top quantum processors. The Chinese chip is also a quadrillion times more efficient than any conventionally built supercomputer, according to a statement issued by its creators. Dubbed Zuchongzhi-3, the chip was developed by the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in cooperation with half a dozen of the nation’s scientific institutions. The USTC published the results of its research and the chip’s performance analysis in an article for the Physical Review Letters earlier this month.According to the university’s statement, the testing showed that the new Chinese processor is a million times faster than Google’s Sycamore processor.

The US tech giant presented its quantum computer back in October 2024, boasting that it could surpass the fastest conventional supercomputers in performing computationally complex calculations. “We are focused on developing practical applications for quantum computers that cannot be done on a classical computer,” Google Quantum AI representatives said at the time. The USTC said in its statement that Zuchongzhi-3’s computational speed outpaced that of the world’s most powerful supercomputer by 15 orders of magnitude (a quadrillion times faster).It is unclear how the newly unveiled chip compares to another Google product – the Willow quantum processor unveiled in December. The two have roughly similar processing capacities, although the Willow is reportedly slightly better than its Chinese rival when it comes to coherence time, a key parameter enabling more complex computations, according to Live Science. The US tech giant has not commented on the USTC statement.

Chinese companies have substantially boosted investments in AI and quantum computing after President Xi Jinping urged the nation to accelerate fundamental scientific research. Beijing is aiming to increase self-reliance in crucial areas, including chip-making, space exploration, and military sciences. Bloomberg reported in October 2023 that Chinese companies and institutions applied for 29,853 AI-related patents in 2022, compared to 29,000 in the previous year. The figure is nearly 80% more than US filings.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Stranded

 

 

50,000,000,000,000

 

 

Safe
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1901178073682260365

 

 

Puppyduck
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1901025355294454230

 

 

1 egg

 

 

2001

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle March 14 2025

Mar 142025
 
 March 14, 2025  Posted by at 10:12 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  52 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

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

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

Artemis

Rogan DOGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.”

Read more …

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.”

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

“..(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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

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…

Read more …

“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.

Read more …

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.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Table

 

 

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 1 3025

Mar 012025
 
 March 1, 2025  Posted by at 10:51 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  27 Responses »


Giovanni Bellini Pietà 1474

 

• Zelensky Not Ready For Peace – Trump (RT)
• Trump Names Conditions For Resuming Talks With Zelensky (RT)
• Ukraine Should Probably Go With New Leadership At This Point (Hanania)
• US May Halt All Military Aid To Ukraine – WaPo (TASS)
• EU’s Kallas Calls For ‘New Leader of Free World’ (RT)
• Starmer Insists On Deploying British Troops To Ukraine (RT)
• Chihuahuas, Not Dobermans (Patrick Lawrence)
• A Trump-Putin Accord? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Support Pours In For President Trump, VP Vance’s America First Strength (WH)
• Trump Wanted To Cancel Zelensky Meeting – French Media (RT)
• EU Membership For Ukraine ‘Unthinkable’ – Orban (RT)
• Trump Planning Sweeping Cuts To State Department – Politico (RT)
• Soros Trying To Derail Trump’s Plans – Musk (RT)
• Musk, White House Respond to Reports of 21 DOGE Employees Resigning (ET)
• From Epstein To Diddy: Spotlight On James Comey’s Prosecutor Daughter (ZH)
• The Dog Probably Ate It (James Howard Kunstler)
• Baltic/Black Sea Power Games and Red Lines In A “Strange War” (Pepe Escobar)

 

 

 

 

Oval O.

Miller

Elon

FBI

Beck
https://twitter.com/i/status/1895238883631399286

Wyoming

McCarthy

 

 

 

 

Well, that was some great theater. In the shadows it also showed the huge and growing gap between the US and Europe today. Europe will lose that one too. They have no leadership… All they can think of doing is continuing a fight they lost years ago, just like Zelensky. The reason they’ve been able to keep up the pretense is … the US lurking in the background. Now it’s no longer there. Cue collapse.

“.. Zelensky is not ready for peace as he sees Washington’s involvement in negotiations on the Ukraine conflict as a bargaining chip..”

“Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure.”

• Zelensky Not Ready For Peace – Trump (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky is not ready for peace as he sees Washington’s involvement in negotiations on the Ukraine conflict as a bargaining chip, US President Donald Trump has stated, following their meeting on Friday. Trump made the remarks in a social media post after receiving Zelensky at the White house, where the two were expected to sign an agreement granting Washington access to Ukraine’s natural resources. Zelensky’s visit to the White House was cut short after he got into a heated exchange with Trump and US Vice President J.D. Vance. Trump accused Zelensky of “disrespectful” behavior during the talks in the Oval Office.

“We had a very meaningful meeting…” Trump wrote, adding “Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure.” Trump went on to say that Zelensky “is not ready for peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations.” “It’s amazing what comes out through emotion…” the US president stated. He reiterated that he wants peace, adding that Zelensky “disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office.”

Read more …

“Let me tell you… you saw what I saw today. That was not a man that wanted to make peace”, he said. “And I’m only interested if he wants to end the bloodshed.”

• Trump Names Conditions For Resuming Talks With Zelensky (RT)

President Donald Trump has outlined his expectations for any future engagements with Vladimir Zelensky, emphasizing that further negotiations depend on a clear commitment to peace. Speaking to reporters after a tense meeting with Zelensky at the White House on Friday, Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of “overplaying his hand” and failing to demonstrate a genuine desire to end the conflict with Russia. “We re looking for peace”, Trump stated. “We re not looking for somebody that’s going to sign up a strong power and then not make peace because they feel emboldened… He’s looking to go on and fight, fight, fight. We re looking to end the deaths.”

