Luxembourg is officially joining the ranks of governments investing in Bitcoin.
The country’s Intergenerational Sovereign Wealth Fund (FSIL) will allocate 1% of its total portfolio — over €7 million — to Bitcoin and other crypto, Finance Minister Gilles Roth announced Wednesday during his 2026 budget presentation in the Chamber of Deputies.
“This is really great news for crypto-assets because this is the first investment of a public fund in bitcoin in Luxembourg,” said CSV lawmaker Laurent Mosar following the announcement.
The move positions Luxembourg as the first Eurozone nation to allocate sovereign wealth into Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, marking a significant symbolic step for Europe’s financial landscape.
Bitcoin as a strategic financial allocation
As of June 30, 2025, the FSIL held $887 million in assets, primarily in investment-grade bonds (53%) and index funds (46%), with less than 1% in cash.
The planned allocation, if implemented at current asset levels, would translate to roughly $9.5 million in Bitcoin exposure through ETFs.
Bob Kieffer, Luxembourg’s Director of the Treasury, confirmed the details in a Wednesday post, explaining that the decision follows the government’s July 2025 approval of a revised investment policy allowing up to 15% of FSIL assets to be placed in “alternative investments,” including private equity, real estate, and cryptocurrencies.
He acknowledged the debate surrounding the move:
“Some might argue that we’re committing too little too late; others will point out the volatility and speculative nature of the investment. Yet, given the FSIL’s particular profile and mission, the fund’s management board concluded that a 1% allocation strikes the right balance, while sending a clear message about bitcoin’s long-term potential.”
Kieffer clarified that the exposure would not involve direct Bitcoin holdings.
“To avoid operational risks, the exposure to bitcoin has been taken through a selection of ETFs,” he said.
Luxembourg as a Bitcoin hub
The decision also aligns with Luxembourg’s broader strategy to cement its status as a fintech and digital assets hub within the European Union.
The country has increasingly become a base for crypto firms applying for MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) licenses, which allow companies to operate across the EU under unified regulatory standards.
By integrating Bitcoin ETFs into a state investment fund, Luxembourg is signaling that digital assets are entering the financial mainstream — not as speculative gambles, but as long-term strategic holdings.
Following a global Bitcoin trend
Luxembourg’s move follows similar steps by sovereign wealth funds across the world. Norway’s $1.9 trillion fund reportedly holds around 11,400 BTC indirectly through corporate investments, while sovereign funds in Asia and the Middle East have begun exploring limited exposure to crypto markets.
The U.K. and Finland also hold Bitcoin. The Czech central bank recently confirmed that it is studying a potential €7 billion shift of reserves into Bitcoin.
For Luxembourg, however, the motivation appears strategic rather than opportunistic — a controlled experiment in digital diversification that underscores the country’s ambitions to lead within Europe’s evolving financial infrastructure.
“Obviously, what’s right for the FSIL might not be right for other investors,” Kieffer noted. “But this allocation sends a clear message about where we believe the future of finance is headed.”
Poland Pushes Back On German Nord Stream Extradition Request, Praises Suspect For ‘Harming Russian War Machine’
Poland is revolting against simple enforcement of laws, with the country’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk this week making clear Warsaw’s position that it won’t follow the German extradition request for a Ukrainian national wanted by EU authorities for suspected involvement in the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions. This is still ultimately pending a Warsaw court decision.
As we detailed previously, the suspect – identified only as “Volodymyr Z” – was initially arrested in Poland on Sept. 30 on a German warrant accusing him of participating in the sabotage. A Polish court has ordered his 40-day detention while deciding on extradition.
The man in custody has been described by Reuters as a Ukrainian diver wanted by Germany. It marked the second recent arrest related to the Nord Stream sabotage investigation, as last month another Ukrainian man was arrested in Italy in connection.
