US Industrial Production dipped in March from record highs…

Source: Bloomberg

The headline industrial production fell 0.3% MoM (slightly worse than the 0.2% decline expected (after February’s jump was revised higher to +0.8% MoM)…

Source: Bloomberg

But, US Manufacturing rose 0.3% MoM – its 5th straight monthly rise…

Source: Bloomberg

Output at utilities declined on warmer weather, while mining and energy extraction rose.

Capacity Utilization also dropped after three straight months of improvement…

Source: Bloomberg

Is Trump’s dream of re-shoring of manufacturing about to take us to the moon?

Thousands of Afghans and Cameroonians living in the United States will have their temporary protected status (TPS) revoked in the coming months, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on Monday.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has terminated TPS designations for Afghanistan and Cameroon as she determined that the countries’ current conditions no longer warrant protections, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.

As The Epoch Times’ Aldgra Fredly reports, the decision will affect about 14,600 Afghans, who are set to lose their legal status in May, and approximately 7,900 Cameroonians, whose protected status will expire by June.

McLaughlin stated that Noem decided to terminate Afghanistan’s TPS designation following a review by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which had also consulted with the State Department.

TPS is a designation that allows individuals from countries affected by armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary events the ability to remain in the United States.

Global Refuge, a U.S.-based nonprofit refugee resettlement agency, has condemned the DHS move to revoke protections for Afghan nationals and urged the government to reverse its course.

Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, stated that Afghanistan has been facing a humanitarian crisis under Taliban rule, which seized power in August 2021 following the withdrawal of American troops from the country.

In a statement, Vignarajah called the decision to revoke protections for Afghans “a morally indefensible betrayal,” saying that the individuals could face oppression if deported to Afghanistan.

“Afghanistan today is still reeling from Taliban rule, economic collapse, and humanitarian disaster,” she said. 

“Forcing them back to Taliban rule, where they face systemic oppression and gender-based violence, would be an utterly unconscionable stain on our nation’s reputation.”

CASA—which organizes working-class black, Latino, African-descendant, Indigenous, and immigrant communities—said that ending TPS for Cameroonians would put them at “severe risk” due to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Central African nation.

The nonprofit stated that nearly 1 million people have been displaced in Cameroon due to an ongoing armed conflict, and that now is not the right time to force the return of Cameroonians.

“Cameroon clearly meets the statutory basis for the redesignation of TPS,” CASA Executive Director Gustavo Torres stated.

“This termination of TPS is a xenophobic attack that targets our families and neighbors and endangers the economy of the U.S.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to DHS for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

The move to revoke TPS for Afghans and Cameroonians comes amid the Trump administration’s efforts to enhance border security and review immigration programs it says no longer align with national interests.

Last month, DHS said it would revoke the TPS of more than 530,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who entered the United States under the Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program, known as the CHNV program.

The program, launched in 2022, had allowed up to 30,000 immigrants from the four countries into the United States each month, provided they met certain conditions, including having a sponsor in the United States who would provide them financial support.

Noem said in a March notice that such parole programs “do not serve a significant public benefit” and are not effective in reducing the levels of illegal immigration in the United States.

The Trump administration has faced legal pushback in its efforts to deport immigrants. On April 10, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed to block the government from revoking the temporary legal status of Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans.

Talwani said that the administration’s plan to expose hundreds of thousands of immigrants to expedited deportation was based on an incorrect reading of the statute overriding the process.

Following two disappointing months, US Retail Sales were expected to rebound strongly in March (despite all the chatter about consumer sentiment collapsing thanks to Trump’s tariff policies). BofA’s omniscient analysts team were slightly less exuberant than consensus but still expected a big 1.2% MoM jump in the headline (and stronger than expected prints in core data).

Notably, before we dive into the data, this was before the real turmoil of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs hit.

Following January’s plunge and February’s small rebound, March headline Retail Sales rose 1.4% MoM (as expected) – the biggest MoM jump since Jan 2023.

This raised the YoY sales rise to +4.6% – the highest since Dec 2023…

Source: Bloomberg

Ex-Autos, sales jumped 0.5% MoM (better than expected) and February’s print was revised dramatically higher. 

Ex-Autos-and-Gas, sales also beat expectations (as BofA suggested), rising 0.8% MoM and also seeing a sizable upward revision for February.

Source: Bloomberg

It appears there was a dramatic front-running impact in Autos buying (ahead of the Auto tariffs) and Building Materials (ahead of Canadian tariffs?). We also note that sales at Gasoline Stations tumbled (as gas prices dropped)…

Source: Bloomberg

Obviously the seasonals help to…

Source: Bloomberg

Adjusted roughly for inflation, real retail sales are up by the most in 3 years…

Source: Bloomberg

Of course this will be dismissed by the ‘other’ as a one-off pre-tariff surge in spending… while we should take the word of respondents from UMich surveys about their view of inflation as holy writ of course.

Maybe they can shrug off the auto and recreation spending surge, but it’s hard to suggest that people piled into restaurants in some tariff front-running form?

In fact this surge makes sense if the Democrats in the UMich survey are truly expecting 6, 7, 8% inflation this year… they should be buying everything with both hands and feet!

Although President Trump rolled back some reciprocal tariffs last week (ex-China), U.S. imports still face an average effective tariff rate of 27%—the highest since 1903. These elevated duties, hitting just as the spring housing and remodeling season gets underway, complicate the sourcing of overseas building materials and home goods from high-tariff countries and may even force sourcing from low-tariff countries or even domestically. 

Goldman analysts Susan Maklari, Charles Perron-Piche, and Rhea Bhatia cited United States International Trade Commission data to help clients understand where the most basic imported home goods and building materials were sourced from in 2024.

Maklari provided clients with a country-by-country breakdown of the top U.S. imports of home goods and building materials, including washers, dryers, water heaters, cabinets, vinyl tile, ceramic tile, carpets, lighting, mattresses, and lumber.

The note serves as a guide for identifying alternative sourcing options in countries with lower tariffs and a robust manufacturing base should these products be tariffed higher in top-producing countries at a cost-prohibitive rate:

Exhibit 9: Share of Washer Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 11: Share of Dryer Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 13: Share of Electric Tank Water Heater Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 15: Share of Electric Tankless Water Heater Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 17: Share of Gas Tank Water Heater Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 19: Share of Gas Tankless Water Heater Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 21: Share of Cabinet Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 23: Share of Vinyl Tile Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 25: Share of Ceramic Tile Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 27: Share of Carpet Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 29: Share of Lighting Fixture Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 31: Share of Mattress Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 33: Share of Nonwoven Glass Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 35: Share of Framing Lumber Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 37: Share of OSB Imports by Market (2024, in units)

Exhibit 39: Share of Plywood Imports by Market (2024, in units)

We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if America had a robust manufacturing base capable of producing even the most basic home goods. Time to re-shore some of these supply chains.  

Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 e-mini futures trimmed overnight losses after China reportedly laid out a set of preconditions for resuming trade talks with President Trump and his administration, Bloomberg reported, citing a source familiar with Beijing’s internal deliberations. 

According to the source:

• Demand for Respect: China wants a more respectful tone from the U.S., particularly reducing disparaging remarks from U.S. cabinet members. Beijing was especially angered by Vice President JD Vance’s recent “Chinese peasants” comment. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman called Vance’s remarks “ignorant and disrespectful.”

• Unified U.S. Messaging: Chinese officials are confused by conflicting signals from Washington. While Trump’s tone on Chinese President Xi Jinping has been moderate, hawkish comments from other high-ranking White House officials have conflicted. Without a clear and consistent U.S. position, China sees little value in engagement.

• Point Person: Beijing wants the Trump administration to designate a point person to oversee trade talks. 

News of the preconditions crossed the Bloomberg wires at 0427 ET. 

This sent the U.S. main equity index futures surging, trimming earlier losses from European and Asian sessions. 

As of 0630 ET, Nasdaq futures are still down 1.5%, while S&P 500 futures are down around 1%. 

Commenting on the Bloomberg report, Gary Ng, senior economist at Natixis, said these developments of potential trade talks between the U.S. and China might fuel more risk-on sentiment:

“The impact on the dollar will still be mixed for now, but there will be more inflows into equities, both in China and the US.”

Ng emphasized that this is not a U-turn in strategy, noting China had already signaled its openness to talks in a white paper published on April 9. However, he cautioned that a deal remains uncertain given the wide range of unresolved issues and the deepening economic and geopolitical rivalry between the two economic superpowers. 

Goldman analyst Rich Privorotsky commented on the latest trade developments and markets: 

China IP and retail sales strong overnight…largely ignored as markets lower on the back of U.S. restrictions on NVDA chip exports to China. This follow’s yday’s announcement of China halting the import of Boeing plans. Seems like the conflict between the two countries continues to escalate without a clear off ramp. “US President Donald Trump is willing to strike a trading deal with China, but the latter should reach out first” (RTRS)   The upshot “China has appointed a new top trade negotiator amid the tariff war with the U.S.” Bar feels low for some face saving exercise to bring both sides to the table (tricky part is who makes the first move). In a sense that could be a short term positive catalyst from here but even if tariffs are reduced they are likely to persist on China at some elevated level. The implications on U.S. consumers, global trade and growth remain impaired.

So technicals we’re largely supportive yday and we for the most part ignored those trade headlines including news that European/U.S.  trade negotiations had made little progress and EU trade delegation came back expecting no change to U.S. tariff policy. Hard to read too deep with another ~85 days left in trade negotiations… did we really think we’d have a breakthrough on day 5?

Despite supportive technicals those pesky fundamentals continue to point a pretty downbeat picture. Second European bellwether to miss this morning ASML: orders seemingly well below consensus and Q2 guidance seems light (downside compounded by NVDA news). UAL (forgive the dad joke) gave guidance wide enough for jumbo jet to fly between “United Airlines shared two financial outlooks for its full-year earnings because it believes it is “impossible to predict” how the economy will shape up during the rest of the year. The first outlook, which is the same range it previously shared in January, is based on a stable economic scenario where books remain weaker but stable. If the U.S. enters a recession, United is modeling an incremental five-point reduction to total operating revenue, further capacity reductions and a lower adjusted earnings range. “A single consensus no longer exists, and therefore the Company’s expectation has become bimodal,” United said. If corporate are experiencing this level of uncertainty its hard to see how orders/activity/capex/any form of forward planning in the economy isn’t materially slowing (see side-note).

Macro dinner last night think we all acknowledge that the market could continue to squeeze up in the short-term. Vol compression, holiday, lack of incremental trade bad news (Can we really go higher than this: “China now faces up to a 245% tariff on imports to the United States as a result of its retaliatory actions.”

The fate of the global economy and financial markets hinges on a trade deal. The latest effective rate of 145% on Chinese goods entering the U.S. and 125% on U.S. goods entering China have already created ructions in global trade routes (read here and here) that only suggest macroeconomic headwinds are incoming in both China and the U.S. 

A prominent Turkish defense official has given a rare interview to a regional Middle East outlet wherein he describes NATO as a “zombie alliance” which has outlived its functionality and legitimacy as a real military alliance, something which is becoming increasingly evident at Trump threatens to walk the United States away from being its main funder and leader.

Retired Rear Admiral Cem Gurdeniz is architect of the “Blue Homeland” maritime doctrine and remains a prominent geopolitical commentator in Turkish society and the region. Blue Homeland signifies Ankara’s expanded maritime claims in the eastern Mediterranean of the last several years.

The controversially includes waters surrounding the entirety of the EU country of Cyprus (based on the decades-long Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus), which gives Turkey access to large deposits of natural gas. These claims have renewed the long-running geopolitical standoff between Turkey and Greece and Cyprus, with the EU backing their argument that Turkeys is violating their sovereignty.

Thus the Blue Homeland doctrine has pitted NATO powers against each other, with Turkey possessing the second largest army within the NATO alliance. But the country remains somewhat of a wayward thorn in the side of the alliance, given it being at odds with the US on many fronts, most especially policy in northern Syria and the Kurdish question.

Adm. Gurdeniz was recently interviewed by prominent Turkish journalist Ceyda Karan for the Lebanon-based The Cradle, and among the most notable remarks of the former top official is seen in the following:

NATO is now a zombie alliance. It exists more as a myth than a functional military bloc. Its expansion has been reckless. Its operations – from the Balkans to Libya to Ukraine – have destabilized entire regions, and its credibility is collapsing.

The EU, meanwhile, is pushing a €800 billion (approximately $864 billion) military revamp under the name “ReArm Europe.” But this requires massive austerity at home. European governments are preparing their populations for war, not peace. They need enemies to justify the spending.

He then admits, “But without US leadership, NATO cannot survive as a coherent structure. Trump’s America will not fight for Estonia or send troops to Moldova. Europe will have to defend itself – and it is not ready.”

One might not expect this kind of blistering commentary from an admiral from a NATO country, but this is somewhat less surprising coming from someone whose career was in the Turkish military.

Below is the partial interview with link below to the full transcript…

* * *

The Cradle: With US President Donald Trump back in office and the Ukraine war exposing NATO’s weaknesses, how should we understand the rupture in the western-led world order?

Gurdeniz: We are witnessing the second great breakdown of a global security order since World War II. The first came after 1990, when the Soviet Union voluntarily dissolved, and Washington rapidly expanded its influence across Eastern Europe. But today, 80 years after the end of that war, the US is beginning its own retreat – shifting its strategic center of gravity from Europe to the Asia-Pacific. 

The Trump administration recognises this. Its strategy is no longer about global control but about retrenchment and preparing for great power rivalry in the Pacific, particularly with China. This isn’t a tactical adjustment – it’s a systemic collapse. NATO’s defeat in Ukraine was not just a battlefield loss – it was the end of an illusion.

The Cradle: What broke the neocon-led post-Cold War consensus?

Gurdeniz: The post-1990 order was built on the illusion of unipolarity. The US declared liberal capitalist democracy as the universal model. In this system, the west controlled finance, China was tasked with manufacturing, and resource-rich states were expected to supply energy and raw materials. 

But this model encountered fatal contradictions. US military power failed in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Instead of stability, it brought destruction. Russia reasserted itself militarily after 2008. China rose economically and technologically, challenging western hegemony. 

And together, they built a Eurasian counterbalance. Most crucially, the Global South saw through the facade. Israel’s genocide in Gaza, supported openly by Washington, shattered any remaining legitimacy. The western system now lies exposed – economically overleveraged, diplomatically isolated, and militarily vulnerable.

The Cradle: How do you interpret the Trump administration’s posture toward this collapse?

Gurdeniz: Trump is not the architect of this collapse – he is the product of it. He and his team understand that the post-1945 model no longer serves the US. The manufacturing base is hollowed out. Debt has reached $34 trillion. 

The dollar is being bypassed in global trade. American power is contracting. What Trump offers is a retreat masked as strength. He wants to end America’s entanglements and focus on restoring domestic industry. He knows NATO is a burden, not an asset. His challenge is not ideological – it’s existential. He wants to keep the American empire alive by cutting it down to a sustainable size.

The Cradle: What’s the fate of NATO in this equation?

Gurdeniz: NATO is now a zombie alliance. It exists more as a myth than a functional military bloc. Its expansion has been reckless. Its operations – from the Balkans to Libya to Ukraine – have destabilised entire regions, and its credibility is collapsing.

The EU, meanwhile, is pushing a €800 billion (approximately $864 billion) military revamp under the name “ReArm Europe.” But this requires massive austerity at home. European governments are preparing their populations for war, not peace. They need enemies to justify the spending.

But without US leadership, NATO cannot survive as a coherent structure. Trump’s America will not fight for Estonia or send troops to Moldova. Europe will have to defend itself – and it is not ready.

The Cradle: Is the world truly shifting to a multipolar order – or is it still premature? 

Gurdeniz: The shift is real and irreversible. BRICS is growing. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is expanding. Trade is moving away from the dollar. Regional powers like Iran, India, Brazil, and Turkiye are asserting themselves. This is not a return to Cold War blocs. It’s a rebalancing – a world where no single centre dominates.

Multipolarity is not about utopia. It is about sovereignty. It allows nations to align based on interest, not coercion. The challenge now is to build institutions that reflect this reality – new trade systems, security frameworks, and development banks that are not controlled by the west.

The Cradle: You’ve long championed the “Blue Homeland” maritime doctrine. How does this fit into Turkiye’s future in Eurasia?

Gurdeniz: Blue Homeland is not a slogan – it’s our geopolitical imperative. Turkiye is surrounded by contested waters: the Aegean, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Black Sea. If we surrender these spaces, we become landlocked and irrelevant.

Western powers, particularly through Greece and Cyprus, want to trap us in Anatolia. The Seville Map, backed by the EU, would reduce our maritime space by 90 percent. That is a geopolitical death sentence.

Blue Homeland asserts our legal rights, our naval presence, and our energy interests. Combined with the Middle Corridor – which links us to Central Asia and China – we form a continental-maritime axis. This is the backbone of Turkiye’s 21^st-century strategy.

TRUMP: “The U.S. can’t lose $1.9 trillion on trade & also spend a lot of money on NATO in order to protect European nations. We cover them with military, then we lose money on trade. The whole thing is crazy!”

“The American people understand it a lot better than the media!” pic.twitter.com/gSC29Ze5xb

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 7, 2025

The Cradle: What is your assessment of Turkiye’s economic orientation in this new world order?

Gurdeniz: We must abandon the illusion that foreign direct investment and EU integration will save us. That model has failed. It brought debt, privatisation, and dependency. Our economy must be built on production, not speculation.

This means reindustrialisation, food and energy sovereignty, and regional trade in local currencies. We must protect strategic sectors from foreign ownership. Our Central Bank must be independent not just from the government, but from foreign influence.

Only then can we speak of economic sovereignty.

The Cradle: What about diplomacy? Should Turkiye align with a particular bloc – or pursue non-alignment?

Gurdeniz: We must pursue what I call “assertive non-alignment.” That means refusing to be anyone’s satellite. We keep our options open. We cooperate with Russia, China, and the Global South, but also engage with Europe and the US where our interests align.

But there are red lines. We will not join sanctions regimes against our neighbors. We will not host foreign bases targeting other states. And we will not be dragged into NATO’s failing wars.

Our diplomacy must serve our geography – balanced, firm, and sovereign.

The Cradle: The EU claims to be a “values-based” project. How do you respond to this claim?

Gurdeniz: The EU’s values are selective. When it comes to Turkiye’s maritime rights, they back Greek maximalism. When it comes to Palestine, they say nothing. When it comes to Israel’s crimes, they call it “self-defense.”

This is not about values – it’s about power. The EU wants Turkiye as a buffer zone, a refugee warehouse, and a source of cheap labor. It will never accept us as equals. And we should not want to join such a club.

Our dignity is not for sale.

Read the rest here.

Via The Epoch Times,

The UK cancer care system is facing a “critical breaking point,” a number of experts have warned.

In a comment article published in The Lancet Oncology, the researchers have called for radical action to head off deepening financial pressures.

The article calls for the appointment of an independent National Cancer Director and an office of support to take data-driven actions across the UK.

The government has responded, saying it is determined to drive down waiting times for cancer patients.

Mark Lawler, professor of digital health at Queen’s University Belfast and lead author, said: “The urgency is clear: in my mind, we are already in the midst of a cancer crisis, precipitated by 14 years of gross mismanagement of cancer by the previous administration and the collateral impact of Covid and national lockdowns on cancer services and cancer patients.

“Now, more than ever, we must learn from each other, acknowledge the scale of the challenge, and implement data-driven solutions and achieve efficiencies, some of which may be contentious in the short term, but are essential for long-term cancer control within financial constraints.”

The comment article highlights several policy recommendations which the authors state will improve survival and quality of life for people with cancer.

Among the issues highlighted is the abolition of NHS England, which the authors said marks a “seismic shift” in UK health care governance.

The authors warn that the “greatest risk lies in reactive, short-term, ill-informed decision-making” by the government, which they state could further reduce UK cancer survival rates, deepen health inequalities, and escalate inefficiencies.

Professor Pat Price, from Imperial College London, who is chairwoman of Radiotherapy UK, said: 

“Delayed cancer treatment has become the deadly norm in this country, and we won’t reverse it unless we commit to doing things differently.

“If we keep doing the same things, with the same voices in the room, we’re going to continue to face some of the worst cancer outcomes in Europe.

“In the massively overlooked area of radiotherapy cancer care, for example, nearly two-thirds of cancer patients are waiting too long for their cancer treatment.

“Too often, we see cancer policy take a tunnel-vision approach, only focusing on areas like early diagnosis and completely overlooking the fact that we need to actually treat patients if we want to improve survival.

“The international environment, domestic funding pressures and a lack of policy priority to take the action needed could eclipse attempts to reverse the poor cancer outcomes the country faces.

“If we want to stop cancer patients in this country from dying needlessly, the promised cancer plan has to be radical. It needs to be data-driven.

“And it needs to ensure that, if money is tight, we’re spending it on the things that are proven to improve cancer outcomes.”

Mark Lawler, professor of digital health at Queen’s University Belfast, in an undated file photo. Queen’s University Belfast/PA

Another issue highlighted by the research team is the need to cut consultation by the current government, which they said is delaying the development of a new national cancer strategy.

Lawler said:

“We cannot continually consult our way out of a crisis – the evidence we and others have provided is irrefutable.

“We have more than enough data intelligence – what we need to do is act on this evidence as a matter of urgency.

“At the turn of the century, Denmark had worse cancer outcomes than the UK.

“But by prioritising cancer at the very top of the Danish health agenda, they now have among the best improvements in cancer outcomes in Europe. We need to ‘do a Denmark’.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said the government had “inherited a broken NHS where too many cancer patients are waiting too long for diagnosis and treatment.”

The spokesperson said: “We are determined to drive down waiting times and our Plan for Change is already getting patients seen and treated faster, with 80,000 more diagnosed or ruled out with cancer between July and January.

“The NHS exceeded its faster diagnosis cancer target for the first time in February amid record demand—almost four-fifths of people received a definitive cancer diagnosis or all-clear within four weeks.

“This is just the start: our National Cancer Plan will set out further how we will improve cancer care to bring this country’s cancer survival rates back up to the standards of the best in the world.”

There’s little doubt that ‘spy wars’ between Russian and NATO countries have already long been in progress in parallel to the ground war in Ukraine. This also amid a spate of mystery sabotage and arson attacks both in Europe and Russia, in what appears tit-for-tat covert ops targeting infrastructure.

But a new Times (UK) report strongly suggests Russia and Belarus are increasingly ready to jointly ramp up these spy and espionage measures against NATO targets, connected to the Ukrainian proxy war.

Kremlin intelligence officials describe that moving to an offensive spy posture is the necessary reaction to increased provocations by NATO countries near the Russian border.

According to the Times:

The Belarusian and Russian security services are preparing to take “preemptive” measures against Nato member states, the Kremlin’s spy chief has said.

Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence service, accused Nato of an increase in military activity near the borders of the two countries. Belarus is Russia’s strongest ally in Europe and the Kremlin has used its territory for attacks on Ukraine. Moscow also says it has transferred tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus.

Spy chief Naryshkin described while in Minsk alongside Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, “We feel and see that European countries, especially France, Britain and Germany, are increasing the level of escalation around the Ukrainian conflict, so we need to act preemptively. We are ready for this.”

Nothing that there have been no ‘mystery’ sabotage attacks in either Serbia or Hungary (both which are relatively Russia friendly), The Times recounts:

A recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank said the number of attacks nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024, after quadrupling between 2022 and 2023. It read: “Despite the increase in Russian attacks, western countries have not developed an effective strategy to counter these attacks.”

There have been mystery fires inside Russia as well, particularly targeting defense and energy sector buildings. To some extent, both are likely waging intensified sabotage campaigns against the other at this point.

Last year, Anne Keast-Butler, head of the UK’s GCHQ, or signals intelligence operations (which is the equivalent of America’s NSA), warned in her first major speech that President Putin was plotting “physical attacks” against Western targets.

The GCHQ director claimed at the time that Moscow is busy “nurturing and inspiring” groups of cyber attackers, and is even “in some cases seemingly coordinating physical attacks against the West.”

Last year, an Ikea in Lithuania’s capital went up in flames, and authorities just last month pinned it on Russian intelligence or saboteurs after a lengthy investigation. The fire, which targeted the Swedish retailer store in Vilnius on the May 9, 2024, resulted in no casualties. Interestingly, the two prime suspects taken into custody were actually Ukrainian citizens.

“It has been established that through a series of intermediaries… the organizers of these crimes are in Russia and this is connected to military intelligence and security forces,” the Lithuanian prosecutor’s office said, describing a ‘destabilization’ campaign in Europe.

Ukrainian leaders continue to brainstorm ways to replenish the military’s ranks, amid slow but steady gains by Russian forces along frontlines in Donetsk. Casualties on either side are believed to be in the hundreds of thousands, as the tragic conflict grinds on endlessly.

The Ukrainian presidential administration’s deputy head, Col. Pavel Palisa, has this week raised eyebrows by backing mandatory conscription for women while citing the Israeli model. Palisa advanced the idea that military service should be a national obligation for all men and women, and this is where current discussions on recruitment should focus.

“If a citizen claims to support the state, job, education, I don’t know, in general, to claim some payments from the state budget, they should serve… there is a minimum contract, let it be annual,” the official said. His words were later translated and cited in Russian media.

He strongly suggested that until military service is fulfilled for able-bodied young people, they should not have access to certain state benefits.

Col. Palisa continued by explaining the the armed forces of Ukraine has “a lot of different jobs” and “no matter how wild it sounds now, maybe we need to learn the experience of Israel in this.”

But it remains that Ukraine’s legal conscription age is still at 25 – which was lowered from 27 last year. Stricter reforms also made leaving the country for men much harder, amid a crackdown on evading the draft as well as desertion.

Washington officials have frequently criticized that young men aged 18 to 24 are still not able to be conscripted. Most armies throughout the world have 18-year olds serving in them, as the backbone of the lower enlisted ranks.

Foreign Policy has previously observed that “conscription is breaking Ukraine” – given that in many cases men are literally nabbed on the streets and thrown into vans, where they are taken off to boot camp, eventually to be thrown to the hellish front lines:

In Ukraine today, no topic is more barbed than that of compulsory military service. Few want to talk about conscription publicly; men within service age range, 25 to 60 years old, are particularly reticent. “It’s just too sensitive. I hope you understand me,” one man told me, referring to the many families in his circle of friends whose sons, brothers, and fathers are on the front or have perished there. Some fear that speaking out might prompt a letter from the Defense Ministry announcing their call-up. Or worse, they might be plucked randomly by recruitment officers on the streets and, should their documentation prove their eligibility for service, sent straight to boot camp.

In early October, Marco, a Ukrainian energy analyst who requested anonymity, said his brother-in-law, an IT specialist, had been stopped by traffic cops on a road near Kyiv. But the officers weren’t alone. Defense Ministry personnel assigned to the recruitment division accompanied them. They demanded to see the 30-year-old’s “military ticket,” a passport of sorts issued by the ministry that contains all data relevant to military service, such as age, professional status, and health condition. All Ukrainian men between 18 and 60 are required to have one. 

Should Col. Palisa’s vision for applying the ‘Israeli model’ in Ukraine become a reality, the country might also see women taken from their homes and from the streets in the same fashion.

Stop labeling everything you dislike about Ukraine as Russian propaganda (!)
Forced conscription into the war in Ukraine isn’t Russian propaganda; it’s a tragedy, especially for ordinary, poor, working-class individuals who are being sent into the meat grinder due to the will and… pic.twitter.com/4PNaRzm4PS

— Marta Havryshko (@HavryshkoMarta) March 2, 2025

The longer the war drags on, the more desperate authorities will become to replenish military ranks. But drastic change to an already controversial and strained system could destabilize the Zelensky government, which is likely why he’s held off implementing anything too drastic or radical until now.

Via The Cradle

Saudi Arabia is planning to pay off the debts owed by Syria to the World Bank, according to three sources cited by Reuters on Monday. “Saudi Arabia plans to pay off Syria’s debts to the World Bank … paving the way for the approval of millions of dollars in grants for reconstruction and to support the country’s paralyzed public sector,” the sources said. 

“Damascus is short of foreign currency and a previous plan to pay off the debts using assets frozen abroad did not materialize … World Bank officials have discussed providing financing to help reconstruct the country’s power grid, heavily damaged by years of war, and also to support public sector pay,” they added. 

A Saudi Finance Ministry source told the outlet that “We do not comment on speculation, but make announcements, if and when they become official.”

Reuters had reported over the weekend that Syria will be sending a delegation to the US for the annual World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings in Washington later in April. 

The extremist-led Syrian administration of Ahmad al-Sharaa, which assumed power after the fall of former president Bashar al-Assad’s government, has been hoping to secure some relief from the heavy sanctions imposed on Damascus over the years. 

The UK and a number of EU countries have lifted some of their sanctions on Syria, and Washington provided a six-month exemption from some sanctions in January. The US has also given Syria a list of demands that it wants the Syrian government to fulfill in exchange for partial relief from sanctions, reports said late last month.

These include the destruction of any chemical weapons, cooperation on “counter-terrorism,” and ensuring foreign fighters are not granted top positions. Several militants who fought with Al-Qaeda and ISIS-linked organizations against the former government have been incorporated into the army and given posts of command. 

Syrian government forces killed over 1,500 Alawites in a series of bloody sectarian massacres early last month. Tens of thousands have been displaced and have fled to Lebanon. 

Syria’s debt at the World Bank stands at around $15 million, which must be paid before the international financial institution can approve a grant and any other kind of financial assistance.  Additionally, the Syrian economy has been decimated by years of war and sanctions. 

The UN issued a report on February 20 highlighting that the Syrian economy will not be able to recover fully before 2080, 55 years from now.

A Qatari official announced on March 13 that Doha will be providing Syria with natural gas to boost the country’s energy sector. However, the new government’s extremist nature has caused concern for some states. 

🚨🇸🇾 Jolani regime terrorists snuck into Hmeimim airbase & tried to force Alawite refugees to leave! pic.twitter.com/GLYuDPoeWT

— OstensibleOyster (@Ostensiblay) March 16, 2025

Three European envoys warned Syrian authorities during a meeting in Damascus last month that international support for the country would depend on the government “cracking down” on extremist elements, according to Reuters. 

“The abuses that have taken place in recent days are truly intolerable, and those responsible must be identified and condemned. There is no blank check for the new authorities,” a French Foreign Ministry spokesman told the outlet when asked about the message delivered by the European envoys in Damascus.