“You saw what I saw today. This is a man that wants to get us signed up and keep fighting. And we’re not doing that, not for this country”. According to Trump, continued US military assistance would only strengthen Zelensky’s position, making him less inclined to negotiate peace. “We’re not looking for somebody that’s going to sign up a strong power and then not make peace because they feel emboldened”, Trump said. “We re not looking to go into a 10-year war”. Trump reiterated that a ceasefire should be the immediate priority, suggesting that Zelensky was unwilling to consider one. He also noted that, unlike Zelensky, Russian President Vladimir Putin seems willing to make peace, and insisted that US policy should focus on de-escalation rather than prolonging hostilities.

When asked whether he had explicitly told Zelensky to leave the White House, Trump declined to answer directly. “I think you know the answer to that”, he said, adding that “Zelensky wants to come back right now, but I can’t do that”. Summarizing his position, Trump made clear that the US would not continue to back Ukraine unless Zelensky took steps toward peace. “Let me tell you… you saw what I saw today. That was not a man that wanted to make peace”, he said. “And I’m only interested if he wants to end the bloodshed.”

Read more …

X thread to show the conversation was going fine for half an hour … until it got out of hand. Which is the only part most people will have seen.

• Ukraine Should Probably Go With New Leadership At This Point (Hanania)

I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context. When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That’s not what happened. You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn’t attack Zelensky and wasn’t even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.

In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always “we’ll see.” Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders. For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would’ve signed a deal. The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does.

Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn’t get us anywhere. The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.

Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument. I’ve been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don’t see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.

Read more …

“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..”

• US May Halt All Military Aid To Ukraine – WaPo (TASS)

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.

Earlier on Friday, Zelensky met with Trump at the White House. Their televised exchange suddenly unraveled into a shouting match, with Trump scolding Zelensky for being disrespectful to the US, and Vice President JD Vance saying that Zelensky had never thanked the country for all the support provided to Kiev. A news conference scheduled to follow the meeting was canceled, and the Ukrainian delegation left the White House earlier than planned. Bilateral talks and the scheduled signing of the deal on Ukrainian mineral resources were thwarted.

Read more …

That’s how out of sync Europe is.

• EU’s Kallas Calls For ‘New Leader of Free World’ (RT)

The European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, has suggested that the United States can no longer act as the “leader of the free world,” after President Donald Trump publicly scolded Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky for his disrespect and ingratitude toward the American people. The meeting between Zelensky, Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance on Friday descended into an openly hostile exchange. Zelensky was asked to leave the White House early without signing an agreement that would have granted the US rights to Ukraine’s natural resources, or holding a joint press conference. In response to the scandal, Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy and former Estonian prime minister, took to X to express her support for Zelensky, writing, “We stand by Ukraine.”

“We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the agressor [sic],” Kallas wrote. “Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.” Kallas previously accused Trump of adopting “Russian narratives and talking points” about the Ukraine conflict, and expressed concern over what she described as Washington’s shift away from its longtime European allies. She also pushed back against criticisms of democracy in the EU made by Vance at the Munich Security Conference – remarks that Trump praised as “brilliant.” “I refuse to accept that criticism, because it’s just simply not true,” Kallas said.

In recent weeks, Trump has made several critical statements about Ukraine’s leadership, describing Zelensky as a “dictator without elections” and suggesting that Kiev bears responsibility for allowing the hostilities to escalate in 2022. “I have empowered you to be a tough guy, and I do not think you would be a tough guy without the US,” Trump told Zelensky on Friday. “But you are not acting at all thankful, and that is not a nice thing… What you are doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country.”

Read more …

Russian target practice.

• Starmer Insists On Deploying British Troops To Ukraine (RT)

The UK and EU must be involved in a peace settlement in Ukraine, which includes putting boots on the ground, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said following talks with US President Donald Trump in Washington. The US has recently initiated peace talks with Russia, sidelining both the EU and UK. Starmer met with Trump at the White House on Thursday, where they discussed a plan to reach an enduring peace in Ukraine. ”The European countries, including the United Kingdom, need to play a full part in that,” Starmer said in an interview on Fox News. London will play “a leading part,” he insisted, whether it’s “troops on the ground… or possible air, maritime work” together with the EU. The UK and France have previously said they are prepared to deploy peacekeeping troops to Ukraine to secure any peace deal with Russia.

Trump has indicated, however, that Washington has no plans to send US forces to support a European-led peacekeeping mission, arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin can be trusted to not breach the eventual agreement. Moscow has opposed the deployment of unauthorized troops to Ukraine, warning that without a UN mandate, they would be considered legitimate targets. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said the idea of deploying foreign troops to Ukraine is being pushed primarily by France and Britain, suggesting that this is meant to “further fuel the conflict and stop any attempts to cool it down.” The Foreign Ministry also accused the EU and UK of embarking “on a path of militarism.” Britain has been a steadfast supporter of Ukraine since the conflict escalated three years ago, providing substantial military aid and implementing stringent sanctions against Russia. As of February, London has committed nearly $10 billion in military assistance to Kiev.

Read more …

“..a sort of agent provocateur enabling those with the money and the guns to send extravagant amounts of both into the sinkhole of corruption over which Zelensky presides without the worry of domestic revolts.”

• Chihuahuas, Not Dobermans (Patrick Lawrence)

I have never been much for schadenfreude: It is always best to occupy one’s mind with worthier matters. But I cave to temptation as Volodymyr Zelensky, the puffed-up buffoon who has paraded flamboyantly across the world stage as a hero these past half-dozen years, is publicly cut to size as President Donald Trump gets on with the business of ending the proxy war Zelensky has cynically sold to the Western world’s lumpen liberals while presiding over the monstrously corrupt, Nazi-infested regime in Kiev. Let us sneer, let us snicker as the air hisses out of Zelensky’s balloon. This thieving som-a-gom bears front-line responsibility — along with his masters, of course — for the deaths of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers somewhere in six figures and the ruination of the country and the citizenry to which he purports to dedicate himself.