Amazingly, Tusk and many in Poland argue that even if the man took part in the attack, his actions should be viewed positively rather than punished. Tusk is directly challenging and flouting European law and basic norms against sabotage and terrorism.
“The problem with North [sic] Stream is not that it was blown up. The problem is that it was built,” declared Tusk, also posting his defiance on X for the world to see.
He had also said Tuesday, “It is certainly not in Poland’s interest, or in the interest of a simple sense of decency and justice, to charge or extradite this citizen to another country,” as quoted by the Polish Press Agency (PAP). “The decision will be up to the court, but our [the Polish government’s] position here is clear.”
Others within the country’s security and law enforcement establishment agree:
Meanwhile, the head of President Karol Nawrocki’s National Security Bureau, Sławomir Cenckiewicz, told Polsat News on Tuesday that he believes Volodymyr Z. “should not have been detained at all” and “the Polish state should refuse to cooperate in this matter”.
“Poland should not contribute to any operation to extradite a person who has harmed Russia,” he continued. “We need to find a formula in which we will remain within the law, and at the same time we will not hand over to the Germans – or potentially Russians – someone who has harmed the Russian war machine.”
Poland’s judiciary reportedly has up to one hundred days to decide whether it will comply with the European Arrest Warrant, but given the pressure so obviously coming from the prime minister’s office and other government entity’s, it will likely refuse the extradition request.
The problem with North Stream 2 is not that it was blown up. The problem is that it was built.
The mainstream media narrative on this major event which came early in the Ukraine war has shifted dramatically several times. In the opening months, the MSM was lockstep in collectively assuming Russia must have bombed its own key pipelines, effectively economically sabotaging itself and a (at the time) leading European energy export partner.
Then, as we highlighted, there was in 2024 the “bombshell” WSJ Nord Stream report which was a shift, but yet another attempt by mainstream gatekeepers to put official distance between President Zelensky and his supposedly ‘rogue’ top general at the time who ‘oversaw’ the covert op.
The WSJ report with the lengthy title: “A Drunken Evening, a Rented Yacht: The Real Story of the Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage: Private businessmen funded the shoestring operation, which was overseen by a top general; President Zelensky approved the plan, then tried unsuccessfully to call it off,”… has for the most part become the official accepted narrative.
But legendary US journalist Seymour Hersh has maintained the whole time that it was the CIA and a special elite diving branch of the US Navy behind it, in “How America Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline”.
Britain, France, Germany, and Poland are usually the first countries to come to mind among those who discuss NATO’s containment of Russia, but the Netherlands and Belgium are quickly becoming important too.
Rotterdam Port’s chief executive told the Financial Times in mid-summer that space will be reserved for ships carrying military supplies at NATO’s request and that one or more ships “would be docked at the quay for several weeks, four or five times a year.” This will also be coordinated with Antwerp Port.
Rotterdam and Antwerp are Europe’s two largest ports so this isn’t an insignificant move.
Moreover, the Netherlands is a founding member of the “military Schengen” that was agreed to with Germany and Poland in early 2024 for facilitating the movement of troops and equipment. Therefore, these moves are very clearly meant to facilitate the movement of US troops and equipment to Russia’s borders in the event of a crisis, thus leading to the Netherlands and Belgium playing crucial roles in containing it.
It was assessed in early July that “Peace In Ukraine Won’t End The West’s Hybrid War On Russia”, with one of the three cited reasons being that the earlier mentioned four European countries are carving out spheres of influence along its borders as part of the US’ “Lead From Behind” containment efforts.
Their armed forces, as well as the experience and overall quality thereof, are dwarfed by the US’ though so that’s why they’d still need US aid in the event of a crisis with Russia, let alone a hot conflict with it.
Seeing as how the US won’t hang Europe out to dry and cede the continent to Russia, it accordingly makes sense that plans are now underway for incorporating Rotterdam and Antwerp Ports into the “military Schengen” for facilitating the movement of US troops and equipment in such scenarios.
