The true purpose behind Ukraine’s attack on the Kursk region of Southwest Russia has been hotly debated, mostly because the area holds little to no traditional strategic purpose.  Not all seized territory has equal value in a war; some territory has no value.  

Some believe that the incursion was meant to open a door to an attack on the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, which could then be held hostage or sabotaged, leaving a radioactive mess for the Russians to clean up.  But the plant is too far from the border to be successfully captured by anything other than a large scale offensive force with superior logistics. 

Others argue that the mere act of invading Russian soil (no matter how useless) was intended to send a message to Ukraine’s western allies that Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” are a false front and that he would never respond with a nuclear defense.  In other words, Kursk was supposed to encourage US and European officials to enter the war with boots on the ground.  

It remains to be seen if Putin would in fact use the nuclear option, but Ukraine certainly isn’t worth taking the risk, at least not for the majority of western citizens.   

Kyiv has claimed that the action was designed to lure Russian troops away from the eastern front where they have been making significant gains, thus slowing the Kremlin’s attrition machine and giving Ukraine a better position at the negotiating table.  If this was the intent, then the plan failed. 

The momentum in Kursk was contained within a couple weeks of the operation and the Ukrainians have been stuck there ever since.  In the past month their gains in the area have been whittled down and now their lines are imploding.  It is expected that Russia will take back the last Ukrainian holdings within the next two weeks, but this is not the biggest problem Ukraine faces after the failure of their Kursk operation.

At the end of February the Russians were already initiating cross-border strikes into the Sumy Oblast of Northern Ukraine and it looks as though these strikes might turn into a full invasion. 

As we noted at the end of December, the Kursk attack by Ukraine could end up backfiring in spectacular fashion.  With tens of thousands of Russian troops amassed in the region, the fall of Ukrainian lines means the path is open for those same troops to come pouring into Sumy and cut the country in half.  

Vladimir Putin’s recent appearance in Kursk and ample geolocation data in the town of Sudzha proves that the area is well under Russian control despite claims that the Ukrainians are holding.  Russian incursions into Sumy have also escalated. 

The troop surge comes just as the Trump Administration positions for peace negotiations, an effort which is meeting resistance from all sides.  Even US allies within NATO are insisting that the war continue until Ukraine gains back all of its lost territory (which they know is not going to happen).  The precarious nature of peace talks is amplified by Putin’s refusal to enter into a ceasefire agreement.  Putin claims the ceasefire would serve no purpose other than to allow Ukraine to strengthen their lines. 

The western media continues to promote the narrative that Russia is using thousands of North Korean soldiers as “meat waves” to run Ukraine out of Kursk.  We’re still waiting for any significant evidence to back this claim but none has materialized.  Russia has multiple ethnic groups within the country that “look Asian” and the presence of these people on the battlefield is not proof of North Korean troops.  To this day there is no evidence of “meat waves” or a large contingent of DPRK soldiers.   

In any case, Kursk is lost to the Ukrainians, which will hopefully give Vladimir Zelensky and Kyiv motivation to finally agree to realistic peace negotiations.  If not, then the Russians are perfectly positioned to invade Northern Ukraine and close in on Kyiv. 

Putin has presented two terms for any agreement:  Ukraine must give up the captured Donbas region and allow the separatists to join Russia.  And, Ukraine is never allowed to join NATO.  

Sadly, these were the basic terms at the very beginning of the war.  Hundreds of thousands of lives (perhaps millions when the true tally is revealed) could have been saved if peace talks had not been interfered with in 2022.  If peace is achieved now, at least World War III can be avoided. 

Authored by Mark Curtis via Declassified UK,

When U.K. officials signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine in mid-January, they claimed to be Ukraine’s “preferred partner” in developing the country’s “critical minerals strategy.”

Yet within a month, U.S. President Donald Trump had presented a proposal to Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky to access the country’s vast mineral resources as “compensation” for U.S. support to Ukraine in the war against Russia.

Whitehall was none too pleased about Washington muscling in. 

When Foreign Secretary David Lammy met Zelensky in Kyiv last month he reportedly raised the issue of minerals, “a sign that [Keir] Starmer’s government is still keen to get access to Ukraine’s riches”, the iPaper reported. 

Lammy earlier said, in a speech last year:

“Look around the world. Countries are scrambling to secure critical minerals, just as great powers once raced to control oil.”

The U.K. foreign secretary was correct, but Britain itself is one of those powers, and Ukraine is one of the major countries U.K. officials — as well as the Trump administration — have their eyes on. 

It’s no surprise why. Ukraine has around 20,000 mineral deposits covering 116 types of minerals such as beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium, zirconium, rare earth metals and nickel. 

The country, whose economy has been devastated by Russia’s brutal war, also possesses one of the world’s largest reserves of graphite, the largest titanium reserves in Europe, and a third of the continent’s lithium deposits. 

These resources are key for industries such as military production, high tech, aerospace, and green energy. 

In recent years, the Ukrainian government has sought to attract foreign investment to develop its critical mineral resources and signed strategic partnerships and held investment fora to showcase its mining opportunities.

The country has also begun auctioning exploration permits for minerals such as lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel, offering lucrative investment opportunities. 

Media narratives largely parrot the U.K. government’s interests in Ukraine being about standing up to aggression. But Whitehall has in the past few years stepped up its interest in accessing the world’s critical minerals, not least in Ukraine.