Donald Trump’s démarche toward Russia and a determination to end the Ukraine war he shares with President Vladimir Putin, leave Zelensky marooned on an island made of out-of-date propaganda ops. And now we find Europe’s neoliberal elites, having war-mongered their way into the Ukraine morass because the Biden regime told them to do so, wandering on the beaches with him. As of Trump’s Feb. 12 telephone call with Putin and the Munich Security Conference, held in the Bavarian capital Feb. 14–16, the Continent’s leaders and their repellent mascot have been left holding a very big bag. Zelensky’s fall is significant but was a matter of time. Europanic, as I call it, is the big news of the week. This shapes up to be more fun than a rerun of an old Terry Southern movie, supercilious hypocrites with their pants down in every scene.

Zelensky has been the papier mâché creation of others since he was plucked from a sit-com and re-costumed to succeed Petro Poroshenko, a chocolate magnate — Is there not a serious pol anywhere in Ukraine? — who moved into the presidential palace after the U.S.–cultivated coup 11 years ago this month. He, Zelensky, was financed by one of Ukraine’s countless megacrooks and coached by American image-crafters during the craven chicanery of his presidential campaign back in 2019. As readers may recall, the propaganda got so far out of hand after Russia began its military intervention three years ago that Biden regime ideologues, with corporate media dutifully parroting the trope, had the great broad masses believing Zelensky was “a 21st century Churchill.”

Tell me, I recall thinking, somebody please tell me they are not serious. In his now-famous dismissal of Zelensky last week, Trump marked him down as “a modestly successful comedian.” Sometimes even what we quaintly call reality has its appeal. As Max Blumenthal astutely observed in The Grayzone the other day, Trump had it wrong when he charged in his contra–Zelensky broadside that the Ukrainian president started the war in Ukraine. No, he provoked it. I like the distinction. The modestly successful comedian has effectively served — very effectively, indeed — as a sort of agent provocateur enabling those with the money and the guns to send extravagant amounts of both into the sinkhole of corruption over which Zelensky presides without the worry of domestic revolts.

With the regularity of a seasonal TV series, Zelensky would bleat that Ukraine needs more weapons, Ukraine needs more money and Ukraine needs it all now. I especially liked it when he would bark that Western leaders — President Joe Biden, the Europeans — were sloughing off their responsibilities. The impudent, scolding tone: You had to appreciate this. That wasn’t meant for Biden or any of the trans–Atlantic clients. I have had a hunch all along that the Biden White House, which acknowledged daily telephone contacts with Zelensky, rehearsed him regularly as to what to say, when to say it and how desperately to make the assigned point.

No, Zelensky’s pleading-and-complaining routines, at times so rude Biden’s people told him to throttle back, were meant for the American and European publics — a perception management op to keep the blue-and-yellow flags drooping off millions of balconies and front porches. Zelensky was a professional showman and his was a showman’s work. His other job was fully to harness Ukraine’s neo–Nazi fanaticism — in the political sphere, in the military — while dressing it up to look like a presentable democracy worthy of all the billions of taxpayers’ money wastefully lavished upon it. And so to the bout of early-onset schadenfreude.

Read more …

“If Trump had not won the election, pedophilia would have been legalized in the Kamala regime. Indeed, it is likely that Democrat judges would have legalized marriage between women and dogs as “freedom of choice.”

• A Trump-Putin Accord? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Why is it that American liberal Democrats and Europeans are so disturbed that Trump is moving the United States toward normal relations with Russia instead of maintaining a hostile approach to Russia based on proxy wars, sanctions, and endless propaganda? We know why the think tanks and university faculties supported by the military/security complex are upset–their incomes are at stake. But why the Democrats and Europeans? The answer will have to wait until another occasion. This column addresses readers’ questions about the many varied conflicting reports about a Trump-Putin deal. What are my expectations, readers ask, for the Trump-Putin meeting about the conflict in Ukraine? I am pleased that readers think I have been sufficiently correct over the years for my analysis to be of interest.

The outlook for the resolution of the conflict and for a final end of the Cold War is good, but never forget the adage that “there’s many a slip between cup and lip.” First of all, neither leader wants the war. Putin did everything he could to avoid war. He devised the Minsk Agreement which kept the breakaway Donbas republics in Ukraine. He begged for a mutual security agreement and was cold-shouldered. He was forced to intervene in Donbas by Washington, a conflict for which Russia was unprepared. Putin has fought the conflict in the least effective way possible in order to counter the Western propaganda that he had “invaded Ukraine” and Europe would be next. Trump regards the orchestrated conflict the American Zionist neoconservatives created with Russia as a stupidity that is in the way of profitable business between the US and Russia and as a stupidity that is leading to the rise of BRICS and the denial of American business relationships with a large part of the world.

A war leader is the last thing Putin is, a job for which he has no talent. Trump favors business uber alles. So a deal is the most likely outcome. Moreover, statements from Trump, Putin, Lavrov and other officials have created such expectations of an end to the conflict that it is now almost impossible not to deliver a mutually acceptable outcome. Even proxy wars are expensive, and Trump and Musk are committed to reducing the US budget by $1 trillion. That can’t happen with the US shipping hundreds of billions of dollars into Ukraine. Putin and Lavrov remain open for Russia being a part of the Western world. Although Putin was forced by Washington’s aggression to revive Russian nationalism, his heart, like many of his generation, is for Russia to be a part of the Western world.

Perhaps Putin is lost in the past and does not recognize the spiritual and moral corruption into which the Western world degenerated under liberal leadership. If Trump had not won the election, pedophilia would have been legalized in the Kamala regime. Indeed, it is likely that Democrat judges would have legalized marriage between women and dogs as “freedom of choice.” The question before us is: Can Trump and his government, a capable collection of talent, restore American principles or have our principles been so destroyed by decades of university, media, and entertainment propaganda, and by judicial rulings and unconstitutional regulatory rules that have left the American system too far gone to be resurrected?

