Concerns are mounting in China as the Communist superpower advances humanoid robot development to replace human soldiers on the battlefield, prompting calls for “ethical and legal research” into this Terminator-like technology to “avoid moral pitfalls.”

An op-ed published by Yuan Yi, Ma Ye and Yue Shiguang in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Daily warned that faulty robots could lead to “indiscriminate killings and accidental death,” which would “inevitably result in legal charges and moral condemnation.”

The South China Morning Post reports:

The authors cited American science fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, a set of principles that have influenced discussions about the ethics of real-world applications in the field.

The authors said that militarised humanoid robots “clearly violate” the first of Asimov’s laws, which states that a robot “may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”. They added that Asimov’s laws needed to be overhauled in the light of these developments.

They also highlighted legal implications, saying that humanoid robots in military scenarios should comply with the main principles of the laws of war by “obeying humans”, “respecting humans” and “protecting humans”.

The authors emphasized that robots must be designed with constraints to “suspend and limit excessive use of force in a timely manner and not indiscriminately kill people.” Additionally, the trio cautioned against hastily replacing humans with robots, noting that robots still lack essential capabilities such as speed, dexterity, and the ability to navigate complex terrains.

“Even if humanoid robots become mature and widely used in the future, they will not completely replace other unmanned systems,” the article said.

Concurrently, the U.S. Army is intensifying efforts to integrate robotics, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems, aiming to enhance human-machine collaboration between soldiers and advanced robots on the battlefield, according to Interesting Engineering.

Scientists at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory (DEVCOM ARL) are pioneering advancements in ground and aerial autonomous systems, as well as energy solutions, to bolster the mobility and maneuverability of these technologies, the technology website reports.

“We are bridging the gap between humans and robots, making them more intuitive, responsive, and, ultimately, more useful for the Soldier,” said a lead researcher for the Artificial Intelligence for Maneuver and Mobility program. “ARL researchers have demonstrated an interactive bi-directional communication system that enables real-time exchanges between humans and robots.”

And of course (CGI): 

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Why has hunger in America absolutely exploded during the past 4 years?  And why are store closings in the United States on pace to set a brand new record high this year?  A lot of people out there don’t want to admit that the U.S. economy has been crumbling for a long time.  One recent survey discovered that 70 percent of Americans are the most financially stressed that they have ever been in their entire lives.  That figure alone tells us that we have a major economic crisis on our hands.  The cost of living has been rising much faster than paychecks have been, and most of the country is just barely scraping by from month to month.  Anyone that attempts to deny this is simply not living in reality.

According to Axios, 15.6 percent of Americans are now dealing with food insecurity.  Sadly, that figure has nearly doubled since 2021…

In May, 15.6% of adults were food insecure, almost double the rate in 2021. At that time Congress had beefed up SNAP benefits and expanded the Child Tax Credit driving down poverty rates, and giving people more money for food.

This is where we are at guys.

Millions upon millions of Americans are going hungry on a regular basis, and demand at food banks all over the nation has skyrocketed.

For example, demand at a food bank network in Philadelphia is up 120 percent over the past three years…

In Philadelphia, the Share Food Program, a major food bank network, has reported a 120% increase in demand over the past three years. “As soon as the government support pulled back in 2022, we started to see the numbers go up,” the outlet quoted Executive Director George Matysik as saying.

And the Atlanta Community Food Bank is reporting that demand is up 60 percent over the past three years…

New data shows food insecurity is worsening across Georgia, with the Atlanta Community Food Bank reporting a 60% increase in demand for meals over the past three years.

According to a study by Feeding America, one in five children and one in ten seniors in Georgia are facing hunger. The issue is particularly severe in the South, where nearly 90% of counties with high food insecurity rates are located.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of Georgians – over 57% — don’t meet the criteria for federal assistance like SNAP.

Those that are trying to convince us that everything is okay just need to stop.

Everything is most definitely not okay.

If things were okay, U.S. store closings would not be on pace to set a brand new all-time record high this year…

Store closures across the U.S. continue to rise, and remain on track to far significantly surpass both new openings and the figures seen in 2024.

According to a new report from research and advisory firm Coresight Research, cited by CoStar News, 5,822 store closures were recorded as of June 27, compared to 3,496 closures announced during the same period of 2024.

There is no way that you can spin those numbers.

Stores are either closing or they are not.

Meanwhile, large employers throughout the nation continue to conduct mass layoffs.

Today, we learned that Intel is giving the axe to hundreds of workers in Oregon…

Intel plans to lay off 529 Oregon employees by July 15, according to a notice newly filed with state workforce officials. These are the first of sweeping job cuts that will ultimately eliminate several thousand positions across the company.

The chipmaker will cut jobs at all its major Oregon campuses and across various business units. Engineers comprise nearly 300 of the Oregon workers losing their jobs in this round of layoffs, according to Intel’s filing.

And Levi Strauss has decided to eliminate hundreds of jobs in Kentucky…

Levi Strauss & Co. is axing hundreds of jobs by closing a distribution center in Hebron, Kentucky.

The company, known worldwide for its iconic denim, is axing 346 jobs as a result of the closure.

The layoffs are expected to begin on August 18 or during a 14-day period beginning on that date.

This reminds me so much of 2008 and 2009.

And just like 2008 and 2009, home sales have fallen to extremely depressing levels.

At this stage, condo sales are dropping particularly rapidly…

Sales are sliding just as fast. Markets like Dallas, Palm Bay, Port St. Lucie, and Orlando saw condo sales drop over 30 percent year-over-year, with Florida again dominating the list of hardest-hit areas. Condo prices are falling for a number of reasons. One major factor is that the market is flooded. There are 80 percent more condo sellers than buyers.

The condo bubble has officially burst, and prices are now absolutely plunging in markets that were once considered to be very hot…

The biggest condo price drops are hitting Florida and Texas. In May, Deltona, Florida saw prices fall over 32 percent year-over-year — the steepest decline nationwide. Crestview, Florida (down 32 percent), Houston, Texas (down 23 percent), Tampa, Florida (down 19 percent), and Oakland, California (down 20 percent) also faced sharp drops. Seven of the top ten metros with the largest price declines were in Florida, two in Texas. Sellers in parts of Florida have had to drop prices below $10,000.

Can anyone out there dispute the facts that I have just presented?

Of course not.

Economic conditions really have gotten worse than they once were.

The primary reason why the Democrats lost the last election is because the economy deteriorated substantially while Joe Biden was in the White House.

Today, most Americans can remember a time when they were doing much better than they are at this moment.

Unfortunately, decades of incredibly bad decisions really have brought us to the precipice of an economic catastrophe.

So let us hope that our leaders make much better decisions from this point forward.

And let us do what we can to support those that are working with the poor and hungry, because there are so many of our fellow Americans that are deeply suffering right now.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Authored by Caroline Boda via The Center Square,

In the year that has passed since the assassination attempt of President Donald Trump in Butler, Pa., efforts to increase female presence in law enforcement have waned.

The fallout from the Secret Service’s handling of the assassination attempt has led Republican lawmakers to question the nationwide effort to increase the female recruitment rate to 30% by 2030.

By 2022, the “30×30 pledge” had the signatures of 150 law enforcement agencies. Signees included the Secret Service, FBI and U.S. Marshalls.

Since taking office in January, Trump has signed several executive orders repealing DEI initiatives and has subsequently revoked funding from institutions who have not complied with these orders. This led some law enforcement agencies, like the Des Moines Police Department, to abandon their 30×30 pledges.

At the center of the Secret Service’s malfeasance in Butler, Pa. last summer was the agency’s former director, Kimberly Cheatle, the second woman to hold the agency’s top position.

Cheatle was called to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee one week after the assassination attempt last year. She was grilled with questions about how an armed man was able to scale a roof about 130 yards from a former president, and after calls to resign came from both sides of the aisle, Cheatle resigned.

Republicans took the opportunity to link the events of July 13, 2024, to the Secret Service’s recent DEI initiatives.

U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., called Cheatle a “DEI horror story.” Others, like U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., questioned Cheatle about her support of the 30×30 pledge and asked if standards for new agents had relaxed as a result.

Others questioned the height of female Secret Service agents who were part of the detail and were not tall enough to shield the 6-foot-3 Trump from a bullet.

After returning to the Oval Office for a second time, Trump appointed Sean Curran, one of the Secret Service agents on stage with him on July 13, to Cheatle’s job.

The Secret Service announced this week that it has implemented broad reforms to “ensure clear lines of accountability and improved information sharing” as a response to last year’s assassination attempt. The agency also announced Wednesday that six agents were issued suspensions related to the events in Butler last year.

The United States has already long been engaged heavily into two war zones it can’t control – namely Ukraine and Gaza – and still looks to pivot to a third. A fresh report in Financial Times says the Trump administration is demanding to know what is Pacific allies will do in the event of a war with China over Taiwan.

Specifically the US government has been pressing Japan and Australia to clarify their roles in the event that China moves militarily on Taiwan. Elbridge Colby, US under-secretary of defense for policy, has held meetings with Australian and Japanese officials in recent months with this end in mind.

Colby has made clear in a Sunday statement that he’s working on implementing President Donald Trump’s agenda of “restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength.” He outlined that this includes “urging allies to step up their defense spending and other efforts related to our collective defense.”

And separately, a US defense official described that the “animating theme” of these recent discussions with allies was “to intensify and accelerate efforts to strengthen deterrence in a balanced, equitable way.”

The official was quoted in FT as saying “We do not seek war. Nor do we seek to dominate China itself. What we are doing is ensuring the United States and its allies have the military strength to underwrite diplomacy and guarantee peace.”

But Beijing might understandably disagree, given that in recent months it has been confirmed that the US maintains hundreds of Marines in Taiwan, including on its small outlying islands near China’s coast, ostensibly for “training” purposes.

We can imagine what Washington’s reaction would be if China had PLA troops all over Cuba or even US territory Puerto Rico, in support of a Puerto Rican ‘independence movement’.

Japan, which has never had an actual military to speak of after its WW2 defeat, would likely be expected to play host to American troop build-ups and naval fleets.

As for Australia, it has clarified it will not commit troops in advance to any conflict. As laid out by the defense minister:

Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said on Sunday, responding to a report that the Pentagon has pressed its ally to clarify what role it would play if the U.S. and China went to war over Taiwan.

Australia prioritizes its sovereignty and “we don’t discuss hypotheticals”, Conroy said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Recent trade conflicts with China have threatened to devastate whole Australian export industries, and so Australia is not in any mood to poke the panda over theoretical future US war plans.

Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, its defense industry minister said, responding to a report that the Pentagon pressed its ally to clarify what role it would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan https://t.co/zVqw1tBqiA pic.twitter.com/ak7SUQPDRd

— Reuters (@Reuters) July 13, 2025

One regional analyst was quoted in FT as pointing out the obvious, from allies’ perspectives: “President Trump has not committed to defend Taiwan, so it is unrealistic for the US to insist on clear commitments from others.” 

And given that America’s recent entangling conflicts have not gone well for Washington, and remain unpopular even among the American public (Iraq and Afghanistan being the foremost examples), why would allied countries want to sign on to such military adventurism at all, much less in advance?

Taking creative inspiration from Latin American drug traffickers, the United States Marines Corps is testing low-profile “narco subs” intended for potential use in the Indo-Pacific theater. The Marines have another term and — of course — an acronym for the concept: the Autonomous Low-Profile Vessel (ALVP) program.

The unmanned vessel being tested by II Marine Expeditionary Force is called the “Sea Specter,” and it’s produced by Gibbs & Cox, is a subsidiary of Reston, VA-based Leidos.  “I think that it’s OK to say that those narco subs inspired the concept, but that’s where the similarities end,” Gibbs & Cox chief engineering officer Jeff Bowles told Defense One. “Narco subs are dirty. They’re dangerous. They’re not engineered. But in principle, their mission is the same — move a large volume of cargo with the minimal chance of being observed by anyone else.”

Over recent decades, US operations have been focused on counterinsurgency and other enemies ill-equipped to challenge logistical connections using the air or sea. However, in a potential war with China — a so-called “near-peer” — American ships and cargo planes could be much more vulnerable. “So you might not be able to take something that’s a big, high-value target, or something that’s slow moving or highly observable, to deliver re-supplies to the troops, because it might give away their position,” Bowles says.  

US commandos jump on MOVING narco-cartel’s submarine in dramatic drug bust

STORY: https://t.co/GkZj82fBTV pic.twitter.com/mXJdosbeXw

— RT (@RT_com) July 12, 2019

Along the Sea Specter’s 65-foot frame, its above-water profile ranges from a couple feet to mere inches. Its command and control system is produced by Sea Machines Robotics. 

With a sensor mounted 8 feet above the deck, the ALPV can see about 5 to 7 miles in front of it, and can carry 5 tons for 2,300 nautical miles, traveling at 8 knots. Tie-downs inside the boat are designed to hold pallets, so the vessels can be loaded down with ammunition, food, fuel, water, or anything else. – Defense News

To put the vessel’s 2,300 nautical-mile range in perspective, it’s a 1,500-mile trip from the US logistical hub on Guam to the Philippines. Dispensing military advice that happens to boost his company’s revenue prospects, Bowles says the Marines may want to send a dozen narco subs on such a supply run in wartime, to allow for half of them to be blown up by China. 

While the program’s current emphasis is on logistics missions, the vessels could have a variety of uses. “This thing could loiter in a prescribed area for a very extended duration,” Bowles said, suggesting they could facilitate communications. “It could also form a picket line to look for intruders. You could line these up, you know, and look for human trafficking, or any type of people encroaching on U.S. territory. These things have the endurance to sit there.”

The current version of the Sea Specter is made of wood. “That’s not the solution that we believe is right for the long-term, and we’re looking to move into preparing for high-volume production out of a different material,” said Bowles, holding out possibilities of fiberglass, aluminum or steel.  

Sneaky robotic supply vessels are not the stuff of nightmares. In that realm, concerns are mounting both inside and outside of China as the Communist superpower advances humanoid robot development to replace human soldiers on the battlefield raising the specter of rogue robot troops unleashing Terminator-style indiscriminate killings. 

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

One of our favorite sayings is:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

It is good on many levels. It indicates that it is okay to get fooled. We don’t expect people to try to fool us, but we are susceptible to it. It does indicate that you have to take some responsibility (if you’ve been fooled) and not get fooled again. If “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by the Who hasn’t popped into your head at this point, there is little I can do on the musical front.

In any case, focusing on “Foolin’” (Def Leppard, and yes, it’s been a long week) seemed to be a better way to start this report, rather than the other analogy that came to mind – “boiling frogs.” The boiling frog “idiom” (had to look that up), was that if you put a frog in water and gradually increased the temperature, it wouldn’t notice, and would be boiled. Apparently there was research done on this (can’t really think of why anyone would do this), and the frogs do try to escape, but that hasn’t stopped people from using this phrase.

So where is this all headed?

Last weekend we published Big Beautiful Production for Security. We continue to believe that the more the administration focuses on the production, processing, and refining of a broad range of commodities and products critical to national security, the better for the economy and markets. Some aspects of the tax law, such as accelerated depreciation, dovetail nicely with this effort. The Department of Defense Investment in MP fits our narrative almost perfectly. We’ve argued that jumpstarting some industries may require government support. This action fits well into the Sovereign Wealth Fund idea that we haven’t heard much about lately. The U.S. will benefit from its investment if it turns out to be a good investment. It isn’t a handout. We’ve seen a lot of headlines about private investment, particularly in chips, but this seems like a new approach (one that makes sense on almost every level).

Using the DoD in this way seems like it can open the door to more investments and allow the American taxpayer to participate in these decisions, rather than just rewarding outsiders. We feel vindicated in our assessment that National Production for National Security is an incredibly important investment theme (and one of the few “concepts” that isn’t entirely dependent on AI spending).

Which brings us to tariffs.

Tariff Angst

In last weekend’s report, the positive outlook was driven by National Production for National Security. We even had some confirmation of that.

The risks were a renewed focus on tariffs. On Monday the President sent some letters, which the market more or less took in stride, prompting us to publish Fake News Tariffs? As the week went on, much of the news flow from D.C. seemed to indicate a renewed emphasis on tariffs as a key policy tool. We even saw something “new” in the tariff arena – potential 50% tariffs on Brazil over their treatment of Bolsonaro. The U.S. has a trade surplus with Brazil and it is difficult to see how this tariff fits an “economic emergency” which has been the underlying policy supporting the President’s ability to determine tariffs unilaterally.

Yet markets barely budged. Every time markets sold off on tariff concerns, the dip was bought and we went through the week virtually unchanged on the S&P 500 and Nasdaq.

The market is either:

• Incredibly reluctant to price in higher tariffs, or
• No longer believes higher tariffs are bad for the economy, profits, and markets.

Let’s look at these two options for a moment.

Tariffs Don’t Matter

There are some people who will argue this. They argued for it before and after the Liberation Day tariffs. They will claim that despite tariffs, the market and economy have been fine.
But is this a widely held view? I don’t think so and it certainly isn’t my view:

• The “pause” put tariffs back into the “neighborhood” of “reciprocal” tariffs. Worse than what many had expected when policy was targeting “reciprocal,” but in the ballpark. There are a number of “estimates” out there for what the “effective” tariff rate is. We’ve seen some as of the end of May as low as 8.8%, but other more current estimates have it around 14%. If we go ahead with these new levels, slated to take effect August 1, the effective rate will increase significantly in the coming months as imports that arrive get hit with these new tariffs. It is difficult to believe that higher tariffs won’t impact the economy over time.
  • Tariff mitigation strategies. We’ve written repeatedly that many (including ourselves) underestimated the various mitigation strategies that could be employed, especially around the “pause” level of tariffs.
• Tariffs take time to have an impact.
  • Companies pre-ordered ahead of tariffs, delaying any impact of tariffs until they need to re-order.
  • There will be negotiations with suppliers about “eating” some of the tariff. Not much will be passed on while those negotiations take place.
  • Finally, with the administration keeping an eye on prices, it behooves some large companies to “eat” the tariffs themselves as price hikes linked to tariffs appear to draw the attention of the administration.
  • Unexpectedly, the dollar is down about 10% since early January (measured by DXY, a broad index of the dollar), which makes imports even more expensive (and makes U.S. exports less expensive – a side benefit).

Tariffs, so far, have been small in actual dollars (it is easy to get caught up in a world of percentages, but the total dollar amount, so far, has been small relative to the size of the economy).

I find it difficult to believe that markets think that higher tariffs won’t impact the economy and markets negatively over time.

That explanation just doesn’t cut it from my perspective.

Tariffs Won’t Get Implemented

This is the real reason markets are taking all the tariff headlines in stride. We were “fooled” once:

• Expect short-term pain for longer-term gains.
• Main Street over Wall Street.
• Unfair and predatory practices against the U.S. must be eliminated or punished.
• Dealz. Countries lining up and begging for deals.

We went through that.

And let’s not forget that the Liberation Day tariffs actually were, in theory, implemented. We went through the midnight deadline with no “stay of execution.” Rallies based on “pauses” or “extensions” headlines faded rapidly, until we got the Big Beautiful Pause. 

Since then, stocks have rallied. The first leg was driven by the “pause,” but stocks have been helped by the ongoing commitment to AI spending, progress on Peace Through Strength, and the Big Beautiful Bill.

Will this administration risk the progress to refocus on tariffs? Why do this, when other avenues for economic development exist (National Production for National Security, the Sovereign Wealth Fund, etc.). Heck there is the possibility of “dealz.” Though it is a bit concerning that there is no clarity over what was agreed to with China, there seems to be confusion about what Vietnam agreed to or didn’t agree to, and many nations are signaling that their negotiating teams are struggling to understand the U.S. objective.

So maybe the market doesn’t want to overreact because we could see deals? That is possible, but it seems unlikely as progress on deals has been slow and if 10% with good friends like the U.K. is the best a country can expect, then we might be ripe for disappointment on deals (or the U.K. may regret what they agreed to).

Or is it the belief that the administration will back down again?

Trump Always Chickens Out (TACO) has become a theme. It is not a theme we subscribe to.

The President will PIVOT. He will shift away from “losers” to “winners.” Do a Google Trends search on “Peter Navarro” – it has dropped to almost nothing since peaking in early April. That has been the President’s style. 

Having said that, there are reasons to be concerned that this shift back to tariffs could be real and could be implemented:

• The President has embraced the concept of tariffs for decades. This is not something he needed to be convinced of. It has been his policy and he believes in tariffs.
• It is easy to see how the President could view tariffs as “winning” so far – no inflation, stocks at all-time highs, and tariff revenue is real. It is far too early to take a victory lap based on tariff policy so far, but there is a narrative around it that could encourage those who really believe in tariffs.
• The President isn’t afraid of taking a “second bite at the apple.” He can pivot away from something and then pivot back. He walks away from deals only to close them later (sometimes with better terms). He can blame the timing on why market reaction was so bad. To some degree, we would agree that had he started with taxes and other policies, then went to tariffs, with a real focus on China, the market would not have reacted as badly. We would have seen some positives and a more targeted approach. So maybe it is worth another shot? It is not a shot I would take, but we aren’t in charge, and the idea that with some other big wins in hand, it is time to try the tariff policies again, has a certain appeal.
• It is easy to interpret market complacency as market acceptance. Our argument is that the market is pricing in a low risk of implementation, rather than accepting that higher tariffs won’t be harmful. But if you believe in tariffs, it is easy to be convinced that the market is signaling that it is ready for another round of higher tariffs.

The idea that the market is simply unwilling to accept that higher tariffs will be implement and kept in place seems to be the best explanation for why tariffs have failed to move the market this past week. The market has been fooled once and won’t be fooled again.

Bottom Line

The market has been fooled once and won’t be fooled again. Or will it? Has the market simply become so complacent that it is not only missing (or ignoring) signs that the administration is serious about trying again on tariffs, but also that the complacency is giving the administration the conviction it needs to try again?

There are a lot of good things going on with the economy and hopefully the MP deal referenced earlier is a template and a sign that the administration is going to aggressively address crucial areas where we are nowhere close enough to being self-sufficient to be secure.

For markets, be overweight anything that should benefit from this theme of National Production for National Security. Be underweight industries most affected by tariffs. While it might be “safe” to assume the administration will back down, extend, and try to move towards deals, there seems to be some real risk to that.

On rates, if it wasn’t for tariffs, I’d be bullish again here, but with tariff risk, probably neutral to slightly bearish the long end.

Credit should continue to do well under most scenarios, but owning the companies that will benefit from domestic production should outperform.

Crypto should continue to benefit from uncertainty, and the increased attention that the administration will pay to it in the coming weeks and months now that they’ve knocked off some other big projects and have time to focus.

A President, who has had several big recent wins, truly believes in tariffs, and cannot like the TACO meme (which we don’t like either) may be far more serious about this then is currently getting priced in. With those other big wins under the belt, the market should not respond as poorly as it did the first go around, but a pullback of 5% would seem highly likely as we near August 1st without any major reprieve.

Academy Securities gets the week started from 6-6:30 Monday morning on Bloomberg Surveillance. I wonder if the President will be watching as he certainly was on jobs day when he posted this on Truth Social. If so, we will be trying to send one message loudly and clearly – continue to focus on extricating ourselves from supply chain bottlenecks in areas where we need to be truly secure – chips, pharma, and certain refined/processed commodities. That is where the economic opportunity lies and it will be good for jobs, the economy, the national psyche, and markets.

Good luck, I hope I’m wrong on my tariff concerns and hope that we are just at the very beginning of a big push towards national production for national security! We have been “fooled once” but are we set up to be “fooled” in the other direction? That seems to be the biggest risk to this market.

Russia launched over 620 drones and long-range missiles in another massive overnight attack, numbers which come close to the record-setting assault from last week, which consisted of over 700 projectiles.

Ukraine authorities said the aerial attack killed at least six people, and that it highlights the urgent need for the country to obtain more anti-air defense systems from allies, including Patriots from the United States.

“Russia continues its strategy of terror, striking specific cities and regions with concentrated attacks,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in his nightly address.

He described that many of the drones were decoys or “simulators” which are designed to distract and overwhelm defense systems, making it harder to intercept the actual assault kamikaze drones.

Zelensky further said that included in the overnight aerial attack were 26 cruise missiles, and that some half of all the UAVs were Iranian-make Shaheds.

Hits on southwestern Chernivtsi region saw two people killed and 20 injured, even though this area is far from the front lines of battle with Russian forces.

Another distant place, Lviv in the far western Ukraine, saw a dozen wounded from the attacks, and in the east two people died in Dnipropetrovsk and three were injured in Kharkiv.

President Trump within recent days has ramped-up weapons shipments to Kiev, after the Pentagon had announced a stoppage to arms transfers, which the White House sought to dismiss as a misunderstanding.

Zelensky in his latest remarks further touted progress on a “multi-level agreement” for new American Patriot missile systems and interceptors.

All of this is happening despite US defense officials having long sounded the alarm over diminishing US stockpiles. Many Patriots were used in the latest conflict involving Iran and Israel, and now the US looks to give more away to Ukraine.

🔴 Russia conducted one of the most massive attacks on Ukraine to date tonight.

Preliminarily, Russian troops deployed:
– Between 560 and 700 drones.
– Over 15 Kh-101 cruise missiles.

The main targets of the assault were Lviv, Lutsk, and Chernivtsi. pic.twitter.com/hBR0IQoLou

— UNITED24 Media (@United24media) July 12, 2025

The Trump administration has shifted in recent days to claiming that defending Ukraine is ‘America first’ – which is the absolute opposite messaging the White House was advancing earlier in Trump’s term.

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

On Thursday, shares of MP Materials surged over 50% after news broke that the U.S. Department of Defense would become the company’s largest shareholder. Through a $400 million purchase of special stock, the Pentagon has taken a 15% stake in the rare earth miner, securing long-term access to critical materials used in everything from electric vehicles to fighter jets.

This deal also includes a ten-year commitment from the government to purchase all the magnets produced at MP’s upcoming “10X Facility,” along with a minimum price guarantee for key inputs.

Backed by an additional $1 billion in private financing from JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, the partnership is a strong signal that America is looking to reduce its dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains—especially those dominated by China.

While this move currently applies only to rare earth elements, it opens the door to broader speculation about nationalizing critical elements, metals, chemicals and the likes—something I’ve discussed repeatedly over the years on Palisades Gold Radio.

If the U.S. government is willing to take ownership in MP to secure critical resources, it’s worth asking whether they might consider similar involvement in other sectors down the road, particularly in metals like gold, silver, platinum, and copper. These materials, while not as concentrated in foreign hands as rare earths, are nonetheless vital to the functioning of both our economic and military systems.

Gold, beyond its role as a monetary hedge, has geopolitical value as central banks around the world—especially in China and Russia—continue to accumulate it.

If the U.S. dollar were to face a serious challenge—whether from a competing global reserve currency, a loss of confidence due to excessive debt and deficits, or the rise of alternative settlement systems like BRICS-backed gold trade—the government might view control over domestic gold and silver production as a matter of national security.

Gold, in particular, remains a monetary metal held by central banks as a store of value and potential backstop to fiat currency systems. In a scenario where dollar credibility is questioned, the U.S. might move to secure internal gold and silver supply chains to prevent foreign accumulation, stabilize financial markets, and potentially reassert the dollar’s strength through hard-asset backing.

Nationalizing or heavily regulating the domestic mining of these metals could be seen as a strategic safeguard, especially if the metals become central to new monetary architecture or geopolitical power plays.

Silver is essential for solar panels, semiconductors, and medical applications, making it a core input for the green economy.

Copper, often called the “metal of electrification,” underpins nearly every energy transition technology. Platinum group metals play a vital role in emissions control systems and emerging hydrogen fuel technologies.

And last week, former President Trump announced a surprise 50% tariff on copper imports, set to take effect August 1 under national security grounds. The move, aimed at reducing U.S. reliance on foreign copper, caused copper prices to surge over 12% as buyers rushed to import before the deadline. Industry experts warned the tariff could backfire by increasing costs for U.S. manufacturers without meaningfully boosting domestic copper production. Major producers like Chile’s Codelco are awaiting details on which copper products will be affected. The decision has escalated trade tensions and raised concerns about inflation and supply chain stability.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that the comparison between rare earths and these other metals may not be entirely appropriate.

The rare earths situation is far more urgent. China controls nearly 90% of global rare earth processing and over 70% of the raw supply. Just last month, China cut its rare earth exports by 75%, weaponizing its near-monopoly and reminding the world how fragile that supply chain really is.

🔥 70% OFF: Today’s uncomfortable act of self-promotion. Take a run as a paid subscriber to Fringe Finance and I’ll give you 70% off an annual subscription — a discount that you can keep for as long as you wish to stay a subscriber: Get 70% off forever

The U.S. simply doesn’t face that level of dependency when it comes to gold, silver, or copper. Those markets are more diverse, with production spread across North and South America, Australia, and parts of Africa. As such, the strategic threat posed by supply disruptions in those metals is less acute—for now.

That doesn’t mean nationalization or government involvement is impossible; it just means the urgency and justification are different. Rare earths are a clear chokepoint in the current system. Gold and silver, by contrast, are more about long-term positioning and monetary policy than immediate national security.

Even so, the MP deal shows how quickly government attitudes can change in response to global risks. Everyone already knows I’m bullish on miners, but if the market even sniffs out the possibility of broader government partnerships or intervention, it could send valuations soaring.

MP’s massive move is a case study in what happens when strategic importance meets public capital. If that same sense of urgency or opportunity ever creeps into the copper or precious metals space—whether justified or not—the upside could be explosive.

That said, let me be absolutely clear: this is pure speculation. There is no current evidence that the U.S. government plans to nationalize or take equity stakes in gold, silver, platinum, or copper mining companies.

I bring this up not to suggest it’s happening, but to encourage people to consider the implications if it ever does. Please read my disclaimer carefully. I’m sharing an idea, not making a prediction.

But if the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that things once considered impossible can become policy almost overnight.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

One of Barack Obama’s former millennial speechwriters penned a New York Times opinion piece about his strained relationship with his brother-in-law during the COVID pandemic. Despite their deep cultural differences — the author being a “trust the science” liberal elitist who bowed to the government-corporate machine, fully vaxxed and obedient, while his brother-in-law remained unvaccinated and a free thinker — the two eventually reconnected through surfing. 

Thirty-eight-year-old David Litt, a liberal elitist who attended Yale University and later served as a speechwriter for President Obama, felt inspired to write a New York Times op-ed titled “Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?”

“Then the pandemic hit, and our preferences began to feel like more than differences in taste. We were on opposite sides of a cultural civil war. The deepest divide was vaccination. I wasn’t shocked when Matt didn’t get the Covid shot. But I was baffled. Turning down a vaccine during a pandemic seemed like a rejection of science and self-preservation. It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I’d imagined we shared,” the liberal elite millennial opined. 

Litt continued, “Had Matt been a friend rather than a family member, I probably would have cut off contact completely.” 

But only recently — and through shared surf sessions — did Litt’s liberal mind experience a revelation: “These days, ostracism might just hurt the ostracizer more than the ostracizee.” 

Litt’s renewed bond with Matt didn’t erase political disagreements, but it revealed common ground in unexpected places, showing that personal connection can transcend ideological divides and arguing that shunning people in today’s highly polarized America is often ineffective and counterproductive, urging people to keep doors open rather than slam them shut over politics. 

Perhaps Litt’s maturity is finally kicking in — after all, with time, people tend to become more conservative (by the mid/late 30s). Remember, it wasn’t conservatives rushing to become the “Karens of Science” during Covid, pushing to ban the unvaccinated, with some Democrats even threatening them with jail or quarantine camps…

• The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide

Never forget! 

Just three years ago, 30% of Democrats believed that children should be taken away from unvaccinated parents.

Nearly 50% of Democrats believed that the unvaccinated should be sent to camps.

This is what a totalitarian ideology looks like. pic.twitter.com/RSWyxRtrzp

— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) May 26, 2025

As Laura Ingraham put it, “The NYT admits that shunning MAGA didn’t work.” 

Cutting people off and nuking relationships over politics is inherently immature — yet it’s a hallmark of immature liberal elite behavior. We would’ve thought Ivy League education would’ve taught them better. 

Perhaps the real lesson here is that maturity takes more time for liberals — something Litt had to discover the hard way, out in the surf off the New Jersey coast.

Via The Cradle

Less than four months into its rule, Syria’s interim government is under mounting pressure, as each crisis—natural or security-related—casts doubt on its ability to govern and maintain control.

The recent wildfires that tore through northern Latakia were no seasonal accident. They broke out as sectarian killings escalated and suspicions of state complicity grew.

The blaze behind the purge

Never before in Syria had an armed group claimed responsibility for a natural disaster. That changed when Saraya Ansar al-Sunna announced it was behind fires that spread through the Qastal Ma’af region, explicitly stating that the arson attack “led to the fires spreading to other areas, forcing the Nusayris [Alawites] to flee their homes, and causing a number of them to suffocate.”

The statement came just three days into the blazes and only weeks after the same group had claimed responsibility for the June 22 bombing of Mar Elias Church in Damascus’ Douweila neighborhood.

That attack had sparked a rare public dispute between the Interior Ministry and Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. While the ministry blamed ISIS and paraded an arrested cell, the group named a different perpetrator, Muhammad Zain al-Abidin Abu Uthman. Despite vowing to release confessions to back its version, the ministry has remained silent.

Anas Khattab—former Al-Qaeda commander and Nusra Front co-founder, now serving as interior minister—only deepened the contradictions during his visit to the fire zone. He insisted there was “no evidence” of arson, even as his own ministry investigated suspects. 

Khattab’s refusal to acknowledge Saraya Ansar al-Sunna suggests that Damascus still considers it a phantom—a position reinforced when ministry spokesman Noureddine al-Baba publicly dismissed it as “imaginary” during a press conference after the church bombing.

At the same time, some Alawites believe that Interior Minister Khattab is using Saraya Ansar al-Sunna to carry out attacks against Alawites, Christians, and other minorities, while maintaining plausible deniability. 

Coordinated chaos and forced displacement 

In Latakia’s coastal hinterlands, fear was already running high. Many villages had yet to recover from the violence of March, when security raids and sectarian killings devastated entire communities, leaving behind charred homes and mass graves that remain under-reported by official channels. 

Only months ago, bloody confrontations claimed 2,000 lives across the region. Locals, mainly from the Alawite community, saw these events as the culmination of a systematic purge under the new regime. A wave of targeted killings, kidnappings, and violence had left communities deeply scarred.

Just days before the fires erupted, the murder of two brothers working as grape leaf pickers, along with the kidnapping of a girl, sparked widespread protests in the Al-Burjan and Beit Yashout areas in the Jableh countryside. 

These demonstrations, amplified by diaspora voices, coincided almost to the hour with the first outbreaks of fire, feeding widespread suspicion that the flames were a diversion or smokescreen. On the same day this call was issued, the spread of fires in the Latakia countryside forests began to attract media attention.

The Qastal Ma’af fire—the most intense and destructive—was explicitly claimed by Saraya Ansar al-Sunna. Although the group declared it aimed to displace Alawites, some affected villages housed significant Sunni Turkmen populations. Later, the group issued a cryptic clarification: “The burning of Sunni villages is attributed to Nusayri groups, and this is in the context of the ongoing, raging conflict.”

Local sources tell The Cradle that the fire consumed large swaths of forest and farmland, displacing entire communities. Despite the government’s dismissals, few believe this was a coincidence.

Denial and deception by Damascus

Rather than confront the threat, the Interior Ministry downplayed the human hand in the fires. Observers suggest this was a deliberate choice to avoid validating Saraya Ansar al-Sunna’s claim—and to prevent inflaming sectarian tensions.

But some in the Alawite community accuse Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government of weaponizing fire as a tool of demographic engineering. They point to circulating videos of security forces, Sunni Bedouin groups, and even Turkish-plate vehicles setting fires to Alawite lands.

One Alawite source explains to The Cradle:

“The Alawites rely on their land and employment, while Sharaa seeks to bring about a demographic shift in the coastal region. His aim is to strangle the Alawites and kill them, forcing them either to flee the country or remain amid ongoing cases of murder, abduction, and arson. The objective is clear: displacement and the destruction of every source of livelihood.”

The source adds that on July 9, in the town of Al-Haffa in Latakia, a small fire broke out. Thirty young men rushed to extinguish it—all around 21 years old—including nine Alawites. After the fire was put out, the nine Alawite young men were arrested and mysteriously disappeared.

Firefighting aircraft drop water over burning forests in Syria’s Latakia province as wildfires continue to spread for the 10th consecutive day near the Turkish border.#fires #syria #latakia #wildfires #firefighting

By @lynesammouri pic.twitter.com/q0YQru7nOH

— This is Beirut (@ThisIsBeirut_) July 13, 2025

When their families asked the local authorities regarding their whereabouts, the only response they received was: “We transferred them to Latakia.”

Demographic warfare under the cover of fire

Many Alawites believe Turkey seeks to effectively annex parts of the Syrian coast to seize maritime gas reserves, and that attacks by Turkmen and Uighur militants loyal to Damascus are designed to provoke pleas for Turkish protection.

Historically, arson has not been random in Syria. In 2020, the former government arrested 39 individuals for setting coordinated fires across Latakia, Tartous, Homs, and Hama—allegedly financed by a “foreign party.”

Last year, vast fires scorched Wadi al-Nasara in Homs and later spread to Kasab near the Turkish border. Then-Governor Khaled Abaza admitted, “The multiplicity of fire outbreaks strongly suggests that they were intentional, as between 30 and 40 fires broke out in a single day in various areas of the governorate, especially those rugged areas that are inaccessible to vehicles.” He continued, “A search was launched for two vehicles believed to belong to the arsonists.”

The pattern of politically timed arson is now impossible to ignore. Every major fire in the past five years has coincided with key political milestones such as regime transitions and outbreaks of sectarian unrest, pointing to a deliberate strategy masked as environmental catastrophe.

While poverty and illegal logging are the usual explanations for Syria’s seasonal fires, deeper motives have taken shape. Intelligence services are reportedly scouring Latakia’s forests for buried weapons stockpiles. 

Foreign militaries are surveying the terrain for future base sites. Coastal land developers are eyeing scorched villages for luxury tourism projects. And behind it all, Israel remains a constant agitator, stoking sectarian flames for its own expansionist agenda and to further undermine the Resistance Axis. 

If anything, the ministry’s insistence on ruling out human involvement in this year’s fires has further eroded public trust. In a country exposed to endless covert operations, the official version of events cannot withstand scrutiny. 

In Latakia, what’s burning isn’t just land—it’s the last hope that post-Assad Syria might survive this transition intact.