‘Critical Minerals Work’

Map of minerals of Ukraine, 2022. (Zbigniew Dylewskie / Wikimedia Commons /CC BY 3.0)

Nusrat Ghani, a trade minister in Rishi Sunak’s government, held at least 10 meetings on the subject of critical minerals in 2023 and the first half of 2024, government transparency data shows. 

Among the companies she met were giant U.K. mining corporations Rio Tinto and Anglo American, and arms exporter BAE Systems and military aerospace lobbyists, ADS.

It is not clear if Ukraine was the subject of these discussions but one other prominent firm Ghani met to discuss “mineral supply chains” was Rothschilds, which has extensive interests in Ukraine. 

Ghani held a discussion with the Paris-headquartered global advisory firm in April 2023 while her successor Alan Mak did so the following year in May. Mak met the firm “to discuss Rothschild’s critical minerals work,” the data show.

The corporation was invited to the 2023 Ukraine Recovery Conference held in London and is a member of the U.K.-Ukraine Finance Partnership. It has also been the main adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance since 2017.

Rothschilds, on whose board sits former U.K. National Security Adviser Lord Mark Sedwill, has no less than $53 billion invested in Ukraine. 

‘British-Ukrainian Partnership’

(GOV.UK)

Writing recently in Unherd, researcher Sang-Haw Lee quotes a senior Labour figure saying the U.K. was involved in extensive negotiations for the whole of last year relating to securing exclusive access to Ukraine’s minerals, but that adequate government support was not forthcoming.

Some other meetings have crept into the public domain. Last April, two prominent U.K. parliamentarians met one of Ukraine’s largest mining investment companies in London to discuss “British-Ukrainian partnership in the field of critical minerals mining.” 

BGV Group, which has investments of $100 million in Ukrainian mining projects, held discussions with then energy minister, Lord Martin Callanan, and Bob Seely, then a Conservative MP who sat on Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. 

The company is seeking investors for its graphite and beryllium projects and said in a media release that “Ukraine has all the prerequisites to become one of Britain’s main suppliers of critical minerals crucial for advanced technologies and the green energy transition.” 

“As Ukraine’s ultimate European ally, the U.K. could leverage its strong position within NATO to help secure mining sites and transportation routes”, writes Andriy Dovbenko, the founder of U.K.-Ukraine TechExchange.

‘Vast Resources’

The U.K. government’s “Ukraine Business Guide” notes that “Ukraine has vast resources” and “a rich mineral base of iron ore, manganese, coal, and titanium.”

Certainly, enhancing access to critical minerals has been a broad priority across Whitehall over the last three years. 

The U.K. produced its first-ever Critical Minerals Strategy in 2022 and updated this with a refresh” the following year. It identifies 18 minerals with “high criticality” for the U.K., including several present in Ukraine, such as graphite, lithium and rare earth elements. 

The U.K.’s strategy aims, among other things, to “support U.K. companies to participate overseas” in supply chains for these minerals and “champion London as the world’s capital of responsible finance for critical minerals.”

As part of its critical minerals strategy, the government set up a so-called Task & Finish group, analysing the risks to U.K. industry, and including participants from BAE, Rio Tinto and ADS. The group highlights titanium, rare earth elements, cobalt and gallium as among the minerals with a supply risk to the U.K. military sector.

 Zelenskyy pouring water for Starmer during a NATO Ukraine Council session at the military alliance’s summit in Washington, D.C., in July 2024. Then President Joe Biden and NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg on right. (Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The U.K. has also launched a Critical Mineral Intelligence Centre and established a Critical Minerals Expert Committee to advise the government.

A report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on critical minerals published in December 2023 concluded that “the U.K. cannot afford to leave itself vulnerable on supply chains that are of such strategic importance.” 

A sign of how seriously the government is taking the issues is that it says it will “ensure consideration for critical minerals is embedded” in the free trade agreements it is negotiating with a range of countries.

‘Regulatory Structures’

Starmer and Zelenskyy in Kiev in January when they signed a 100-year partnership agreement. (Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street/ Flickr/ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Accessing minerals overseas often depends on loosening government regulations to enable foreign corporations to strike favourable deals.

The 100-year partnership declaration commits the U.K. and Ukraine to “supporting development of a Ukrainian critical minerals strategy and necessary regulatory structures required to support the maximisation of benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources, through the possible establishment of a Joint Working Group.”

The thrust of the partnership is to “support a more enabling environment for private sector participation in the clean energy transition” and to “attract investments of British companies in the development of renewable energy sources.”

More generally, the two sides will “work together to boost and modernise Ukraine’s economy by progressing reforms that aim to attract private finance” and “boost investor confidence.” 

As Declassified recently showed, British aid to Ukraine is focused on promoting these pro-private sector reforms and on pressing the government in Kyiv to open up its economy to foreign investors. 

Foreign Office documents on its flagship aid project in Ukraine, which supports privatisation, note that the war provides “opportunities” for Ukraine delivering on “some hugely important reforms.”

The U.K. supports a project called SOERA (State-owned enterprises reform activity in Ukraine), which is funded by USAID with the U.K. Foreign Office as a junior partner. 