Read more …

Straight from the White House site. No matter what anyone else may say, America liked what it saw. Duly noted. Compare it to Kallas calling for a ‘New Leader of Free World’. Different worlds if not universes.

• Support Pours In For President Trump, VP Vance’s America First Strength (WH)

Today, President Donald J. Trump and Vice President JD Vance made clear to the world that the United States will not be taken advantage of — a sentiment echoed by the cabinet and members of Congress from across the country.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “Thank you @POTUS for standing up for America in a way that no President has ever had the courage to do before. Thank you for putting America First. America is with you!”

Sen. Lindsey Graham: “I’ve never been more proud of President Trump for showing the American people — and the world — you don’t trifle with this man … He wanted to get a ceasefire. He wants to end the war and Zelenskyy felt like he needed to bait Trump in the Oval Office.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem: “I am so proud of our Commander-in-Chief. Thank you President @RealDonaldTrump and @VP for standing up for America. We will not tolerate the political games and disrespect of America. America is back.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Amen, Mr. President.”

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent: “Thank you, President Trump, for standing up for the American people and our nation on the global stage.”

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum: “Thank you @POTUS for standing strong for America while working to end the killing abroad.”

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins: “American leadership is back — in the Oval Office — and on the world stage. FEARLESS. BOLD. RELENTLESS. We will save America.”

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy: “Thank you @POTUS for standing up for the United States. The American people will not stand for disrespect of our President, Oval Office, or our generous taxpayers. Peace is only accomplished through strength and our allies need to understand that.”

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner: “President Trump is standing up for forgotten Americans, not endless foreign wars. Biden’s legacy — increased homelessness, record high interest rates, all-time highs to buy a house, and Americans footing the bill. That ended January 20th. The American people are behind @POTUS.”

Sen. Jim Banks: “Thank you President Trump for standing up for America!”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn: “Thank you President Trump and VP Vance or standing up for America.”

Sen. Bill Hagerty: “The United States of America will no longer be taken for granted. The contrast between the last four years and now could not be more clear. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Sen. Josh Hawley: “Remember: the U.S. Senate has repeatedly and for years voted BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to Ukraine with no strings attached and with no true oversight. It’s time for some ACCOUNTABILITY.”

Sen. Jim Justice: “Glad to have a @POTUS and @VP in charge that absolutely put America FIRST.”

Sen. Mike Lee: “Thank you for standing up for OUR COUNTRY and putting America first, President Trump and Vice President Vance!”

Sen. Bernie Moreno: “Finally we have a President who will speak the TRUTH and stand up against Washington’s endless wars. American taxpayers have been funding this war, it’s time to stop the killing and stop risking World War 3!”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin: “Under this President— the greatest, freest, and most generous nation on Earth is putting America First. I’d encourage anyone who has a problem with that to reevaluate their priorities.”

Sen. Rick Scott: “Thank you President Trump for standing up for America.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt: “It’s about time we have leaders who say what the American people are really thinking and prioritize the core national interests of America. The American taxpayer is tapped out, and President Trump and VP Vance are spot on.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville: “Thank you Mr. President and Vice President Vance for putting America first”

Majority Leader Steve Scalise: “President Trump is fighting for PEACE around the world and is putting America First as our best negotiator—he’s the only one to get Russia to the table to consider a serious and lasting peace agreement with Ukraine.”

Chairwoman Lisa McClain: “President Trump inherited this war. He has said from the beginning he wants to bring peace. @POTUS is a strong leader, and I know his negotiations will bring a deal together.”

Rep. Andy Biggs: “Gone are the days of foreign leaders walking all over us and snubbing their noses at America’s generosity. There’s a new President and Vice President in town. World leaders would be wise to humble themselves.”

Rep. Tim Burchett: “Job well done by @realDonaldTrump and our VP @JDVance. Give respect to get respect.”

Rep. Mike Collins: “Thank God we finally have a @POTUS who is willing to put America FIRST. Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Rep. Eli Crane: “America First. Thank you, President Trump and Vice President Vance.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw: “If you are the leader of a country in a dire situation with no path to peace without American support, do not come into the Oval Office and argue with the President of the United States in public. Just a word of advice.”

Rep. Andrew Clyde: “President Trump and Vice President Vance are standing up for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Our great country will NOT be taken advantage of or disrespected.”

Rep. Byron Donalds: “This is what putting the AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST looks like. Thank you @realdonaldtrump and @JDVance for standing up for our nation.”

Rep. Brandon Gill: “America First in action. Thank you, @realdonaldtrump and @JDVance, for prioritizing our people and for promoting peace!”

Rep. Lance Gooden: “President @realdonaldtrump and Vice President @JDVance will never allow the United States to be disrespected or taken advantage of. America First, always!”

Rep. Paul Gosar: “Thank you, Mr. President and Vice President. The days of the USA getting pushed around are clearly over.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene: “President Trump and Vice President Vance will put America First every single time. Putting Zelensky in his place while he disrespects the U.S. in the Oval Office is exactly what American leadership should look like. This is what We The People want to see!”

Rep. Pat Harrigan: “America’s priorities come first. @POTUS and @VP made it clear—Ukraine’s interests are not America’s interests. We’ve spent hundreds of billions with no accountability, no clear objectives, and no plan for peace. It’s time to put America first and end this war.”

Rep. Mark Harris: “Thank you, President Trump and Vice President Vance, for boldly defending America’s interests. This is PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH”

Rep. Diana Harshbarger: “The act displayed by Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was nothing short of a massive show of disrespect for the Trump Administration and the American people. Despite this, President Trump and Vice President Vance are holding the line and trying to end this conflict peacefully. God bless them both.”

Rep. Wesley Hunt: “You do NOT blame the people fighting to save your country! America leads—no more excuses!”