The aforesaid can only realistically be sent to Europe at scale through naval means, thus explaining why those two ports are so important. The US couldn’t reliably contain and “deter” Russia without them.
In terms of the bigger picture, the associated countries – the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, and likely also France – are naturally expected to more closely coordinate their military policies, thus leading to a US-led and fiercely anti-Russian “coalition of the willing” within NATO. Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland are correspondingly predicted to host more of the bloc’s troops and supplies while the rest will play supplementary logistical and financial roles in this containment policy.
The only exception is Turkiye, whose newfound rapid expansion of influence eastward could lead to NATO containing Russia along its entire southern periphery if successful as explained here, but infamously independent Erdogan won’t subordinate his country to the US like the others will. It’s for this reason that the abovementioned collection of countries can be described as US proxies for containing Russia while Turkiye should instead be seen as a semi-equal US partner, not a proxy, in this scheme.
The takeaway from this news about Rotterdam and Antwerp Ports is that the “race of logistics” between Russia and NATO, which is presently unfolding in the context of their proxy war in Ukraine, will continue even after the conflict ends and lead to a more robust US-led containment of Russia. This doesn’t automatically mean that they’ll gain an edge over Russia, just that tensions will persist even after their proxy hostilities cease, and this will in turn keep the European front of the New Cold War active.
… means that at least $1.9 billion in cash has disappeared, has been completely ignored by virtually everyone due to the far shinier daily AI circle jerk, which helps melt stocks up every single day and serves as a wonderful distraction to everything else.
But we were wrong, because someone was paying attention: the Trump DOJ.
Citing “people familiar”, the FT reports that the Department of Justice has opened an inquiry into the collapse of the bankrupt First Brands Group, as federal prosecutors look to untangle how investors and creditors have been left with billions of dollars in potential losses, in what may be very bad news for the company’s banker, Jefferies, which in August was preparing to do a $6 billion refi of the company only to see it slide in bankruptcy a month later. No surprise Jefferies stocks has plunged 30% in the past 3 weeks.
The probe is being led by the US attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, the Manhattan unit that handles large, complex white-collar cases. The inquiry, which is in its earliest stage, has been described as a fact-finding mission given the company filed for bankruptcy protection less than two weeks ago, and many of the details about First Brands’ finances remain unclear.
To be sure, it is not unusual for prosecutors to open investigations when there are public reports of large financial losses stemming from alleged irregularities, and the bar for doing so is low. While the FT notes, that such probes do not necessarily mean any wrongdoing has occurred and may not lead to charges being filed or cases being brought, in this case – where over $2 billion appears to be definitively missing – wrongdoing is all but certain.
As we reported yesterday, on Wednesday one of the largest creditors to First Brands alleged that as much as $2.3bn had “simply vanished” as part of the company’s abrupt failure. That lender, one of several who had provided off-balance sheet financing relying on that collateral, is now pushing for an external investigation into the company’s actions leading up to the bankruptcy.
“The debtors should not be permitted to appoint the very parties that will investigate their own potential misconduct,” the counsel for Raistone, one of the companies that helped arrange off-balance sheet financings for First Brands, wrote in an emergency petition last night.
Separately, First Brands appointed two independent directors to probe how the company financed itself through these opaque off-balance sheet vehicles, summarized in the charts below. The company, which makes windshield wipers and fuel tank pumps for cars, had relied on a web of financiers to fund its operations and a wave of acquisitions.
Asked at a bankruptcy hearing this month where roughly $2bn raised by First Brands through “factoring” – a type of off-balance sheet invoice financing using receivables and inventories – was held, a lawyer for the company said, “we don’t have it”, and “there’s $12mn in the bank account today. That’s it. There’s nothing else.”
As we detailed yesterday, some of the biggest names on Wall Street have been drawn into the debacle, including hedge fund Millennium Management, Swiss banking giant UBS, but most notably investment bank Jefferies, whose actions will be closely scrutinized by the DOJ in the coming days.