SOERA works to “advance privatization of selected SOEs [state-owned enterprises], and develop a strategic management model for SOEs remaining in state ownership.”

U.K. documents note the programme has already “prepared the groundwork” for privatisation, a key plank of which is to change Ukraine’s legislation. 

“SOERA worked hand-in-hand with GoU and proposed 25 pieces of legislation of which 13 were adopted and implemented,” the most recent documents note. 

‘Geostrategic Rivalries’

Much U.K. foreign policy and wars can be explained by Whitehall wanting British corporations to get their hands on other countries’ resources. 

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was mainly about oil while decades earlier the U.K.’s brutal war in Malaya in the 1950s was substantially about rubber. Britain’s support for apartheid South Africa is significantly explained by the U.K. wanting continued access to South Africa’s massive mineral resources.

But the main concern now is China, which is the biggest producer of 12 out of the 18 minerals assessed by the U.K. as critical. 

The Ministry of Defence’s major geopolitical forecast, its “Global Strategic Trends,” released last year, makes 57 mentions of minerals, noting that they “will become of increasing geopolitical importance” and could lead to “new geostrategic rivalries and tensions.”

History suggests that Whitehall’s international strategy on critical minerals, and its scramble for Ukraine’s, will continue to shape U.K. foreign policy and contribute to these future international tensions.

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

The Two Sessions, part of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, held last week at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, were a pretty serious deal.

Not only because the sessions set the framework for Beijing to confront serious economic challenges ahead.

But also because of the stellar performance by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who forcefully imprinted in the collective psyche of the Global Majority how China should be regarded as a premier source of stability in this extremely turbulent geopolitical juncture, standing firm “in the right side of History”.

So let’s start with the key Wang Yi takeaways – which translate as de facto setting the tone for Beijing’s diplomacy throughout 2025.

US-China: Beijing is ready to engage with Trump 2.0 on the basis of mutual respect. Yet “if the US continues to contain China, we will resolutely counteract.” It’s “fully possible” for US and China to become partners. But this should be seen as the paramount concept: “No country should fantasize that it can suppress China and maintain good relations with us at the same time.”

The Global South: That is a “key force for maintaining world peace, driving world development and improving global governance”. These developing nations, accounting for over 40 per cent of global GDP, “hold the key to bringing stability to the world and making it a better place.” Wang Yi emphasized once again how China is “a natural member of the Global South.”

Russia – and Ukraine conflict: Russia and China’s“mature and resilient relationship (…) will not be swayed by any turn of events or be affected by any third party.” Wang Yi defined Beijing’s position on the conflict as “objective and impartial” – and crucially did not call for Europe – or Ukraine – to be included in the upcoming US-Russia negotiations. His major point – which echoes Russia’s analysis: “Security is mutual and equal; the security of one country cannot be built on the insecurity of others.”

Gaza: No Chinese endorsement of the Trump Gaza Riviera Resort and Casino gambit: “Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people”. And “changing its status by forceful means will not bring peace but new chaos”. Beijing supports the Egyptian peace plan. Once again, Wang Yi made it clear that “the crux of the cycle of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in the fact that the two-state solution is only half achieved.”

Europe: Wang Yi praised the “capacity and wisdom” of EU-China to “deepen strategic dialogue and mutual trust.”Beijing, at least in theory, believes that Europe could become a trusted partner. The EU and the European Commission (EC) in Brussels may have other – belligerent – ideas.

South China Sea: Wang Yi went straight to the point on the manipulation of Philippines by “external forces”: “Infringement and provocation will backfire, and those acting as others’ chess pieces are bound to be discarded.” Yet he stressed the South China Sea remains “stable”, because China and ASEAN want it to remain so.

Taiwan: Wang Yi forcefully stated that “Taiwan has never been a country (…) It was not in the past, and it will never be in the future.” Moreover, “seeking Taiwan independence is doomed to backfire, and using Taiwan to contain China will be nothing but a futile attempt. China will realise reunification, and this is unstoppable.”

Made in China 2025 On Overdrive

Now let’s focus on China’s extremely complex domestic equation. At the opening of the Two Sessions, Premier Li Qiang came up with a rallying call for the whole nation to rise up to a series of “very challenging” goals, including growth of 5% in 2025 (it was 4.9% last year).

Essentially, to revitalize the economy, Beijing will issue 1.3 trillion yuan (around US$182 billion) in ultra-long special treasury bonds. The deficit-to-GDP ratio was set at around 4%.

The official policy of “opening up” will reach the internet, telecoms, healthcare and education industries – meaning more opportunities for foreign investors and possible partnerships up and down the industrial supply chain.

All those moving parts of the ambitious Made in China 2025 tech project will be on overdrive: AI, smart terminals, the Internet of things, 5G, plus a new mechanism set up for “future industries” to support hi-tech domains,including biomaterials manufacturing, quantum technology, embodied intelligence and 6G.

Premier Li enthusiastically praised the role of regional growth drivers such as the Greater Bay Area – the super high-tech cluster in Guangdong province linked to Hong Kong. Predictably, he extolled the “one country, two systems” model and the further economic integration of both Hong Kong and Macau.

Arguably this is the best analysis anywhere not only of why Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson had to get rid of its port operations in the Panama Canal, but also because it offers a crisp Chinese evaluation of the “three powers” behind Trump 2.0: Wall Street, heavy industrial capital (energy, steel, mining) and Silicon Valley.