Rep. Nancy Mace: “Peace through strength live from the Oval”

Rep. Thomas Massie: “Is this the end of Zelensky’s presidency? He hitched his wagon to Biden and the deep state. They lost and now he doesn’t seem to be playing his cards well.”

Rep. Brian Mast: “American won’t be taken advantage of and America won’t be taken for granted. Thank you, President Trump and Vice President Vance for standing up for America.”

Rep. Addison McDowell: “AMERICA AND THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER ALWAYS COME FIRST”

Rep. Mary Miller: “What has happened in Ukraine is a travesty. Joe Biden threw “gas on the fire.” Ukraine lost an entire generation, and Americans hundreds of billions in tax dollars. We thank God for giving us strong leadership. Thank you @POTUS and @VP for putting America’s interests first, and working to end this terrible war.”

Rep. Riley Moore: “It is amazing to have a President and VP who put America First! Thank you President Trump and VP Vance for fighting for our country and our people!”

Rep. Troy Nehls: “President Trump and Vice President Vance are standing up for the American people. This is America First leadership on display. Thank you POTUS and VP!”

Rep. Ralph Norman: “THIS is strong leadership that is ensuring we put the American people FIRST. Thank you @realDonaldTrump and @JDVance for standing up for our nation.”

Rep. Andy Ogles: “This is what it looks like to stand up for America.”

Rep. Mike Rulli: “You don’t have the cards!”

Rep. Keith Self: “TOUGH and FAIR. The world is witnessing American leadership back in the White House. Thank you President Trump and Vice President Vance.”

Rep. Victoria Spartz: “Zelensky is doing a serious disservice to the Ukrainian people insulting the American President and the American people – just to appease Europeans and increase his low polling in Ukraine after he failed miserably to defend his country. This is not a theater act but a real war!”

Rep. Greg Steube: “Ridiculous grandstanding by Zelensky in the Oval Office. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to defend Ukraine. And this is the thanks the American people get? It’s time to end this war.”

Rep. Marlin Stutzman: “TRUMP IS THE GREATEST NEGOTIATOR AMERICA HAS EVER HAD! AMERICA IS BEING MADE GREAT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!”

Rep. Andy Weber: “America FIRST. Strong, unapologetic leadership on the world stage is BACK!”

Rep. Joe Wilson: “I agree with President Trump that Ukrainian soldiers have been unbelievably brave! Critical Minerals Deal a major step forward toward ending the war responsibly. More sanctions on Russia & arms for Ukraine create maximum leverage for FULL land swap Art of the Deal!”

Read more …

Trump was forced to meet all these guys he didn’t want to see, Macron, Starmer, Zelensky. All three wanted to talk only about war. Trump had enough. He wants peace, he wants to talk to Putin.

• Trump Wanted To Cancel Zelensky Meeting – French Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump was reportedly reluctant to host Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky this Friday. A French diplomatic source, cited by BFMTV on Thursday, suggested that while the White House had planned to cancel the meeting, the decision was reversed after Zelensky called French President Emmanuel Macron and asked him to intervene. Zelensky is visiting the US for a signing ceremony regarding an agreement on rare earths and other natural resources – which Trump has described as repayment for American aid to Ukraine. According to a draft text published by Ukrainian media, cabinet-level officials will finalize the document with their signatures. Asked about Zelensky’s potential visit earlier this week, Trump said, “I hear that he is coming on Friday. Certainly, it’s OK with me, if he’d like to.”

Macron visited the US on Wednesday, reportedly aiming to dissuade Trump from distancing the US from the Ukraine conflict. The Trump administration has stressed that American troops and NATO will not be involved in post-truce security arrangements. Insiders, as reported by Politico, dismissed the Macron-Trump meeting as “a waste of time.” The minerals deal emerged from Zelensky’s proposal for the US to benefit from Ukraine’s resources, which led to tensions after he refused to sign an initial offer from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Zelensky publicly challenged Trump, a tactic criticized as counterproductive by associates of the US president. Trump blasted Zelensky, calling him a “dictator without election” with low public support.

The document set to be signed on Friday outlines a framework agreement at the government level, declaring both nations’ intentions to establish a special fund for investments in Ukraine. Many crucial details were omitted, pending a separate document that is reportedly incomplete. Zelensky has said the terms have improved significantly. “Though it does not include all the security guarantees that Ukraine would like to see, I wanted it to include at least one sentence about them, and it does,” he told reporters. The draft text states that the US supports Kiev’s pursuit of security guarantees.

The minerals deal serves as a sufficient guarantee for Ukraine, Trump stated on Thursday. Hosting UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, he told journalists, “It’s a backstop… I don’t think anybody’s going to play around if we’re there [in Ukraine] with a lot of workers.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the potential US-Ukraine deal on rare-earth minerals “doesn’t concern” Moscow, adding that Russia has “significantly more resources of this kind than Ukraine” and is ready to work with the US in developing rare-earth mineral deposits, including in “our new historical territories.”

Read more …

“I also don’t see clearly how we will curb the crime that would inevitably flood into Hungary along with it..”

• EU Membership For Ukraine ‘Unthinkable’ – Orban (RT)

Admitting Ukraine into the EU would be an “unthinkable” act, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stated, adding that accession to the bloc by Kiev could have severe economic and security consequences for Hungary. Speaking in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday, Orban said that while he would not rule out Ukraine joining the bloc in principle, doing so under the current circumstances would be virtually impossible. “One thing I can say for sure: here and now, this is unthinkable,” he said. He argued that Ukraine’s membership in the EU “would ruin us,” adding that “first, it would destroy Hungarian farmers and Hungarian agriculture. Second, it would subsequently ruin the entire Hungarian national economy.”