Some of the greatest political literature of the 20th century was written during years of violence, war, and upheaval between 1934 to 1946. During such times, the world of ideas leaves the parlor games and comes to affect the fate of millions. These are moments that divide the serious scholars from the pretenders.
During a crisis, from a career point of view, it is always better to stay silent. To speak out risks everything. It requires more than courage. It requires a willingness to put it all on the line to see one’s ideas realized in the real world. It’s also when intellectuals can have their greatest impact on the world. And yet, few do it. Few stand up when they are most needed.
One of my favorite thinkers from this entire period is F.A. Hayek, a monetary economist at the University of Vienna who left (as many did) to take residence in London at the London School of Economics. There he quickly established himself as the alternative to John Maynard Keynes, whose new theories contradicted the whole of classical economics.
Keynes was riding high as the guru of fascistic experiments the world over, even to the point of writing an introduction to the German edition of his book in 1936 when the Nazis were firmly in power. He celebrated the regime and its potential.
In contrast, Hayek represented old-world liberalism. Before his move to London, Hayek had been hard at work on theoretical problems involving capital structures, interest rate signaling issues, pricing as an information tool, the unworkability of socialism, and other such matters. His work in this area ultimately won him the Nobel Prize in 1974.
In the midst of the Second World War, Hayek was alarmed to see England take the direction of economic central planning, different in degree but not in kind to what was happening in Europe and the United States. The new system that had emerged from the Great Depression combined government and the largest corporate sectors into a single unit managed from the top.
His core critique was that no planners could possess the knowledge necessary to make these systems work in any way that would benefit the whole. The answer to social problems was not to assign the job of planning to intellectuals with resources and power, as was being done all over the world. Their plans would necessarily override the planning of individuals and families.
This drew him into facing matters concerning knowledge problems more generally. In a healthy, functioning, and prosperous society, where does the knowledge of resources, risk patterns, technologies, and awareness of changing conditions reside? Not with statesmen and bureaucrats, he said, but with individuals and communities—drawing from the well of human experience—who are more aware of the unique conditions of time and place.
Until this time, Hayek was mostly known to academic researchers and economists. But in 1944, he came out with a book that became a bestseller all over the world. The title was “The Road to Serfdom.” It was widely distributed in the United States too, thanks to a shortened version that appeared in Reader’s Digest.
Every book has an elevator pitch. The one that accompanied Hayek’s book went like this. If the Western capitalist states keep creating welfare states and expanding them, they will mutate into a kind of socialism that will wreck political democracy and freedom more generally.
Despite this summary, this is not really what the book said, however. Its critique was far more sophisticated. What’s odd about the reputation of the book is how it even contradicts the text. Hayek himself said that a limited and universal welfare provision for society can mitigate against revolutionary impulses and stabilize society.
I don’t happen to agree with that view but it is a point worth discussing.
His real point, if we really want an elevator pitch, is that attacks on economic freedom necessarily and always eat away at political freedoms and civil liberty generally. They might be well-intentioned and the people running the planning systems might be the best and the brightest. By overriding market signaling systems and trampling on property titles, they necessarily elevate some to rule over others. Serfdom might not be the plan but it can be the result.
The book spends considerable time examining the relationship between freedom and the information streams necessary for social evolution. The best knowledge is that which is born of experience from a problem itself. Who knows more about agriculture, the World Health Organization or a farmer? Who is going to design the best building to withstand coastal weather in the Southern United States, a Harvard professor or a local builder?
You get the point Hayek was making. But as he indicated, it seemed at the time that all governments in the world had fallen sway to the view that hyper-intelligent and credentialed experts could always structure a social and economic system better than anyone on the ground. This was his target.
The book is brilliant in many ways but there is one chapter that truly gives me the shivers. It’s on the subject of truth: specifically he warns of the end of truth. He writes that every totalitarian system has to seize control of the public mind. Because it has been made available for the first time online, we should reflect on it.