CK Hutchison Holdings, founded in Hong Kong by notorious tycoon Li Ka-shing, essentially had to sell 80% of Hutchison Port Group, a subsidiary that owns 43 container ports in 23 countries, including a 90% stake in the Balboa and Cristobal docks at either end of the Panama Canal, because of hardcore geopolitics. Hutchison will continue to control its ports in China, including Hong Kong.

President Trump made a huge fuss about the BlackRock-led deal. The view in Hong Kong is more pragmatic. Hutchinson was not eager to engage in a furious court battle in US courts – not to mention potential sanctions. So they chose to opt for a “strategic exit”.

Finding Shelter From the Coming Storms

Premier Li noted how consumption in China now is “sluggish” and, somewhat euphemistically, how there were “pressures on job creation and income growth”. Enter a promised “vigorous boost” to household demand, plus the creation of 12 million new urban jobs, with help focusing on fresh university graduates and migrant workers.

In parallel, Beijing will expand its military budget by only 7.2% in 2025, reaching roughly 1.78 trillion yuan (US$ 245 billion). That’s not much compared to the Pentagon budget.

It’s quite enlightening to observe the proposals of the Two Sessions – and the tone-setting by Wang Yi – in relation to the analysis by a certified Asian star such as former Singaporean ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani.

Kishore once again resorts to Sun Tzu, explaining how Chinese rulers always privilege the best way to win as not fighting kinetic wars. What matters is to coordinate expansion – epistemologically, educationally, economically, industrially, techno-scientifically, financially, diplomatically, militarily – under the aegis of deterrence.

The bottom line is that Beijing will not be trapped by any possible, bombastic provocation coming from Trump 2.0. Once again, it’s all about “coordinated expansion”.

Example. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, partly funded by the Australian military, and frankly Sinophobic – and Russophobic – at least did something useful by developing a Critical Technology Tracker of 64 current, critical technologies.

This is their latest report, fromAugust 2024. It shows that between 2003 and 2007, the US led in 60 of 64 technologies. China led in only 3. Cue to between 2019 and 2023: the US led in only 7, whereas China led in 57 – including semiconductor chipmaking, gravitational sensors, high-performance computing, quantum sensors, and space launch technology.

All that is inextricably linked to the successful planning – and achieved targets – of Made in China 2025. Talk about two five-year plans back to back (Made in China was conceived in 2015).

So this is what China 2025 will be all about: serious investments coupled with lots of partnerships with the whole Global South. Once again, in a sort of Sun Tzu framework tweaked by Bruce Lee, China is bound to use Trump 2.0 and the coming mix of confrontation, competition and periodic negotiation as a trampoline to expand its global reach even further.

That might be one of the unstated meanings of what Xi Jinping told Putin in Moscow nearly two years ago: “Changes unseen in a century.” Beijing will be sure to find shelter from the storm – any storm. And without having to fight a single kinetic war.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Zachary Stieber and Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump is withdrawing his nomination of a former congressman to helm the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Dave Weldon, 71, is no longer under consideration to take the post of director of the CDC, a source familiar with the situation told The Epoch Times on March 13. The source said it was clear Weldon did not have enough votes for confirmation.

Weldon had been scheduled to appear before the Senate Health Committee on Thursday to answer questions as senators prepared to vote on the nomination. The panel lists the hearing as canceled.

A spokesperson for the committee did not return an inquiry.

After canceling Weldon’s appearance, the panel voted to advance Trump’s nominees to head the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, two other divisions within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The vote to advance Dr. Marty Makary, Trump’s nominee to direct the Food and Drug Administration, was 14–9. The vote to advance Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, was 12–11.

Republicans control the Senate. The party chairs each committee and has at least one more member than Democrats on each panel. A simple majority is sufficient to advance nominees and, when the full Senate votes, to confirm nominees.

Trump had chosen Weldon in late 2024, a few months before he took office. He said at the time that Weldon would “proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose and will work to end the chronic disease epidemic.”

The CDC is the nation’s health protection agency. It has about 12,600 staff members.

Weldon is a U.S. Army veteran who represented Florida in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2009. Weldon chose to retire rather than run for another term.

A bid for a U.S. Senate seat in 2012 fell short in the Republican primary.

Weldon, who has not commented on the withdrawal, was a critic of the CDC while in Congress. He noted the CDC oversees vaccine safety while also promoting vaccination and introduced legislation that would have created a new, independent agency to monitor the safety of vaccines.

Weldon said during a 2002 hearing on vaccines and autism that he would “never be satisfied that there isn’t some data suggesting that some children may have serious side effects,” including potentially autism, without more transparency.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also said that autism is likely being caused in part by vaccines.

The CDC says on its website that studies have found “no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism.”

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Pakistan is reeling after this week’s hijacking of the Jaffar Express by the terrorist-designated “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA). It’s impossible to independently confirm the details given strict state censorship, but around 400 people were taken hostage, including servicemen traveling home on leave. The BLA demanded the release of what they described as political prisoners, but the military staged a daring operation to end the day-long ordeal instead. At least two dozen people were killed.