Beyond economic concerns, Orban claimed that Ukraine’s accession would lead to an influx of crime into Hungary. “I also don’t see clearly how we will curb the crime that would inevitably flood into Hungary along with it,” he said. “I cannot think of a single argument that would justify Ukraine’s accession from Hungary’s perspective.”Orban has been a consistent critic of Ukraine’s integration into Western institutions, although he argued in 2023 that the EU could sign a five- to ten-year strategic partnership agreement with Kiev to bring it closer to the bloc. He has also pushed back against Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, warning that its accession could escalate tensions with Russia, and suggesting that the country should instead remain a “buffer” between Moscow and the West.

Ukraine applied for EU membership in February 2022, shortly after the escalation of the conflict with Russia. In June 2022, it was granted candidate status.However, Ukraine faces significant hurdles before joining the bloc, as full membership requires the unanimous approval of all EU nations. In addition, the EU has demanded that Ukraine implement a comprehensive set of governance reforms, fight rampant corruption, and harmonize its legislation with EU law. EU officials have never set a definitive timeline for Ukraine’s accession, although former European Council President Charles Michel suggested that Ukraine could join the bloc by 2030, provided it meets all the conditions.

Read more …

“..aiming to reduce the number of diplomats and embassies while focusing on Washington’s immediate interests..”

• Trump Planning Sweeping Cuts To State Department – Politico (RT)

US President Donald Trump is planning an overhaul of the State Department, aiming to reduce the number of diplomats and embassies while focusing on Washington’s immediate interests, Politico reported on Thursday, citing sources and internal documents. According to the outlet, the Trump administration is aiming to prioritize transactional government agreements safeguarding US security and investment interests. This approach, however, involves scaling back on traditional “soft power” tools, including initiatives purportedly advancing democracy across the globe.The new strategy would reportedly involve staff cuts and embassy closures. While the exact number of missions to be shut down remains undetermined, Politico sources claimed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is on board with the policy, with discussions suggesting at least a 20% cut in State Department staffing.

An unnamed official told Politico that the State Department’s Executive Secretariat had reached out to several key US agencies, including the Pentagon and the CIA, with a request to rank US embassies based on their importance to their operations. Politico also obtained a list of potential consulates slated for closure, including facilities in France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Brazil. In some cases, the closure of diplomatic missions would mean the remaining facilities would cover a wider geographic area. Several State Department bureaus focusing on education, environment, and scientific affairs could also face major cuts or closure. The Economic Affairs Bureau is expected to remain, aligning with Trump’s focus on transactional diplomacy. The Consular Affairs Division, responsible for visas and assisting Americans abroad, is also expected to remain one of the pillars of the department, but could experience some staffing cuts.

Trump has already issued an order on reforming recruitment for the State Department, with Politico suggesting this would help create a more “pliable” and easier-to-fire staff. A former senior State Department official cited by the outlet cautioned that this could deter diplomats from expressing dissenting opinions, potentially undermining the decision-making process. Tom Shannon, an ex-State Department official, argued that the Trump administration’s approach would “dramatically shrink the ambit of American diplomacy… [and] the purpose and the practice of our diplomacy and return it, if not to the 19th century, at least pre-World War II.”

Politico also cited critics of the overhaul, who warned that the reforms could have long-term detrimental effects on US foreign policy, particularly in the face of the rivalry with China. The Trump administration has said it seeks to reduce government spending, combat bureaucracy, and fight corruption within the country’s agencies, citing high national debt, with the campaign being spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The US leader has already cracked down on the US Agency for International Development (USAID), portraying it as the epitome of a wasteful agency run by “radical left lunatics.”

Read more …

“.. influence the Wisconsin vote in order to give the Democrats the upper hand in Congress..”

• Soros Trying To Derail Trump’s Plans – Musk (RT)

Elon Musk has backed claims that Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros is spending millions of dollars in an attempt to block US President Donald Trump’s political agenda. The accusation comes after the US Republican Party narrowly passed a budget blueprint on Tuesday in the House of Representatives, leading to concerns that the outcome of an upcoming race for a seat in the Wisconsin Supreme Court could shift the balance of power. On Thursday, former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker claimed in a post on X that Soros has been trying to influence the Wisconsin vote in order to give the Democrats the upper hand in Congress.

“Do the math. The vote on Tuesday night was 217-215. George Soros is pulling millions into the WI Supreme Court race because a 4-3 liberal majority will redraw Congressional districts to squeeze out 2 GOP seats,” Walker wrote. “This is how he blocks the Trump agenda. We can’t let that happen,” he added. Musk agreed with Walker on Friday, writing that derailing Trump’s agenda “is exactly [Soros’] goal.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court race features two candidates: Susan Crawford, who is backed by the Democratic Party and has received donations from Soros, and the GOP’s Brad Schimel – a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge and former Republican attorney general who has been supported by Musk.

Soros and Musk have both invested significant sums into the respective candidates and both sides have accused each other of trying to buy a seat on the Supreme Court. Crawford has criticized Musk’s involvement in the race, suggesting that the billionaire was trying to further an “extreme agenda.” Meanwhile, Schimel has expressed concerns over Soros’ influence, citing his support for “very dangerous ideas” such as defunding the police. According to a survey conducted by the Institute for Reforming Government late last month, Schimel is leading in public opinion polls, with 40% of registered voters supporting the GOP candidate compared to 35% saying they would vote for Crawford. Another 23% of respondents said they were still undecided.

Read more …

“There is no official tally for the total firings and layoffs to date. Still, a review of various reports suggests that it is at least 20,000 people, with an additional 75,000 people accepting deferred resignations, bringing the total affected to nearly 100,000.”