“To make a totalitarian system function efficiently,” writes Hayek, “it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.”
This requires several steps. There needs to be an ideology; that is, a manufactured system of belief that defines a new heaven, a possible hell, and a means of reaching one and avoiding the other. There needs to be propaganda surrounding that ideology, pushed out through every possible venue. And there needs to be censorship of competing views.
All three of these are necessary for a consistent totalitarianism that seeks to manage the public mind. Hayek writes that all such attempts necessarily attack truth and morals: “They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth.”
Indeed, the totalitarian system must replace all old or competing truths with one truth as defined by the party in power according to its own ends.
“The word ‘truth’ itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.”
He concludes with an observation that any collectivist system “ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends.” That is because reason itself is only possible through an individual mind, a single person who is in a position to make an assessment. Turning that over to an agency, a media source, or a government disables the capacity for reason and truth to emerge from the free evolution of voluntary interaction and thought.
Keep in mind that Hayek was writing during a high degree of censorship in all nations. His target was not only the Nazi system and the Soviet system but emergent problems in the UK and the United States. This was his warning: This way put us on the road to serfdom.
As I read Hayek’s fiery chapter, I kept thinking of examples in our own times. There are many that are more obvious now than they would have been even a few years ago.
How many times have you heard that believing in man-made climate change, fixable with deindustrialization, is the one truth and that anyone who doubts it is a crazy and confused dissident? I heard that just this morning on the radio.
There are many such postulates around today, points that you are supposed to believe even though you might have doubts about the evidence. Public health is a good example. The wars over vaccines are no longer about health; they are about compliance and shame for those who have doubts.
The threat of totalitarianism never entirely goes away. We see it in many countries around the world today and sense the threat at home too. Certainly we lived through something close to it in the worst days of the pandemic response.
A mark of the danger always comes with the demand that you must believe such and such in order to be a good citizen and a contributor to the grand project. Hayek’s three elements—ideology, propaganda, and censorship—are the signs that someone is attempting to curate the public mind for totalitarian purposes.
A total state tolerates no dissent. So long as we are free to disagree—and a free people necessarily must exercise that freedom—we have not yet descended into totalitarianism. When it finally does arrive—and we’ve come close—it is too late to stop it.
Hayek was of a generation of rare intellectuals who knew for certain that the battle of ideas is not a mere parlor game. He stood up against the powers that be and made a huge difference, at great personal cost. So must we all.
Heart disease was responsible for 680,981 deaths (22% of the total), making it the leading cause of death.
Cancer followed closely with 613,352 deaths (nearly 20%).
Accidents Rank Third
Unintentional injuries, often tied to traffic accidents, falls, or overdoses, caused 222,698 deaths. This makes them the third-leading cause of death overall, and a major outlier compared to other chronic or age-related conditions. Notably, accidents impact men more heavily, ranking third for them, while they fall to sixth among women.
Aging-Related Diseases on the Rise
Alzheimer’s disease ranked sixth with 114,034 deaths, reflecting the country’s aging population. Meanwhile, other chronic conditions such as diabetes (95,190 deaths) and kidney disease (55,253 deaths) also remain significant. Although COVID-19 caused nearly 50,000 deaths in 2023, it now ranks tenth, far below its peak impact earlier in the pandemic.
Chronic Conditions Among Women
For women, stroke and Alzheimer’s disease rank higher than among men, reflecting longevity differences and aging-related health risks. Stroke is the third-leading cause of death for women at 6.2%, compared to fourth for men at 4.4%. Alzheimer’s also ranks higher among women (5.3%) than men (2.2%), consistent with the fact that women live longer on average.
Mental Health and Other Conditions
Suicide appears in the top 10 for men, making up 2.4% of all male deaths, but it does not appear on the female list. Conversely, hypertension ranks tenth among women (1.5%), while it does not appear in the male rankings.
Elon Musk, controlling owner of social media platform X (formerly Twitter), has agreed to settle a $128 million lawsuit brought by four former Twitter executives.
The settlement, announced on Oct. 8, presents a timeline and outlines specific details for the closure of the case. The exact terms of the settlement will remain private.
The original court documents, filed in March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, indicate that Twitter ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, former Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal, former Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde, and former General Counsel Sean Edgett claimed that Musk withheld their severance pay after purchasing Twitter in 2022.
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs claimed that Musk originally agreed to buy Twitter for $44 billion but tried to back out of the deal when the stock market declined. Twitter then sued Musk to enforce the deal, and after several months, the deal closed at its original price.
“Defeated, but still determined to avoid his obligations, Musk then tried to recover some of what he paid by repeatedly refusing to honor other clear contractual commitments,” the plaintiffs claimed.
According to the lawsuit, some of those agreements included severance pay for Twitter’s top executives.
“Accordingly, most public companies provide their executives with severance benefits that include the value of … unvested stock awards, as well as their salary and other benefits for a defined period of time, if they are terminated or constructively terminated following a change in control,” the plaintiffs claimed.
Court documents show that Musk began purchasing Twitter stock in January 2022, eventually accumulating about 5 percent of the company’s shares. By April 2022, he disclosed holding 9.2 percent of Twitter’s stock.
In the same month, Musk offered to buy Twitter at $54.20 per share—a 38 percent premium over the stock’s closing price on the day before his investment in Twitter was disclosed.
On April 25, 2022, Twitter, Musk, and his wholly owned entities X Holdings I Inc. and X Holdings II Inc. entered into a merger agreement with Twitter.
In August 2022, Musk and X agreed to settle a separate lawsuit filed by almost 6,000 former Twitter employees claiming that they were owed nearly $500 million combined in severance pay.
Musk and his attorneys also recently filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for his failing to file a beneficial ownership report with the federal agency in a timely manner. Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the commission requires anyone acquiring more than 5 percent of a company’s common stock shares to file that report.
The SEC’s complaint contended that Musk underpaid by at least $150 million for his purchases of Twitter common stock during that period.
It alleged that because of his late filing of the beneficial ownership report, investors selling Twitter common stock between March 25, 2022, and April 1, 2022, did so at artificially low prices.
Beijing Moves To Curb Rare Earth Supplies Weeks Ahead Of Trump-Xi Talks
China has announced sweeping new export curbs on rare earths and other critical materials, tightening its grip on global supply chains just weeks before Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet for trade talks, according to Bloomberg.
The Ministry of Commerce said Thursday that foreign exporters using even trace amounts of Chinese rare earths must now obtain export licenses, citing national security. Equipment and technology for processing rare earths and manufacturing magnets will also face new restrictions.
Beijing later expanded the list of controlled products, effective November 8, to include five additional rare earths — holmium, europium, ytterbium, thulium and erbium — along with lithium-ion batteries, graphite anodes, synthetic diamonds, and related equipment.
The rules mirror U.S. restrictions that bar Chinese firms from accessing advanced chips and manufacturing tools. China supplies about 70% of the world’s rare earths, which are critical for semiconductors, electric vehicles, military equipment, and other high-tech industries.
“This is to raise the stakes and demonstrate China has leverage and cards to play,” said Dylan Loh of Nanyang Technological University. “It’s done to put them in the strongest possible position in trade negotiations with the US.”
Bloomberg Intelligence noted that the new policy explicitly denies exports for defense use, sharpening earlier language that only required licensing. Analyst Eric Zhu said the rules could derail Western efforts to build supply chains independent of Beijing.
Bloomberg writes that some measures appear aimed directly at the U.S. chip sector. The Commerce Ministry said rare earths used in developing computer chips and artificial intelligence with military potential would now face case-by-case scrutiny. “The implicit threat is that Beijing could throttle rare-earth exports to chipmakers in retaliation for foreign export controls on chip sales to China,” said Christopher Beddor of Gavekal Dragonomics.
The U.S. Defense Department has tried to reduce reliance on China, including a $400 million investment in MP Materials for a new magnet plant. But industry leaders remain worried. “Anyone that is sourcing equipment from China might not get it — which happened before — and also if you’ve got tech or equipment from China you might not get service requests answered,” said Wade Senti, president of Advanced Magnet Lab.
Meanwhile, Beijing added 14 foreign organizations, including BAE Systems, to its “unreliable entity list” in apparent retaliation for Washington’s expanded sanctions on Chinese firms.
China’s Commerce Ministry warned that some overseas organizations had allowed rare earths to flow into sensitive sectors such as defense despite licensing rules. “Such actions have had a negative impact on international peace and stability,” it said.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Finnish President Alexander Stubb announced a joint deal to build icebreaker ships during a White House meeting for talks related to trade and security on Oct. 9.
“We have a big order coming up … and we negotiated a pretty tough price,” Trump said during the Oval Office gathering.
“We’re buying the finest icebreakers in the world.”
Icebreaking ships are specially designed and constructed with reinforced hulls, oversized engines to drive through obstructions, and custom shapes to crush ice and create pathways.
The deal includes 11 ships valued at approximately $6.1 billion, four to be built in Finland and seven in the United States, according to the president.
Available details are limited, and more information is coming soon, a White House spokesperson told The Epoch Times.
Known as the “Land of a Thousand Lakes” because of its vast watery landscape, the Nordic nation’s ports freeze every winter, so Finland developed superior icebreaking technology over the past 100 years out of necessity.
Approximately 60 percent of all icebreaking ships are built in Finland, and the nation’s engineers are responsible for designing 80 percent of the world’s fleet, according to Stubb.
Leaders from the country helped found the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort—also known as the ICE Pact—a joint agreement from July 2024 between Finland, the United States, and Canada to further the advancement of Arctic shipbuilding.
“You’re going to be teaching us about the icebreaker business,” Trump told the Finnish leader.
The United States has one ship controlled by the Coast Guard with icebreaking capabilities, while Russia has approximately 40, Trump noted.
Finland can help close the gap, according to Stubb.
“You need to start ramping it up, and this is an indication that we’re going to do it, and we’re going to do it together,” he said.
“I think we’re the country that can provide them at half the price and half the time.”
Elected in 2024, the 57-year-old Finnish president—who previously served as prime minister, foreign minister, and as a member of the European Parliament—said the partnership will help the two countries more closely align their foreign policy strategies.
“It’s a huge strategic decision by the president as well, because we all know that the Arctic is important strategically … and in terms of the economy as well,” Stubb said.
“I know I come from a small country, but for us to be able to work together with you is extremely important from a strategic perspective, as well.”
Trump first met Stubb in France last year. The two played golf—prompting Trump to praise the Finn, who played college golf, for his skill on the course—after an impromptu March get-together in Florida at the president’s Mar-a-Lago home.
As the open press event was winding down, Trump told reporters that discussions with Finland’s delegation would continue in the Cabinet Room.
Stubb mentioned potential topics of interest, including quantum computing and the development of 6G networks for communication.
Also present for the visit were Finland’s prime minister, Petteri Orpo, and its ambassador to the U.S., Leena-Kaisa Mikkola.
The prime minister applauded the agreement as a symbol of optimism for the Finnish people.
“This deal is very important to Finland and our economy because our economy is suffering a lot because of the Russian aggression in Ukraine,” Orpo said.
“And this deal … means investments, it means jobs, and jobs mean hope. That’s why this is so important.”
Feminists Have Discovered “Nose Ring Theory” And They’re Not Happy
In the swiftly degenerating world of western relationships one factor above all others can be identified as the culprit: Feminism. The driving force behind third-wave feminism is not the pursuit of equal rights (which women already have), it’s the pursuit of power. Like any communist movement, unilateral power over society is the end goal.
When power is the goal, such movements naturally attract narcissistic people and inspire narcissistic behaviors. How can the nuclear family function when the female half of the equation (which is supposed to act as a nurturing balance) is conditioned to become self serving, ego-maniacal, conflict oriented, status obsessed, victim obsessed and desperate for control?
Today, 63% of men are single with the majority not looking for a partner. By the year 2030, 45% of western women between the ages of 25 and 45 will single and childless (spinsters). It’s a demographic disaster; it’s the end of civilization as we know it, and that’s exactly what the political left wants.
Feminism is the key to creating this crisis because it disrupts the basic biological and psychological imperatives of men and women – this is well documented. But beyond women using their prime years to pursue careers over marriage and family, there us the factor of emotional and mental incompatibility with the vast majority of men.
Even if modern women decided they prefer to find a man in 2025, most men do not want them. This has led to what some are calling the “female loneliness epidemic”; a rise in women seeking relationships but unable to find men willing to reciprocate. Within feminist circles, the word on the street is that men are “no longer approaching”.
This is a trend that is visible in many European countries (and Canada and Australia) where feminism has been allowed to spread beyond universities and into vital social structures. Men wait for women to approach, or, they avoid women altogether.
The theories are numerous. Feminists claim men are “losing their masculinity” and are “too frightened of strong independent women”. This is a bit of gaslighting and a bit of cope. At no point do modern women ever consider the possibility that they are the problem, nor do they ever ask men to explain the situation. Why? Because they don’t want to hear the truth – They are the problem.
One particular trend that has gone viral and has feminists enraged is “nose ring theory”, also known as “septum ring theory”.
The trend is based on an observable stereotype: The idea that many crazed feminists on social media tend to have the exact same physical characteristics. It’s the blue hair, the face, neck and full body tattoos, the high cut bangs and, of course, they almost always seem to have septum rings in their noses. Men have noticed the similarities and are now avoiding any woman with the same features.
The theory is supported by the leftist habit of using symbolic identifiers, much like a cult would use to pick out other adherents in a crowd. When the pandemic mandates failed to garner enough public support in the US and the mask requirements were abandoned (largely because the masks were proven to be useless), the political left continued to wear them anyway. Why? Because the masks had become symbolic of the cult, a uniform for the woke.
The septum ring is the new covid mask. It’s a signal to other believers that they are on the same side.
Then there’s the psychological concerns. Women with inordinate body modifications including ample piercings and tattoos are seen by men as self obsessed, impulsive or mentally incapable of settling for normality. Nihilism is common, not to mention depression, manic unpredictability and lack of emotional intelligence (reason). In other words, they might be unhinged. This doesn’t stop some men from looking for a good time, but it does stop them from seeking a long term relationship.
Feminists seem to have recently discovered “nose ring theory” and they are not happy. They admit that the theory is somewhat accurate, but they also argue that men are not being honest about why they are avoiding feminists. They say that men are scared away by the septum ring (feminism) because it represents “freedom” and a “woman who will not be controlled”. In reality, it simply indicates a women who has succumbed to woke ideology, a form of insanity that very few men are interested in dealing with (and these women then wonder why they are living alone with their cats).
Woman responds to people saying “nose ring theory” when they see her
In the past, leftist women were more difficult to identify and avoid. So many men have been caught in the trap, blinded by the promise of companionship only to be held hostage by a succubus who cleaves their soul and destroys the one thing men value above all else: Peace.
Thankfully, the political left’s propensity for rabid self identification has saved a lot of men a lot of grief. When feminists are easy to spot from a mile away, the conflicts associated with broken families are easier to defuse. Years of horror can be prevented. If men can’t have normal and healthy relationships anymore, then there’s no reason for them to chase modern women. Feminists have helped men to avoid life-wasting affairs, simply by wearing an ugly piece of jewelry in their faces.