The Baloch Conflict owes its origins to Balochistan’s contentious incorporation into Pakistan but has evolved in recent years to take on shades of “resource nationalism”. What’s meant by this is that some locals believe that their resource-rich region, the largest in Pakistan at nearly half the country’s size, isn’t receiving its fair share of wealth. The BLA and its supporters also accuse Pakistan of selling the region out to China. Pakistan denies these claims and has always blamed Afghanistan and India for the conflict.

It therefore wasn’t surprising when the Foreign Office’s spokesman said on Thursday that “India has been involved in terrorism in Pakistan. In the particular attack on Jaffar express, the terrorists had been in contact with their handlers and ring leaders in Afghanistan.” While the Afghan dimension is likely true owing to the Taliban sheltering the BLA and its new de facto TTP allies, which the group considers to be a means of asymmetrically restoring the balance of power with Pakistan, the Indian angle is questionable.

Pakistan’s accusation against India is premised on their history of proxy warfare against one another over the decades, which makes it reasonable to suspect India of backing Baloch militants against Pakistan as response to Pakistan backing Kashmiri ones against India, among others. There’s also Pakistan’s capture of Kulbhushan Jadhav in 2016, who Islamabad accused of being an Indian spy tasked with organizing terrorist attacks in Balochistan, while India has always insisted that he’s innocent of these charges.

Taken together, they form the cornerstone upon which the Foreign Office put forth its latest accusation, but it’s bereft of proof and instead comes off as a deflection from the conflict’s indigenous causes and the Taliban’s indisputably more direct role in what happened. After all, the BLA receives sanctuary in Afghanistan, so the Taliban is much more to blame for what happened. Even if the Taliban pleads ignorance and claims that it can’t control its borders, which isn’t true, then that’s also a problem.

Whichever way one looks at it, the Indian angle is therefore questionable, but Pakistan pushing it is meant to accomplish three goals.

• First, it’s intended to rally Pakistanis behind the government by blaming their historical rival for this latest terrorist attack. 

• Second, Pakistan also hopes to rally the international community – or at least some of its SCO partners like China – against India. 

• And finally, Pakistan might authorize kinetic action in Afghanistan, but on what it’ll present as an anti-Indian basis.

Building upon the last point, this could resemble Russia’s special operation in the sense of how Russia militarily intervened in Ukraine on an anti-NATO basis after accusing the bloc of exploiting Ukraine as a proxy, which Russia claimed could become a launching pad for more aggression if it wasn’t stopped. Likewise, Pakistan might carry out comparatively smaller-scale strikes and/or incursions in Afghanistan and only target terrorist groups, but it could justify them on similar grounds.

The benefit in presenting things this way is that Pakistan can continue to claim that it has no problem with Afghanistan per se, just with how its historical Indian rival is allegedly exploiting that country as a proxy, which could become a launching pad for more aggression if it isn’t stopped. The problem though is that this motive is much more questionable than Russia’s vis-à-vis NATO in its own special operation in Ukraine so Afghans as a whole might regard any larger-scale Pakistani kinetic action as a hostile act.

Even if Pakistan eschews such a response to this latest terrorist attack for whatever reason, officially tying India into what happened suggests that it has no interest in addressing the conflict’s indigenous causes, instead preferring to blame everything on its neighbor like always. That’ll only lead to an even wider rift emerging between Baloches and the rest of the country, which can in turn result in more BLA sympathizers or even recruits, thus intensifying the already self-sustaining cycle of instability there.

The larger that the BLA’s pool of sympathizers and recruits becomes, the greater the unconventional threat that Pakistan faces in Balochistan, which could embolden the military regime into doubling down on its controversial “preemptive” anti-terrorist policies like “forced disappearances”. The most effective way to reduce the aforesaid pool is to empower responsible locals through meaningful economic and political partnerships with the state for showing them that they have more to gain through unity.

For example, Baloch veterans could be appointed to lead new projects in their home region, and these would be obligated to reinvest a percentage of their proceeds into local initiatives. These same figures and other similarly trusted ones could also be supported by the state as alternative community leaders for counteracting the pernicious influence of separatist-inclined tribal leaders. That’s easier said than done, but it should be attempted without delay otherwise the BLA’s pool will keep growing.

The combination of political radicalism and state failure is most responsible for perpetuating the Baloch Conflict, not foreign forces, though the Taliban’s recent assistance has definitely been important. Without adequately addressing these indigenous causes, which requires a complete thinking on the part of the Pakistani government, outsiders will always be able to exploit this conflict. Accordingly, cross-border kinetic action in Afghanistan can be helpful, but a lasting solution requires much more than that.

An Idaho couple has made an extraordinary purchase—an abandoned navy barge with a top-secret past. After keeping an eye on it for four years, they finally acquired the 65-year-old vessel, which has a history deeply tied to U.S. naval operations. This is no ordinary boat; its origins and purpose make it one of the most intriguing real estate projects out there, according to Supercar Blondie.

The massive barge is a complex structure, built from various welded components. Originally, it was a powerhouse of a vessel, featuring a 300-horsepower engine and a 360-degree rotating propeller, allowing it to maneuver effortlessly. Though now retired, its design hints at the critical role it once played.

The Supercar Blondie report says that the barge is docked on Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho’s largest lake, a body of water rich in history. The region has long been associated with mining, logging, and fishing, but beneath its 1,158-foot depths, secrets linger. The lake has served as an inland naval testing site, used for submarine and torpedo research—meaning it’s possible that military technology still rests beneath the surface.