• Musk, White House Respond to Reports of 21 DOGE Employees Resigning (ET)

Trump adviser Elon Musk and the White House have criticized media reports about 21 civil service employees resigning from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on Feb. 25. DOGE, created by Trump by renaming the existing United States Digital Service (USDS), is tasked with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal operations. Reducing staff numbers and limiting hiring are also part of the targeted cost-cutting efforts. In a joint resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained and reported on Feb. 25 by The Associated Press (AP), the 21 staffers said they were refusing to use their technical expertise to “dismantle critical public services.” “We swore to serve the American people and uphold our oath to the Constitution across presidential administrations,” they wrote. “However, it has become clear that we can no longer honor those commitments.”

Musk, who leads DOGE, responded to the AP report on social media platform X, calling it “fake news” and “propaganda.” “These were Dem political holdovers who refused to return to the office,” the businessman wrote. “They would have been fired had they not resigned.” In a statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was dismissive of the mass resignation. “Anyone who thinks protests, lawsuits, and lawfare will deter President Trump must have been sleeping under a rock for the past several years,” Leavitt said. “President Trump will not be deterred from delivering on the promises he made to make our federal government more efficient and more accountable to the hardworking American taxpayers.” In an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, Harrison Fields, the White House principal deputy press secretary, said the issue was an example of inaccurate reporting.

“Democrats and the mainstream media have once again gone off the deep end with their breathlessly inaccurate reporting on President Trump’s widely popular mission to rid the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse,” Fields said. “DOGE has effectively become part of the USDS as a component of the White House, and any leftover career bureaucrats who don’t align with the President or DOGE are neither advised nor welcomed to be a part of this never-before-seen mission to make the government more efficient.” Musk and DOGE have been hit with multiple lawsuits seeking to stymie its operations.

Musk also recently drew criticism after the Office of Personnel Management sent an email to government workers over the weekend asking them to provide a bullet-point list of their accomplishments, with Musk commenting on social media that those who do not respond will face termination. There is no official tally for the total firings and layoffs to date. Still, a review of various reports suggests that it is at least 20,000 people, with an additional 75,000 people accepting deferred resignations, bringing the total affected to nearly 100,000.

Read more …

Small world.

• From Epstein To Diddy: Spotlight On James Comey’s Prosecutor Daughter (ZH)

Speaking Jeffrey Epstein and things being kept under wraps (more on that later), a prosecutor with a famous last name quietly joined the sex trafficking case against Sean “Diddy Combs late last year… In a thinly covered news story from December that’s suddenly relevant again (read on), New York Prosecutor Maurene Comey – whose father James Comey famously refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information & then participated in the Russia collusion hoax – joined the prosecution against Combs. The younger Comey has previously worked as lead prosecutor on both the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases, as well as that of former Epstein cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione. More on that below… Combs is currently facing multiple serious legal charges, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation for purposes of prostitution.

These charges stem from allegations that, from at least 2008 to the present, the impresario led a criminal enterprise aimed at exploiting and abusing women, protecting his reputation, and concealing his conduct. The alleged crimes encompass sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice. Multiple allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors have been made. Last October, attorney Tony Buzbee announced he was representing 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct; 25 of these accusers were minors at the time of the alleged incidents – while he’s also been accused of drugging and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy in a New York City hotel in 2005 and a 17-year-old boy in 2008 who aspired to be on the reality TV show “Making the Band.”

According to former dancer Adria Sheri English, who claimed she was “pimped out” by Diddy, the embattled rapper would hold sex-crazed “freak offs” that often took place away from the “main party” but were kept a secret. In addition to dozens of celebrities, including Jay-Z, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ashton Kutcher, Usher, Kanye West, and Pharrell Williams, several famous politicians are alleged to have attended Diddy’s extravagant parties, including:
Bill and Hillary Clinton
Kamala Harris
Donald Trump
Sen. Cory Booker
Andrew Cuomo
Al Sharpton

How many of these figures were at the ‘main party’ vs. the ‘freak off’ rooms is unknown, however questions have been raised over whether Diddy was running an blackmail operation similar to what Epstein is suspected of. As an aside, it’s hilarious we pretend the NSA and various public / private international agencies and ‘security firms’ don’t have access to precise GPS location information (possibly in real time) and know exactly whose mobile devices were in proximity to alleged victims’ cell phones, etc. According to a TMZ documentary about the Diddy raid “They have 250 cameras they took from his houses. A lot of people may be running from that tape,” said rapper Mark Curry, a former Bad Boy Records artist. TMZ executive producer Charles Latibeaudier said that Combs was “allegedly obsessed with recording everything that went on in his home.”

“I don’t think it’s just celebrities that are going to be shook,” said Combs’ former bodyguard, Gene Deal. “He had politicians in there. He had princes in there. He also had a couple of preachers in there.” And so it suddenly becomes very interesting that the daughter of James Comey is now involved in the prosecution. Is she handling depositions? Or determining which witnesses are involved in the case? Maurene Comey became a US attorney in the Southern District of New York in 2015. In 2019, when she was just 30-years-old, Comey became one of the lead prosecutors in the Jeffrey Epstein case before he was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019.

Two years later, she became one of three lead prosecutors in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s partner in crime and daughter of suspected Mossad operative Robert Maxwell. Before becoming a US attorney, Comey clerked for US District Court chief judge Loretta Preska of the SDNY – who notably oversaw a long-running defamation case filed by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre against Maxwell. Comey was also involved in the case of Nicholas Tartaglione, a former NYPD officer who was convicted of killing four men in 2016, and who was briefly Epstein’s cellmate in the Manhattan Metro Correctional Center. Tartaglione claims to have helped Epstein after ‘finding him unconscious’ (and totally not trying to kill him) prior to Epstein’s actual death.