The true intrigue of the barge lies in its past role in acoustic research. The U.S. Navy used it as a monitoring station, where it housed advanced equipment to study the soundwaves of submarines and torpedoes. The vessel was equipped with an extensive system of underwater wiring, allowing the military to conduct covert testing beneath the lake’s surface.

Now, the couple has ambitious plans to transform the historic vessel into a floating home. While the project presents significant challenges, they are determined to restore and repurpose the barge, breathing new life into its steel structure. It’s a massive undertaking, but one that promises to merge history with modern living in a truly unique way.

Update (2145ET): After bending the knee to the GOP and agreeing to vote ‘yes’ on the House-passed continuing resolution to fund the government through September, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered a contrived outburst on MSNBC, calling Republicans ‘bastards’ before quickly correcting himself.

“To have the conflict on the best ground we have, summed up in a sentence, that they’re making the middle class pay for tax cuts for billionaires?” said Schumer. “It’s much, much better not to be in the middle of a shutdown, which should divert people from the number one issue we have against these bastards, sorry, these people, which is not only all these cuts, but they’re ruining democracy.”

🚨DESPERATE CHUCK SCHUMER CALLS REPUBLICANS “BASTARDS”🚨

“It’s much, much better not to be in the middle of a shutdown, which would divert people from the number one issue we have against these bastards!”

“They’re ruining democracy!” pic.twitter.com/9i90rfOv9z

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 14, 2025

How many times did he practice that in the mirror?

Schumer also raged on X after bending the knee, writing that “a shutdown would be a gift,” and “the best distraction he could ask for from his awful agenda.”

Whatever you say Chuck…

Art of the Kneel https://t.co/KfsEe1OoMU

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 14, 2025

*  *  *

Going, Going, Gone… we’ve only got three black hats left…

That was fast – black hats are gone, but we still have ~50 green waxed canvas hats until sometime in April. 

Combine with awesome multitool for free shipping.

*  *  *

Update (1800ET): And there it is… in a complete reversal following a closed-door lunch, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told fellow Democrats that he would vote for cloture tomorrow morning on the GOP stopgap, according to Punchbowl News‘ Jake Sherman – who notes that 6 more Democrats will need to follow their leader after Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) already said he would (see below).

“I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down,” Schumer announced on the Senate floor Thursday, adding that a shutdown “would give Donald Trump and Elon Musk carte blanche.”

In short…

Dems caved. No shutdown https://t.co/qvgHTCtOe5

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 13, 2025

As we noted below, the most likely scenario looks to be the case; Dems will provide the necessary votes to pass the GOP bill, in exchange for Senate Republican leaders granting them a performative amendment vote on the Democrats’ separate CR proposal (which means absolutely nothing aside from putting their dissent on record).

Shutdown odds on Polymarket have plummeted:

JUST IN: Senator Chuck Schumer is set to vote in *favor* of the GOP spending bill, according to Punchbowl.

“Schumer will vote for cloture. Needs 6 more Dems to follow him. Fetterman said he will already,” @JakeSherman reported.

The update comes after CNN’s Manu Raju reported… pic.twitter.com/9C5EJ3tU8Z

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 13, 2025

I’m a hard NO on the Republican spending bill. On cloture. On all of it.

When a wannabe dictator is trying to seize power, it must not be given to him.

Not without a fight. pic.twitter.com/yypHGJFXOw

— Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) March 13, 2025

*  *  *

With tomorrow’s shutdown deadline looming (and the House gone on recess until March 24), Senate Democrats are scrambling to both kill the GOP bill that passed the house, and avoid the optics of a shutdown falling squarely on their shoulders after minority leader Chuck Schumer categorically rejected the bill on Wednesday, and instead floated a 30-day continuing resolution which would allow Democrats to stuff it full of their own pork to include in a revised package (that he doesn’t have the votes for)…

In short:

Schumer negotiating pic.twitter.com/iDmRuB0rXK

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 13, 2025

As the Senate opened Thursday, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) – who filed cloture on the House-passed CR on Wednesday – said, “It’s time to fish or cut bait.“

And as the Associated Press notes, debates over funding the federal government routinely erupt in deadline moments but this year it’s showing the political leverage of Republicans, newly in majority control of the White House and Congress, and the shortcomings of Democrats who are finding themselves unable to stop the Trump administration’s march across federal operations.

Given that the Senate has 53 Republicans, one of whom is a definite ‘no’ (Rand Paul of Kentucky), at least eight Democrats need to cross party lines to avert a shutdown at midnight on Friday.

Update: Sen. John Fetterman told Punchbowl News, “I refuse to shut the government down.”

So there’s one.

Two Ways This Can Go

According to the chaps at Punchbowl News, there’s really two ways this can play out at this point:

Option one: Democrats can fold and take the deal on the table – providing the votes needed to advance the House GOP’s stopgap spending bill in exchange for a symbolic amendment vote on their own 28-day funding extension. This would be pure theater, giving Democrats the chance to go on record opposing a shutdown while letting Republicans push through their own bill anyway. The government stays open, Schumer saves face with progressives, and Republicans get what they wanted all along.

But make no mistake – this wouldn’t be a win for Schumer (a “fake BBQ’ing Palestinian“), who floated a 28-day CR that doesn’t have the votes to pass, even with a simple majority. Meanwhile, Republicans can sit back and let the clock force the issue. Time isn’t on the Democrats’ side, and at some point, they’ll have to face reality.

Option two: Schumer and Senate Democrats hold the line, block the House CR, and force a government shutdown.

That means federal workers furloughed, services delayed, and chaos come Monday morning when the full effects hit. And here’s the kicker – Trump’s people at the Office of Management and Budget get to decide exactly how painful this shutdown will be. White House sources are already warning that the former president will make sure Democrats feel every bit of the pressure.

But here’s where it gets ugly for Schumer: what’s the exit strategy? There isn’t one. The House is gone, meaning there’s no magic fix coming. And at some point, Democrats will have to explain why shutting down the government over a short-term CR that never had a shot at passing was somehow worth it.

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

According to the White House, “They’re totally screwed.”

Stay tuned for updates…

Authored by William McHenry via RealClearWire,

The Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are vital pillars of national security, tasked with safeguarding the nation in an increasingly complex and unpredictable world. Rightsizing these organizations requires a strategic, mission-focused approach that prioritizes effectiveness and efficiency over arbitrary actions. This article proposes a methodology centered on a thorough reassessment of each agency’s mission, followed by a task-oriented restructuring process, with personnel considerations addressed only after a clear understanding of essential functions has been established.

Mission Relevance: The Cornerstone of Strategic Downsizing

The initial step in any initiative must be a rigorous review of the agency’s core mission. Is the original mandate of the organization still relevant in the contemporary geopolitics, technological landscape? Has the character of threats evolved, rendering some tasks obsolete while necessitating new areas of focus? The rise of cyber warfare in the last 20 years, for example, has demanded a shift in resources and expertise. Similarly, the increasing interconnectedness of the global economy has elevated the significance of economic security and its intersection with national security intelligence.

This mission review must be more than a perfunctory exercise. It demands challenging established assumptions and engaging in honest assessment. External perspectives, including insights from the commercial sector, and former agency personnel, can offer valuable objectivity and help identify potential blind spots. This process may reveal that some organizations are performing functions that are no longer critical or that have become redundant due to the evolution of other agencies or the emergence of new technologies. In such cases, outright elimination of the agency or a substantial realignment of its mission may be the most appropriate course of action.

Organizational Positioning: Optimizing for Effectiveness

Once the mission’s relevance is confirmed, the next crucial question is whether the agency is optimally positioned within the government to execute that mission effectively. Are there other organizations better positioned to perform the same functions more efficiently or with greater synergy? Could a consolidation of overlapping responsibilities lead to cost savings and improved coordination? For example, certain intelligence analysis functions might be better integrated within a single agency, streamlining information sharing and reducing bureaucratic hurdles. Similarly, some support functions, such as human resources or IT, could be consolidated across multiple agencies to achieve economies of scale.

This analysis should consider not only the current organizational structure but also potential alternatives. Could a new, leaner agency be created by merging elements of existing organizations? Could some functions be outsourced to the private sector, freeing up government resources for core mission tasks? These options should be evaluated based on factors such as cost, efficiency, accountability, and most importantly the potential impact on mission effectiveness.

Task Analysis: Deconstructing the Mission

Assuming the agency’s mission is deemed relevant and its organizational positioning appropriate, the next critical step is to deconstruct the mission into its constituent tasks. This involves identifying both the essential tasks, those that are absolutely vital to achieving the mission, and the supporting tasks, those that facilitate the execution of the essential tasks but are not directly responsible for mission success. This granular task analysis is crucial for understanding the agency’s operational needs and avoiding the pitfall of simply reducing personnel without regard to the impact on core functions.

For example, in the context of intelligence, an essential task might be providing timely and accurate assessments of foreign threats. Supporting tasks could include collecting raw intelligence data, maintaining databases, and managing secure communications networks. By clearly distinguishing between these types of tasks, leadership can make informed decisions about resource allocation and personnel requirements.

Experimentation and Optimization: Refining the Approach

Once the essential and supporting tasks have been identified, the next phase involves experimenting with different approaches to accomplishing the essential and supporting tasks. This might involve exploring new technologies, implementing process improvements, or restructuring workflows. The objective is to identify the most efficient and effective ways to achieve mission objectives, minimizing resource requirements and maximizing output.

This experimentation phase should be data-driven, with clear metrics established to measure the success of different approaches. Pilot programs can be used to test new ideas on a smaller scale before implementing them agency-wide. This iterative process of experimentation and refinement is essential for ensuring that downsizing efforts do not inadvertently compromise mission effectiveness. For instance, exploring the use of artificial intelligence for intelligence analysis or robotic systems for logistical support within the DoD could potentially reduce the need for human personnel in certain areas. Similarly, within the IC, exploring automated data processing and analysis tools could free up analysts to focus on more complex and strategic issues.

Personnel Structure: The Final Consideration

Only after the mission has been thoroughly reviewed, the agency’s positioning confirmed, the tasks analyzed, and the optimal approaches identified should personnel structure be considered. The required skill sets, number of personnel, and organizational structure should be derived from the needs of the mission, not the other way around. This ensures that the agency is staffed with the right people, in the right roles, to execute the essential and supporting tasks effectively.

This approach may reveal that fewer personnel are needed than previously assumed, as process improvements and technological advancements may have increased efficiency. It may also highlight the need for new skill sets or expertise, requiring retraining or recruitment efforts. By focusing on the tasks first, personnel decisions become data-driven and aligned with mission requirements, rather than being based on arbitrary targets. This also allows for a more strategic approach to workforce development, ensuring that the IC and DoD have the necessary talent to meet future challenges.

Conclusion: A Strategic Imperative

Rightsizing the IC and DoD is a complex but necessary undertaking. The process outlined in this article, beginning with a reassessment of mission relevance, followed by task analysis, experimentation, and finally, personnel structure considerations, provides a framework for achieving meaningful and sustainable improvements while enhancing mission effectiveness. This approach requires strong leadership, a willingness to challenge the status quo, and a commitment to data-driven decision-making. By prioritizing mission effectiveness above all else, we can ensure that our intelligence and defense agencies are equipped to meet the evolving challenges of the 21st century. This strategic approach is not just about saving money; it’s about ensuring that these vital institutions are optimized for success in a dynamic and dangerous world.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

The Lynnwood City Council in Washington may revoke Jessica Roberts’ appointment to the vacant Position 5 seat after learning she reportedly operated an OnlyFans account. Roberts’ now-deleted profile described her as “a bisexual transwoman” with graphic details about her body, according to a new report from My Northwest.

Councilwoman Derica Escamilla, who voted for Roberts, said, “We were definitely unaware,” and is questioning the “blind” appointment process.

Councilman Patrick Decker added, “I certainly had no idea of the views Jessica held and do not feel those views and activities are in keeping with the gravity and seriousness of serving the people of Lynnwood.”

The My Northwest report says that the Lynnwood City Council will meet on March 13 to decide whether to rescind Jessica Roberts’ appointment after revelations about her personal life.

Roberts defended her position, stating, “This would not impact my ability to do the job I was appointed to do or my ability to serve my fellow residents.”

Council President Nick Coelho acknowledged concerns, saying, “New information has come to light… that would have weighed heavily on our decision.”

He said: There are now concerns that very relevant information to our deliberation was — whether intentionally or unintentionally — withheld that would have weighed heavily on our decision. With this new information in mind, we have noticed a Special Business Meeting for this Thursday. Its aim is to build to a consensus on whether or not we wish to move forward with this applicant. I’d like to thank our residents for their patience as we let the process play out.”

Roberts told The Lynnwood Times she created the OnlyFans account for confidence and “a little cash on the side,” but deactivated it to avoid wasting “taxpayers’ money, or the Council’s time.”

“The reason the account was taken down was because I do not want to waste taxpayers’ money, or the Council’s time watching this turn into a debate on whether or not it’s socially acceptable for me to have an account,” she added. 

This follows a previous controversy where Rebecca Thornton withdrew just days after being appointed to the same seat.

The report did not include any additional or explicit photos. And for that, we thank you.

Authored by Lily Zhou via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Beijing-controlled newspaper China Daily will no longer be distributed on Capitol Hill, chairmen of two House committees said on Tuesday.

Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said they are “pleased to announce that China Daily will no longer be circulated by National News to House offices.”

“We took action to directly block the Chinese Communist Party from using the halls of the People’s House to spread its propaganda. We appreciate National News’s swift cooperation on this important issue,” they said.

According to the Committee on House Administration, it worked with National News to find a solution after lawmakers raised frustration over the issue, and the distributor is currently winding down the distribution of China Daily in Congress.

The Epoch Times has reached out to National News for comment.

China Daily is one of several major state mouthpieces controlled by the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department. The publication’s Chinese website says its English edition “actively publicizes and explains Xi Jinping Thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era,” and strives to influence public opinion in favor of communist-ruled China.

Its U.S. distributor China Daily Distribution Corporation has been registered as a foreign agent in the United States since 1983 under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

It’s among 17 organizations designated by the U.S. State Department as “foreign missions” in 2020. Among them, 14 are news publications or broadcasters.

For years, China Daily has been delivered to Congressional offices along with other major publications to all Congressional offices unless they opted out.

Some lawmakers have called for the end of China Daily’s distribution in Congress since 2020, when the publication came under scrutiny for paying major U.S. newspapers millions in advertisement dollars to run inserts that paint the Chinese regime in a positive light and downplay its oppression of Chinese and other peoples.

The call was renewed this year by Freshman Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.), who used his first legislation as a congressman to target the distribution of China Daily and other CCP-controlled publications in Congress.

His resolution, referred to the Committee on House Administration on Feb. 5, sought to ban the distribution of all CCP-controlled publications within House facilities.

The congressman in February told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program the distribution of China Daily in Congress is “unacceptable” because the publication is “propaganda by a foreign government that’s trying to influence the highest echelons of the United States government.”

In March 2024, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio was vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he co-wrote letters to the heads of nine media companies which were accepting payment from China Daily, urging them to stop “disseminating CCP propaganda to an American audience.”

Between November 2016 and April 2024, China Daily Distribution Corporation received $78.3 million in funding from its China-based headquarters. That’s almost 97 percent of its total income during the period, according to FARA filings.

In the same period, the corporation spent nearly $81 million in printing and operation expenses, including almost $20.78 million in advertisement payments to various media outlets.