Read more …

“It may be time the FBI’s New York field office gets paid a visit in the style it’s very well accustomed to doling out.” Mike Benz

• The Dog Probably Ate It (James Howard Kunstler)

Turns out new Attorney General Pam Bondi was a little off the mark earlier this week when she said the Jeffrey Epstein files were sitting on her desk. Actually, it was a six-hundred-pound tar-smeared hairball with a gift tag that read: “To Pamela Jo from her Friends in Blobville, good luck untangling this!” Well, she did tell Fox News host Jesse Waters that the thing sitting on her desk was “disgusting.” As promised, those Epstein files were released on Thursday — a measly two-hundred pages — to much chagrin and embarrassment for all, since the material turned out to be the same old lists and flight logs that every blogger and his uncle has already put out on the Web for years — say, what . . .? But then the plot thickened later in the day when AG Bondi said a whistleblower informed her that the New York office of the FBI and their counterparts in the Southern District of NY (Manhattan) DOJ offices were hiding “thousands and thousands” of pages evidence and other stuff (videos? photos?) they had been sitting on for years.

AG Bondi quickly fired off a letter to brand-new FBI Director Kash Patel demanding that the New York FBI office deliver all that stuff to Washington by eight o’clock in the morning today (Friday). If you were Mr. Patel, rather than waiting until morning, wouldn’t you just take a twilight ride up the Jersey Turnpike from Blobville to the Big Apple with an FBI swat team and bust into both the FBI and DOJ offices there. . . and maybe frog-march a few federal employees onto the street like so many grannies caught praying in front of an abortion mill? Of course, I am writing this a few hours before the Friday morning deadline. So, for now there are only the ancillary considerations in this fast-developing denouement to the longest and slowest-running case of trans-national fuckery in world history. Some little details do stick in one’s craw.

For example, Maurene (spelled that way) Comey, daughter of fired FBI director James Comey has been a lead US attorney out of the SDNY in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the more recent case against Sean (“Diddy”) Combs — both cases revolving around grand-scale sexual depravity among world-class celebrities. Note, too, that the SDNY was the origin point of more recent janky cases brought against Mr. Trump in the 2024 runup to the election.And, as independent investigator Mike Benz points out, Bill Barr was USAG in 2019 when Jeffrey Epstein was finally busted, stuffed into the Manhattan federal lockup, and promptly (shall we say, conveniently) turned up dead a few days later (putting aside the known irregularities involving the disposal of his body and the pathology reports about the cause-of-death).

Did you notice that no one was ever disciplined for that? Not the two guards on the floor that night who claimed they fell asleep. Not the warden of the jail who failed to check whether the security cameras were working (they weren’t) on his most important prisoner’s cell? Nor did Bill Barr ever answer for that, or for some other capers — such as sitting on Hunter Biden’s laptop in the fall of 2019 when Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee held preliminary hearings to consider impeaching President Donald Trump over his inquiring phone call to V. Zelenskyy in Ukraine. The laptop, you surely know, was stuffed with deal memos and emails about the Biden family’s ex-officio financial shenanigans in Ukraine that surely would have amounted to exculpatory evidence and was withheld from Mr. Trump’s lawyers through the entire psychodrama of the impeachment and trial in the Senate.

Read more …

“The whole electoral farce in Romania – complete with the demonization of election front-runner Calin Georgescu – revolves around the upgrading of the Mihail Kogalniceanu base, which will become the largest NATO military base in Europe..”

• Baltic/Black Sea Power Games and Red Lines In A “Strange War” (Pepe Escobar)

No one ever lost money betting on the batshit crazy “policies” of the ferociously yapping Baltic chihuahuas. Their latest power play of sorts is a drive to turn the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake. The notion that a bunch of Russophobic sub-entities have what it takes to expel the Russian superpower from the Baltic Sea and pose a threat to St. Petersburg does not even qualify as cartoonish. Yet that is indeed part and parcel of NATO’s re-configured obsessions, as their warmongering “vanguard” has been relocated to a London-Warsaw-Baltic chihuahuas-Ukraine axis. What kind of black hole rump “Ukraine” will turn out to be after the end of the war – which may not even happen in 2025 – remains to be seen. What’s certain is that in the case of a Ukraine exit – whatever the modalities – enter Romania.

The whole electoral farce in Romania – complete with the demonization of election front-runner Calin Georgescu – revolves around the upgrading of the Mihail Kogalniceanu base, which will become the largest NATO military base in Europe. So, once again, this is all about the Black Sea. NATO wreaking havoc in the Black Sea carries way more savory prospects than NATO via chihuahuas monopolizing the Baltic Sea. Ilya Fabrichnikov, a member of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, has published a remarkable essay essentially focusing on the Black Sea (this is a short version on the Kommersant daily). Fabrichnikov convincingly argues that from an European – UE/NATO – angle, what really mattered in Ukraine was “to move its borders, along with its military, political and economic infrastructure, close to Russia’s, to put under full control the strategic Black Sea trade corridor – which easily stretches further north along the Odessa-Gdansk route – in order to more conveniently and quickly explore the economic spaces of Asia and North Africa, and to begin dictating its terms to Russian supplies of oil, gas and other resources needed by the European economy.”

As this focused power play instrumentalizing Ukraine is unravelling in real time, a replacement is needed – even as warmongering Eurocrats keep peddling their Orwellian “peace is war” dementia non-stop, complete with a non-stop tsunami of sanctions and renewed promises of avalanches of weapons to Kiev. This is a classic Brussels vassals affair – even as the toxic Medusa von der Lugen as head of the EC and Rutti-Frutti as the new head of NATO were essentially appointed by Washington and London. Collectively, Europe has pumped way more military-political funds into black hole Ukraine than the Americans. The reason is simple. For Europe there’s no Plan B apart from that mirific “strategic defeat” of Russia. The EU/NATO Black Sea power play would make it even more imperative for Russia to connect with Transnistria. The only one who can answer whether this is part of the current planning is of course President Putin.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Rogan Elon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1895561803683283100
https://twitter.com/i/status/1895567181083254978

 

 

Heart

 

 

Path

 

 

Duckling
https://twitter.com/i/status/1895211300126613606

 

 

Best friend

 

 

Leopard

 

 

Sing for them

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries