69.7 F
Chicago
Sunday, September 27, 2026
Home Blog Page 1747

Israel Blocks All Humanitarian Aid To Gaza As Ceasefire Could Collapse

Israel Blocks All Humanitarian Aid To Gaza As Ceasefire Could Collapse

Regional Mideast sources are widely reporting that Israel’s military has halted the entry of all humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip at a moment tens of thousands of Palestinians continue returning to their homes, especially in the war-ravaged north.

Phase one of the fragile ceasefire agreement has ended, but some Israeli hostages still remain captive in the Strip, and there’s as yet no word that the sides have come to an agreement on the phase two part of the plan. Currently, there’s talk of simply extending phase one, and the guns have remained silent so far.

But that may change given the cessation of food, medicine, and water shipments to the Strip. Both sides continue making threats, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled the air and ground war could soon resume. Palestinians are accusing Israel of seeking to change the terms and framework of the ceasefire.

Getty Images

Netanyahu’s office said Sunday that “the entry of all goods and supplies to the Gaza Strip will be halted” – warning that this is due to Hamas rejecting the continuation of peace talks proposed by US special envoy Steve Witkoff.

“Israel will not allow a ceasefire without a release of our hostages,” the statement said. “If Hamas persists in its refusal, there will be additional consequences.”

The first phase of the agreement officially ended on Saturday, but Al Jazeera reports that “Netanyahu’s office said Israel has agreed to a proposal by Witkoff to extend the first phase of the ceasefire for six weeks during Ramadan – the Muslim holy month that began over the weekend – and the Jewish Passover holiday, which ends on April 20.”

A Hamas spokesman has responded by calling the blocked aid convoys a “cheap blackmail” and a “coup” on the ceasefire agreement. Hamas is urging international mediators to intervene.

“Netanyahu’s decision to stop aid going into Gaza once again shows the ugly face of the Israeli occupation… The international community must apply pressure on the Israeli government to stop starving our people,” the Hamas spokesman said.

Since the ceasefire was first agreed to in mid-January, thousands of trucks have entered Gaza each week, but given hundreds of thousands are starving and without continued access to basic necessities of life such as medicines – the situation remains desperate.

Many have accused Biden of setting up the conditions for a total aid blockade of the Gaza Strip…

At various times throughout the conflict, international organizations including the UN have warned that parts of the Strip have stood on the brink of famine. Also, young children have died due to recent cold and winter conditions, amid lack of heating fuel or means.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/02/2025 – 11:40

VDH: 10 Takeaways From The Zelenskyy Blow-Up

VDH: 10 Takeaways From The Zelenskyy Blow-Up

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via X,

1. Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Penn. campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being “briefed” by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine’s as they feign.

2. Zelenskyy acts as if his agendas and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean-distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to “reset” with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone’s sake.

3. The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the U.S. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsessions, and spend 3-5 percent of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16 percent of NATO’s budget but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogues states that otherwise might interrupt Europe’s commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.

4. Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea. So, the only two issues are a) how far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders and b) how will he be deterred? The first is answered by a commercial sector/tripwire, joint Ukrainian-US-Europe resource development corridor in Eastern Ukraine, coupled with a Korea-like DMZ; the second by the fact that Putin unlike his 2008 and 2014 invasions has now lost a million dead and wounded to a Ukraine that will remain thusly armed.

5. What are Zelenskyy’s alternatives without much U.S. help – wait for a return of the Democrats to the White House in four years? Hope for a rearmed Europe? Pray for a Democratic House and a 3rd Vindman-like engineered Trump impeachment? Or swallow his pride, return to the White House, sign the rare-earth minerals deal, invite in the Euros (are they seriously willing to patrol a DMZ?), and hope Trump can warn Putin, as he did successfully between 2017-21, not to dare try it again?

6. If there is a cease fire, a commercial deal, a Euro ground presence, and influx of Western companies into Ukraine, would there be elections? And if so, would Zelenskyy and his party win? And if not, would there be a successor transparent government that would reveal exactly where all the Western financial aid money went?

7. Zelenskyy might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden Administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine: suspending arms shipments, demanding cease-fires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelenskyy. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and when visiting was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never before the global media have interrupted, and berated a host and patron president in the White House.

8. If Ukraine has alienated the U.S. what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Euros? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelenskyy’s cards he seems to think are a winning hand?

9. If one views carefully all the 50-minute tape, most of it was going quite well – until Zelenskyy started correcting Vance firstly, and Trump secondly. By Ukraine-splaining to his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naïve for such a supposedly worldly leader.

10. March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelenskyy is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in Spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in Spring 2025.

Quo vadis, Volodymyr?

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/02/2025 – 11:15

“I Love BTC & ETH” – Crypto Spikes As Trump Discusses Strategic Reserve Ahead Of White House Summit

“I Love BTC & ETH” – Crypto Spikes As Trump Discusses Strategic Reserve Ahead Of White House Summit

Update (1045ET): On the heels of the announcement of a Cyrpto Summit at The White House this week, President Trump took to Truth Social to explain some of the details, specifically mentioning a Strategic Reserve.

A U.S. Crypto Reserve will elevate this critical industry after years of corrupt attacks by the Biden Administration, which is why my Executive Order on Digital Assets directed the Presidential Working Group to move forward on a Crypto Strategic Reserve that includes XRP, SOL, and ADA.

I will make sure the U.S. is the Crypto Capital of the World.

We are MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

All three of the ‘altcoin’s have shot up in price since the post:

And, despite the non-mention of Bitcoin, the largest cryptocurrency is spiking above $88k…

Many suggest the term ‘includes’ the altcoins does not mean ‘excludes’ bitcoin or ethereum. 

We shall see if our suggestion from May of last year comes true…

Well that didn’t take long for Trump to clarify…

There’s a lot of traders short Ethereum that could feel some serious pain if this comes to pass…

And the squeeze is starting…

*  *  *

As Zoltan Vardai detailed earlier via CoinTelegraph.com, US President Donald Trump will host the first White House Crypto Summit on March 7, bringing together industry leaders to discuss regulatory policies, stablecoin oversight, and the potential role of Bitcoin in the US financial system.

The attendees will include “prominent founders, CEOs, and investors from the crypto industry,” along with members of the President’s Working Group on Digital Assets, according to an announcement shared by the White House “AI and crypto czar,” David Sacks, in a March 1 X post.

The summit will be chaired by Sacks and administered by Bo Hines, the executive director of the Working Group.

Source: David Sacks

Sacks was appointed White House Crypto and AI and Czar on Dec. 6, 2024, to “work on a legal framework so the Crypto industry has the clarity it has been asking for, and can thrive in the U.S.,” Trump wrote in the announcement. 

Part of Sacks’ role will be to “safeguard” online speech and “steer us away from Big Tech bias and censorship,” Trump added.

Source: Donald Trump

Trump has previously signaled that he intends to make crypto policy a national priority and make the US a global hub for blockchain innovation. The upcoming summit may set the tone for crypto regulations over the next four years.

Sacks only has two years to push through pro-crypto policies before the 2026 midterm elections in the US, Joe Doll, the general counsel for NFT marketplace Magic Eden, told Cointelegraph in an interview.

According to Doll, the threat of a gridlocked government could stifle regulations, and the current administration must push through pro-crypto policies while still in control of both chambers of Congress.

Stablecoin, Bitcoin reserve regulation remain focus

While there are no additional details about the summit’s agenda, stablecoin regulation and legislation related to a potential strategic Bitcoin reserve have been at the forefront of regulatory discussions in the US.

The White House announcement came days after Jeremy Allaire, co-founder of Circle, the company behind the world’s second-largest stablecoin, said that stablecoin issuers worldwide should be required to register with US authorities.

Citing consumer protection, Allaire argued that US dollar-based stablecoin issuers should not get a “free pass,” enabling them to “ignore the US law and go do whatever the hell you want wherever and sell into the United States.” Allaire told Bloomberg:

“Whether you are an offshore company or based in Hong Kong, if you want to offer your US dollar stablecoin in the US, you should need to register in the US just like we have to go register everywhere else.”

The upcoming summit may shed more light on upcoming stablecoin legislation, considering Sacks previously stated that stablecoins could “extend the dollar’s dominance internationally.”

Interest in a US-based strategic Bitcoin reserve is also on the rise. So far, at least 24 states have introduced legislation related to a potential Bitcoin reserve, Bitcoinlaws data shows.

US states with Bitcoin reserve bill propositions. Source: Bitcoinlaws

However, the state-level Bitcoin reserve initiatives may not represent a pivotal moment for Bitcoin; they are only a “symbolic move” unless a significant purchase is announced, according to Iliya Kalchev, dispatch analyst at Nexo.

“Unless the hearing unveils a near-term purchase plan or a major policy shift, the market’s response will likely be mild, as Texas’ pro-crypto stance is already well known,” Kalchev told Cointelegraph.

Bitcoin has averaged over 1,077% returns over the past five years, showing the lucrative potential of a long-term holding strategy.

*  *  *

Back In Stock: Anza MINI-Swat! Like it’s big brother, only more concealable…

Click pic… add to cart… don’t cut yourself…    FREE SHIPPING!

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/02/2025 – 10:50

US Approves New Russian Ambassador As Major Reset Underway

US Approves New Russian Ambassador As Major Reset Underway

The two rounds of high level US-Russia talks in Riyadh and Istanbul in the last two weeks appear to already be bearing fruit, as Russia’s Foreign Ministry has announced it’s received approval from Washington to send Aleksandr Darchiev as Moscow’s new ambassador to the United States.

Current bilateral US-Russia dialogue has been focused on fully restoring relations and putting back in place all embassy staff in Washington and Moscow, respectively. There had been several rounds of hostile mutual booting of diplomats as relations deteriorated under Biden.

Aleksandr Darchiev, via Sputnik

According to Russian media, “Darchiev, a senior diplomat with more than 30 years of experience, currently heads the Foreign Ministry’s North Atlantic Department. He previously served as Russia’s ambassador to Canada from 2014 to 2021 and has held several high-ranking positions within the ministry, including deputy director of the North America Department and counselor at the Russian embassy in Washington.”

This is no doubt part of the “concrete initial steps” being taken by both sides toward resuming regular contacts and diplomatic engagement, with a higher aim of finding a permanent peace solution to the Ukraine war.

Darchiev’s predecessor, Anatoly Antonov, served as Russia’s ambassador to the US throughout much of the Ukraine crisis and the entirety of the war until now. He ran the Russian embassy in D.C. for seven years, and just recently returned to Moscow.

Just as Moscow is poised for a reset with the US under the new Trump administration, Washington relations with Ukraine are at a low point after Friday’s Zelensky fireworks in the Oval Office. Russian media has been busy hailing and welcoming these developments, which may soon result in the following:

US President Donald Trump’s administration is considering ending all ongoing shipments of military aid to Ukraine, The Washington Post wrote citing sources.

Military supplies could be halted “in response to remarks” by Vladimir Zelensky at a meeting with Trump in the White House and “his perceived intransigence in the peace process,” according to the publication.

The decision, if made, would apply “to billions of dollars of radars, vehicles, ammunition and missiles awaiting shipment to Ukraine through the presidential drawdown authority,” an official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic, was quoted as saying.

Ukraine frontlines have already been steadily collapsing, so without a future flow of American heavy weapons, this collapse will only accelerate, and the war would likely reach finality within a few months or less.

President Putin has meanwhile been touting the chance for “major” cooperative economic and diplomatic initiatives with the US under Trump, and as bilateral talks progress. Russia has even offered its own minerals access deal as a possibility of closer cooperation, and as Trump floats potentially dropping sanctions in the future. The next step may be the restoration of direct commercial flights between the two countries.

The Europeans have been cut out up to this point, and certainly the Ukrainians will continue to be sidelined, given what just took place with Zelensky at the White House. The Kremlin will no doubt jump at the opportunity to keep up this momentum of anti-Zelensky sentiment in Washington.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/02/2025 – 08:45

US And UK To Forge New Trade Agreement

US And UK To Forge New Trade Agreement

Via OilPrice.com,

  • President Trump indicated a willingness to work on a new trade agreement with the UK and suggested that tariffs on British goods might not be necessary.

  • Prime Minister Starmer emphasized the balanced trade relationship between the UK and the US and expressed hope that tariffs would not be imposed.

  • The leaders discussed collaborating on a new technology-focused economic deal, with a particular emphasis on artificial intelligence.

The UK could be set to dodge US tariffs with work to begin on a new US-UK trade deal, it was revealed during Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to US President Donald Trump.

The Prime Minister flew to the States yesterday for a highly anticipated first meeting with President Trump since he reentered the White House in January.

And the visit, which came amid uncertainty over peace in Ukraine and the impact on European security, saw Trump outline his hopes for a “great trade agreement” with the UK.

Following discussions with Sir Keir, the President told a press conference on Thursday: “We’re going to have a great trade agreement, one way or another.

“We’re going to end up with a very good trade agreement for both countries and we are working on that as we speak.”

He added: “I think we’ll have something, maybe in terms of possibilities, agreed very shortly.

“We’ll see if we can do something pretty quickly. But we’re going to make some great trade agreements with the UK and with the Prime Minister, and it’ll happen very quickly.”

Asked if Starmer, who he also described as a “tough negotiator” and “terrific in our discussions” had convinced him not to impose trade tariffs on the UK, Trump said: “He tried.”

US tariffs on British steel imports are looming and the US president had previously hinted he could target the UK further, as well as suggesting he could impose 25 per cent tariffs on goods from the European Union (EU).

Trump said: “He was working hard, I’ll tell you that. He earned whatever the hell they pay him over there, but he tried.

“I think there’s a very good chance that in the case of these two great, friendly countries, I think we could very well end up with a real trade deal where the tariffs wouldn’t be necessary. We’ll see.”

The US President also told reporters that he uses tariffs to “even things up” on trade, adding: “We’ve been treated badly by a lot, we’re using tariffs and… it’s not about inflation, it’s about fairness, and the inflation for us has not existed. I don’t think it’s going to exist.”

But Starmer emphasised that the UK-US trade relationship is “fair”, as he signalled he hoped not to see tariffs imposed on Britain’s economy.

The Prime Minister said: “We have $1.5 trillion invested in each other’s economies, creating over 2.5m jobs across both economies, our trading relationship is not just strong. It’s fair, balanced and reciprocal.”

And Starmer earlier stressed: “Mr President, it’s no secret we’re from different political traditions, but there’s a lot that we have in common. We believe it’s not taking part that counts. What counts is winning.

“If you don’t win, you don’t deliver, and we’re determined to deliver for the working people of Britain and America who want and deserve to see their lives improve. 

“So, we’re both in a hurry to get things done, and that’s what the UK and US do when we work together: we win and we get things done.”

Starmer also revealed the UK would work with the US on a new technology-focused economic deal. Speaking of the countries’ hopes for artificial intelligence (AI), he said: “Instead of over-regulating new technologies, we’re seizing the opportunities they offer.”

He added: “We’ve decided today to go further to begin work on a new economic deal with advanced technology at its core.

“Look, our two nations together shaped the great technological innovations of the last century. We have a chance now to do the same for the 21st century.

“I mean, artificial intelligence could cure cancer. That could be a moonshot for our age, and that’s how we’ll keep delivering for our people.”

Following his comments on the EU, Trump also said he will “have to take a look” at whether there will be any trade sanctions on the UK.

The President said: “I can say that … we’re here for a different reason – we’re talking about a very different place. I have investments there, I own Turnberry, I own Aberdeen, and I own a great place called Doonbeg in Ireland. So, I have a great warm spot for your country.”

Starmer then said: “And our trade, obviously, is fair and balanced and, in fact, you’ve got a bit of surplus. So, we’re in a different position there – and obviously we contributed hugely in relation to Ukraine.”

Trump said: “It’s going to work out.” Asked if there will not be any sanctions on the UK, Mr Trump said: “Well, I have to take a look.”

Elsewhere, the US President Donald said the Chagos Islands deal did not “sound bad” when he suggested the US may accept the deal.

Answering questions in the White House, the US President said: “We’re going to have some discussions about that very soon and I have a feeling it’s going to work out very well.

“They’re talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years, actually. It’s a long time. I think we’ll be inclined to go along with your country.”

He added: “It’s a little bit early, we have to yet be given the details, but it doesn’t sound bad.”

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/02/2025 – 08:10

Armed Venezuelan Ship “Threatens” Exxon Mobile Vessel Off Guyana Coast

Armed Venezuelan Ship “Threatens” Exxon Mobile Vessel Off Guyana Coast

A Venezuelan military ship entered a major offshore oil and gas field off the coast of Guyana early Saturday, approaching an ExxonMobil contracted vessel, according to Bloomberg. This incident comes days after President Trump canceled a key oil deal with Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela, citing its failure to repatriate an adequate number of illegal aliens from the US.

X user News Source Guyana posted a video showing the armed Venezuelan patrol boat probing the waters around the Exxon contracted ship in the Stabroek Block (Oil & Gas Field). 

The US State Department wrote on X the incident was unacceptable:

“Venezuelan naval vessels threatening ExxonMobil’s floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit is unacceptable and a clear violation of Guyana’s internationally-recognized maritime territory. Further provocation will result in consequences for the Maduro regime. The United States reaffirms its support for Guyana’s territorial integrity and the 1899 arbitral award.”

Another video of the incident.

Exxon discovered Stabroek in 2015. It produces 650,000 barrels daily and is situated in heavily disputed waters with Venezuela.  

Guyana’s President, Irfaan Ali, stated that the Venezuelan military vessel radioed the Exxon-contracted ship, declaring that the area lies within disputed international waters.

“During this incursion, the Venezuelan vessel approached various assets in our exclusive waters, including FPSO Prosperity,” Ali said, referring to one of the Exxon-contracted vessels.

The Organization of American States stated, “Such acts of intimidation constitute a clear violation of international law, undermine regional stability, and threaten the principles of peaceful coexistence between nations,” adding it “unequivocally condemns the recent actions of Venezuelan naval vessels.”

The incident follows Trump’s decision to reverse the concessions of an oil transaction agreement dated Nov. 26, 2022, with Venezuela, citing Maduro’s failure to repatriate enough migrants.

Not a smart move, Maduro. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/02/2025 – 07:35

America As Republic, Not As Empire – Europe’s ‘Sound And Fury’ After Jaw-Dropping Pivots In US Policy

America As Republic, Not As Empire – Europe’s ‘Sound And Fury’ After Jaw-Dropping Pivots In US Policy

Authored by Alastair Crooke,

The bits are falling into a distinct pattern – a pre-prepared pattern.

Defence Secretary Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference gave us four ‘noes’: No to Ukraine in NATO; No to a return to pre-2014 borders; No to ‘Article 5’ peacekeeper backstops, and ‘No’ to U.S. troops in Ukraine. And in a final flourish, he added that U.S. troops in Europe are not ‘forever’ – and even placed a question mark over the continuity of NATO.

Pretty plain speaking! The U.S. clearly is cutting away from Ukraine. And they intend to normalise relations with Russia.

Then, Vice-President Vance threw his fire cracker amongst the gathered Euro-élites. He said that the élites had retreated from “shared” democratic values; they were overly reliant on repressing and censoring their peoples (prone to locking them up); and, above all, he excoriated the European Cordon Sanitaire (‘firewall’) by which European parties outside the Centre-Left are deemed non-grata politically: It’s a fake ‘threat’, he suggested. Of what are you really so frightened? Have you so little confidence in your ‘democracy’?

The U.S., he implied, will no longer support Europe if it continues to suppress political constituencies, arrest citizens for speech offenses, and particularly cancel elections as was done recently in Romania. “If you’re running in fear of your own voters”, Vance said, “there is nothing America can do for you”.

Ouch! Vance had hit them where it hurts.

It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown: Was it the fear of the U.S. and Russia joining together as a major power nexus – thus stripping Europe from ever again being able glide along on the back of American power, through the specious notion that any European state must have exceptional access to the Washington ‘ear’?

Or was it the ending of the Ukraine/Zelensky cult which was so prized amongst the Euro-élite as the ‘glue’ around which a faux European unity and identity could be enforced? Both probably contributed to the fury.

That the U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions would be a calamitous event for the Brussels technocracy.

Many may lazily assume that the U.S. double act at Munich was just another example of the well-known Trumpian fondness for dropping ‘wacky’ initiatives intended to both shock and kickover frozen paradigms. The Munich speeches did exactly that all right! Yet that does not make them accidental; but rather parts that fit into a bigger picture.

It is clear now that the Trump blitzkrieg across the American Administrative State could not have been mounted unless carefully pre-planned and prepared over the last four years.

Trump’s flurry of Presidential Executive Orders at the outset of his Presidency were not whimsical. Leading U.S. constitutional lawyer, Johnathan Turley, and other lawyers say that the Orders were well drafted legally and with the clear understanding that legal challenges would ensue. What’s more, that Trump Team welcome those challenges.

What is going on? The newly confirmed head of the Office of Budget Management (OBM), Russ Vought, says his Office will become the “on/off switch” for all Executive expenditure under the new Executive Orders. Vought calls the resulting whirlpool, the application of Constitutional radicalism. And Trump has now issued the Executive Order that reinstates the primacy of the Executive as the controlling mechanism of government.

Vaught, who was in OBM in Trump 01, is carefully selecting the ground for all-out financial war on the Deep State. It will be fought out firstly at the Supreme Court – which the Trump Team expect confidently to win (Trump has the 6-3 conservative majority). The new régime will then be applied across all agencies and departments of state. Expect shrieks of pain.

The point here is that the Administrative State – aloof from executive control – has taken to itself prerogatives such as immunity to dismissal and the self-awarded authority to shape policy – creating a dual state system, run by unelected technocrats, which, when implanted in departments such as Justice and the Pentagon, have evolved into the American Deep State.

Article Two of the Constitution however, says very bluntly: Executive power shall be vested in the U.S. President (with no ifs or buts at all.) Trump intends for his Administration to recover that lost Executive power. It was, in fact, lost long ago. Trump is re-claiming too, the Executive’s right to dismiss ‘servants of the State’, and to ‘switch off’ wasteful expenditure at his discretion, as part of a unitary executive prerequisite.

Of course, the Administrative State is fighting back. Turley’s article is headlined: They Are Taking Away Everything We Have: Democrats and Unions Launch Existential Fight. Their aim has been to cripple the Trump initiative through using politicised judges to issue restraint orders. Many mainstream lawyers believe Trump’s Unitary Executive claim to be illegal. The question is whether Congress can stand up Agencies designed to act independently of the President; and how does that square with the separation of powers and Article Two that vests unqualified executive power with one sole elected official – the U.S. President.

How did the Democrats not see this coming? Lawyer Robert Barnes essentially says that the ‘blitzkrieg’ was “exceptionally well-planned” and had been discussed in Trump circles since late 2020. The latter team had emerged from within a generational and cultural shift in the U.S.. This latter had given rise to a Libertarian/Populist wing with working class roots who often had served in the military, yet had come to despise the Neo-con lies (especially those of 9/11) that brought endless wars. They were animated more by the old John Adams adage that ‘America should not go abroad in search of monsters to slay’.

In short, they were not part of the WASP ‘Anglo’ world; they came from a different Culture that harked back to the theme of America as Republic, not as Empire. This is what you see with Vance and Hegseth – a reversion to the Republican precept that the U.S. should not become involved in European wars. Ukraine is not America’s war.

The Deep State, it seems, were not paying attention to what a posse of ‘populist’ outliers, tucked away from the rarefied Beltway talking shop, were up to: They (the outliers) were planning a concerted attack on the Federal expenditure spigot – identified as the weak spot about which a Constitutional challenge could be mounted that would derail – in its entirety – the expenditures of the Deep State.

It seems that one aspect to the surprise has been the Trump Team’s discipline: ‘no leaks’. And secondly, that those involved in the planning are not drawn from the preeminent Anglo-sphere, but rather from a strand of society that was offended by the Iraq war and which blames the ‘Anglo-sphere’ for ‘ruining’ America.

So Vance’s speech at Munich was not disruptive – merely for the sake of being disruptive; he was, in fact, encouraging the audience to recall early Republican Values. This was what is meant by his complaint that Europe had turned away from “our shared values” – i.e. the values that animated Americans seeking escape from the tyranny, prejudices and corruption of the Old World. Vance was (quite politely) chiding the Euro-élites for backsliding to old European vices.

Vance implicitly was hinting too, that European conservative libertarians should emulate Trump and act to slough-off their ‘Administrative States’, and recover control over executive power. Tear down the firewalls, he advised.

Why? Because he likely views the ‘Brussels’ Technocratic State as nothing other than a pure offshoot to the American Deep State – and therefore very likely to try to torpedo and sink Trump’s initiative to normalise relations with Moscow.

If these were Vance’s instincts, he was right. Macron almost immediately summoned an ‘emergency meeting’ of ‘the war party’ in Paris to consider how to frustrate the American initiative. It failed however, descending reportedly into quarrelling and acrimony.

It transpired that Europe could not gather a ‘sharp-end’ military force greater than 20,-000-30,000 men. Scholtz objected in principle to their involvement; Poland demurred as a close neighbour of Ukraine; and Italy stayed silent. Starmer, however, after Munich, immediately rang Zelensky to say that Britain saw Ukraine to be on an irrevocable path to NATO membership – thus directly contradicting U.S. policy and with no support from other states. Trump will not forget this, nor will he forget Britain’s former role in supporting the Russiagate slur during his first term in office.

The meeting did however, underline Europe’s divisions and impotence. Europe has been sidelined and their self-esteem is badly bruised. The U.S. would in essence leave Europe to their own delusions, which would be calamitous for the Brussels autocracy.

Yet, far more consequential than most of the happenings of the past few days was when Trump, speaking with Fox News,after attending Daytona, dismissed Zelensky’s canard of Russia wanting to invade NATO countries. “I don’t agree with that; not even a little bit”, Trump retorted.

Trump does not buy into the primary lie intended as the glue which holds this entire EU geo-political structure together. For, without the ‘Russia threat’; without the U.S. believing in the globalist linchpin lie, there can be no pretence of Europe needing to prepare for war with Russia. Europe ultimately will have to come to reconcile its future as a periphery in Eurasia.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/02/2025 – 07:00

Trump, Vance, & The New New World Order

Trump, Vance, & The New New World Order

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

This past week, the venerable Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for The Financial Times, used his column to declare the Trump administration and, by extension, the United States “the enemy of the West.” “Today,” Wolf wrote, “autocracies [are] increasingly confident,” and “the United States is moving to their side.” According to the subhead on the column, “Washington has decided to abandon…its postwar role in the world.” Meanwhile, Wolf cites the (in his estimation) august Franklin Roosevelt, as he complains that the United States “has decided instead to become just another great power, indifferent to anything but its short-term interests.”

The ironies here—as well as the historical ignorance—abound.

To start, one would imagine that Wolf, an educated man with two degrees from Oxford, might know that it was his countryman (and two-time Prime Minister), Henry John Temple (i.e. Lord Palmerston), who declared in a speech in the House of Commons that “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Wolf might also be expected to know that this statement was repeated—more famously and more pithily—by Henry Kissinger, perhaps the quintessential American diplomat in the supposedly vaunted postwar order. Kissinger, like Palmerston and Trump (apparently) understood that a nation that pursues anything other than its interests is foolish, faithless, and, in time, doomed.

What bothers Wolf, it would seem, is that American interests are diverging from British and continental European interests. That is unfortunate, but it is also more than likely the case that this divergence is the result of Britain and Europe’s abandonment of the principles, values, and ambitions the allies once shared, rather than the other way around. For example, Wolf criticizes the speech given by J.D. Vance in which the vice president defended the traditional American dedication to free speech and attacked the British and European rejection of that principle. Yet again, Wolf might be expected to know that the American preoccupation with this and all other negative rights is something the nation’s Founders inherited from their British forefathers. If the two nations now differ on the importance of this fundamental right, then that’s hardly Vance’s, Trump’s, or any other American’s fault.

More ironies are found in Wolf’s praise of the now-dying postwar order and his citation of FDR as the architect of that order. While Wolf is correct that Roosevelt was one of two Americans most responsible for the creation of the postwar order, he is wrong in believing that the order was virtuous by design and that it played out precisely as Roosevelt intended. Indeed, he couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.

Almost from the moment the United States entered World War II, Roosevelt was planning how best to achieve the goal he inherited from his former boss and Progressive predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s goal, of course, was “global governance” under the League of Nations, a goal that the U.S. Senate, mercifully, denied him. Regrettably, Roosevelt shared Wilson’s dream. The political scientist and historian of the Cold War, Amos Perlmutter, wrote that Roosevelt’s “vision for a postwar world was neo-Wilsonian, totally at odds with reality. He would help create a new international order, presided over in an equal partnership by the two emerging superpowers, the United States and the USSR, and buttressed by the newly created world organization, the United Nations.” Like Wilson, Roosevelt sought to fix the world by bringing the whole of it under the control of a handful of its most benevolent and brilliant men—himself included, naturally.

The catch, of course, was that in order to believe that he could effectuate his plan for the postwar global order, Roosevelt also had to believe that it would be received positively by the man who turned out to be the most proficient mass murderer in the war, Josef Stalin. Remarkably, Roosevelt did, in fact, believe just that. He repeatedly told his staff and others that he was convinced that the man he affectionately called “Uncle Joe” would eagerly welcome his friendship and American entreaties to share governance of the world jointly. They would, he believed, be the closest of allies and the best of friends. In 1943, before ever even meeting Stalin, FDR told his first ambassador to the USSR, William Bullit, that “I have just a hunch that Stalin doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world democracy and peace.”

Roosevelt approached the end of the war and Yalta in the same state of delusion. He went, hat in hand, to beg Stalin to join him in his plan to rule the world together as the benevolent co-victors and co-representatives of the triumphant political left. As history shows, Roosevelt gave Stalin everything he wanted at Yalta, in the vain hope that the two could be friends and work together. History also shows that FDR was never disabused of this fantasy and, as a result, set about trying to put it in place.

To this end, Roosevelt put his best men on the job of ensuring the creation—and the successful ratification by the Senate—of the United Nations. Among these best men were his Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, and an aide on whom Roosevelt relied heavily while at Yalta, the director of the Office of Special Political Affairs, a man named Alger Hiss.

Many years of work went into creating the United Nations and planning its charter, and many prominent Americans—including Stettinius and Dulles—had tremendous input into the documents.  In the end, though, it was Hiss, the Soviet spy, who ensured that the United Nations was born. Hiss was the primary author of the United Nations Charter and attended the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco as part of the official American delegation headed by Senator Arthur Vandenberg. Among other things, Hiss was tasked with ensuring Vandenberg’s support and compliance—both in endorsing the U.N. Charter at the conference in San Francisco and then shepherding it successfully through the Senate ratification process.

The United Nations was the most critical step in transforming the world at the end of the war. But it was only the first step. For the better part of a century, the leftist secular intellectuals and the Utopian pietists colluded to push the notion of “global governance” on an unwilling and uninterested globe. In 1945, however, with the Utopians victorious in the West and murderous but canny cynics victorious in the East, the Wilsonian-pietist dream at last became a reality. The entire postwar period—from Roosevelt’s attempts to court Stalin at Yalta and beyond to the establishment of the United Nations, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund; from Truman’s speech on the Greek crisis to the formulation of the policy of containment; from the war in Korea to the Marshall Plan—is perhaps best understood as the story the American Left’s attempts to nurture and encourage world government, and to consolidate power under beneficent American leadership.

This world order—which inarguably produced the wars in Korea and Vietnam and arguably contributed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—is the world order Trump and Vance are supposedly abandoning and which Martin Wolf wishes so desperately to preserve.

I can’t say with any degree of certainty that any new, new world order will be particularly grand, but I can say that the old, new world order was, at best, a happy accident that only nearly resulted in the nuclear destruction of the entire planet – and which might not be so lucky next time.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/01/2025 – 23:20

Federal Employees Hate DOGE Because They Fear Meritocracy

Federal Employees Hate DOGE Because They Fear Meritocracy

Not all people who are attracted to government employment are searching for a cushy job with limited work load and even less oversight, but most aren’t working for agencies like the IRS, ATF or USAID because of patriotic duty.  In reality, federal bureaucrats act as if they’ve found a cheat code to life.  And until the arrival of Elon Musk’s DOGE audits, that assumption was generally true.   

As Dan Aykroyd’s character Ray Stantz notes in the movie Ghostbusters: 

“Personally, I liked working for the university. They gave us money and facilities. We didn’t have to produce anything. You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector … they expect results!”

For decades it’s been a running joke that government employees do very little while collecting a generous paycheck.  For American taxpayers, however, the joke’s not so funny.  DOGE audits have exposed considerable waste and fraud within the system.  Apologist in the media argue that most of this information was available to anyone willing to look, but this is a misrepresentation of the bigger problem. 

Until recently no one had collated spending data in way that is easy for the average American to reference and track.  In fact, digging up this information is made as frustrating as possible, likely to dissuade people from investigating for themselves.  The Government Accountability Office doesn’t do it; if anything they pretend to scrutinize various agencies while covering for their mismanagement.  When it comes to government waste the phrase that leaps to mind is “hidden in plain sight”.  

“Waste” and “fraud” are the only words to describe the situation with federal employment – In 2024 there were over 3 million workers, the most since 1994, collecting around $270 billion annually (including benefits).  Federal supervisors are incentivized to give average to outstanding employee performance reviews in order to avoid employee and union backlash, as well as negative attention for their department.  It is often noted that government work has bred a culture of “conflict avoidance”.  In other words, merit is not their top priority.

In the past various establishment media outlets have admitted to this trend.  The Washington Post in 2016 noted that only 0.1% of federal employees ever get a negative performance review.

In 2013 the Government Accountability Office was tasked to review federal performance management systems across the 24 CFO Act agencies. After reviewing OPM data for calendar year, the GAO reported that more than 99% of non-Senior Executive Service employees received a rating of fully successful or higher.  This is simply not credible.

If anything, federal workers should be subject to more scrutiny and should have to present tangible results on a regular basis.  The GAO’s data was ignored because that’s how the GAO works, and the easy security of federal employment continued without disruption.  This is why the actions of DOGE are triggering government workers so hard – They have never faced true meritocracy before. 

Many of them have never worked in the private sector and don’t understand that they are in fact subject to review and to firing if they don’t meet the standards of their employers (the American people).  They think they are untouchable.  They think performance reviews are tyranny.  They think they shouldn’t have to answer to anyone.

The level of panic and indignant behavior among fed workers over a simple email from DOGE asking “what they accomplished last week” tells us everything we need to know about the bureaucrat culture.  The email, which should take anyone 10 minutes to answer, is treated as “harassment” and a “distraction” from their work.

Keep in mind, the email was not necessarily meant to act as a performance indicator; it was a test to see who responds and who does not.  The people who refused to respond simply outed themselves as a potential problem to be removed later.  For those that are being fired for poor performance the claim of “outstanding reviews” under the previous administration don’t hold water.  As noted, it’s proven that the government maintains a participation trophy culture – Everyone is a winner no matter how incompetent. 

The concept of meritocracy is so alien to the federal system that basic job requirements common to almost every company in the country are seen as acts of abuse.  Add in the freak show of DEI hiring and you have a recipe for financial disaster. 

It’s not unfair to compare the waste within the government to the waste at the original Twitter.  Musk eliminated 80% of twitter staff after purchasing the platform and the company actually functioned better without them.  We will probably see the same results with the federal system over time. 

 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/01/2025 – 22:45

The Turnaround…

The Turnaround…

Authored by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

The best way to understand Trump is also the simplest: he’s a businessman. From that perspective, little of what he’s doing is as inexplicable or surprising as many make it out to be. The inexplicability arises from general ignorance of business. Most Americans have little knowledge or understanding of how private American businesses work, although they generates the majority of the U.S.’s $29 trillion GDP and employ many of them.

Trump is now CEO of the federal government. That enterprise has over $36 trillion in direct liabilities and unfunded liabilities in the hundreds of trillions. Its cost of credit is rising and debt service is taking an ever-expanding share of its revenues. Self evidently, it cannot continue on its present course.

The common element of successful business turnarounds is that they don’t emerge from slow, incremental changes from within the system. Somebody comes in and administers shock therapy. Turnaround artists are never popular. Lots of people are fired, unprofitable operations discarded, finances tightened, business philosophies rethought, and the company’s direction radically reset. Because the company’s situation is dire, this all has to be done quickly, with shareholders howling and creditors pounding at the door.

It begins with the numbers. In failing enterprises, they often reek of falsification, self-dealing, and corruption. You analyze the numbers and you keep asking questions until you uncover the real answers. What Musk and DOGE are doing would be standard operating procedure in a comparable business situation; indeed Musk did the same thing when he took over Twitter. Applied to government, it’s considered revolutionary, but how many politicians or bureaucrats have ever run a business?

That the Department of Defense has never passed an audit and the Federal Reserve tenaciously resists one tells you all you need to know about the government’s numbers. Finding the “anomalies” is like shooting fish in a barrel. Resolving them invariably uncovers sordid secrets. Secrecy is the decaying dreck that feeds swamp corruption. Publicly, swamp creatures are screaming about “democracy” and DOGE access to the government’s sacred information. Privately, they’re checking into overseas bank accounts, defense attorneys, and realtors while updating their LinkedIn profiles.

There are valid security, cybersecurity, and legal, even Constitutional, concerns about the way DOGE is operating that would not be present in a business situation. DOGE’s victims can be counted on to litigate these issues and courts may well impose restrictions. There will also be pushback from within the bureaucracy, even from Trump appointees. Kash Patel has already told FBI employees not to file Musk’s what-I-did-last-week emails. Courts and pushback could derail the project, in which case, revolution would be the only avenue left to defeat the Blob.

At Twitter, Musk fired 80 percent of the workforce, reflecting business wisdom that 20 percent of any workforce does 80 percent of the work. For government, those figures should be revised to 10 and 90. However, is any of the work useful? It’s often counterproductive, producing results contrary to its stated purpose. Government-declared wars on poverty, drugs, and terror produced more impoverishment, drug-addiction, and terrorists, wasting billions. Those “war fighting” agencies and many others should be terminated.

Trump has decided that Operation Ukraine must be terminated. The sunk cost fallacy—throwing good money after bad—has cost the U.S. government trillions, particularly in its military endeavors. The fallacy justifies future spending, and in the case of the military, more destruction and death, on a failing project (like Afghanistan) by citing money already spent and lives already lost—sunk costs. Those costs are irrelevant in deciding whether to continue a project; only the probability of future success matters.

Businesspeople who throw good money after bad go bankrupt. They don’t have fiat money or tax dollars to perpetuate their mistakes. Trump’s not going to throw more money down the Ukrainian rathole. He’s talking about cutting the military budget in half, and the only way to do that is to forego these forever fiascos. The money already spent on Ukraine cries out for an illuminating line-by-line audit. If it happens, watch the cockroaches scatter, including the Bidens and the Clintons.

It appears that Trump and team have decided that unipolarity—the foreign affairs equivalent of monopoly—must give way to multipolarity—the foreign affairs equivalent of oligopoly. As a businessman, Trump undoubtedly prefers monopoly, but reality requires recognition of competitors who are too big to eliminate.

Trump now acknowledges Russia as a peer oligopolist, and obviously, so, too, is China (see “Russia and China Are Facts of Life,” SLL, 1/28/25). It’s always a risk trying to guess Trump’s thinking. However, he apparently wants to settle the ugly Ukraine business quickly and get on with the three-party oligopoly in which the oligopolists sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete—hopefully economically and diplomatically, not militarily. Blood, as businessman Virgil Sollozzo noted in The Godfather, is a big expense. Oligopoly may well have been Trump’s thinking back in his first term (see “The Eagle, the Dragon, and the Bear,” SLL, 6/21/18). However, the Russiagate hoax prevented him from even making overtures in that direction.

Everyone else, including Europe, will be second- or third-tier, although jockeying for markets and securing favorable arrangements for extracting resources will be important aspects of oligopolistic competition. Like many oligopolies, there will be a territorial dimension. Without admitting it, Trump will cede Eurasia to China and Russia while shoring up the U.S. base in North and South America. That may be the thinking behind Trump’s rhetoric concerning Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. Africa and the poles will be open territory over which the oligopolists will compete.

The Middle East and Israel have bedeviled presidents since Truman. If it had no oil, the Middle East would be a desert backwater, an oxymoron. The U.S. has plenty of oil and natural gas. It could buy Middle East oil when prices were favorable and otherwise stay out of the region. However, there is the relationship with Israel, which gets far more from it than the U.S. That’s intolerable from a business perspective, but it’s a political necessity for Trump. The relationship could destroy Trump’s presidency if the two countries wage war on Iran. Given Iran’s ties with Russia and China, such a war could escalate to World War III.

While Trump’s business perspective brings fresh thinking and some honesty to government, there are times when it’s grossly inappropriate. Since 1948, Palestinians have been squeezed into ever-smaller areas in the land formerly known as Palestine, and it’s clear that Netanyahu and Trump want them completely evicted. Getting rid of them and turning Gaza into a luxury beach resort may have a cold-blooded business logic to it, but it’s a patently unjust solution for the Palestinian “problem.” The Trump Gaza video recently released on Truth Social is beyond grotesque.

Back at home, Trump and many Americans understand that the U.S. government is a rathole. Indeed, it’s been common knowledge since Roosevelt’s New Deal, which turned a recession into a Great Depression on the moronic mantras that government bureaucrats are omniscient and government spending is the key to prosperity. Unfortunately, the average American has no power to force the government to disclose information or change its ways. Turnarounds are top-down affairs, which is why so much hope rests on Trump, Musk, and DOGE.

You can’t cut costs to prosperity; successful turnarounds require new revenues. In the case of a government turnaround that doesn’t mean government finds new ways to soak the productive private economy. It means government gets out of the way and lets entrepreneurs, capitalism, and markets do their revenue- and wealth-generating thing. Laws, regulations, and bureaucratic extortion are barnacles encrusting the U.S.S. Economy, stopping it dead in the water. Neither inflation-adjusted private-sector incomes nor the real economy have grown in years. (The public sector has made out nicely, though.)

If Trump and Musk fire government employees, but thousands of laws and regulations aren’t blowtorched, their efforts will come to naught. Legislation drafted by the ignorant stifles industries they don’t understand. Many businesspeople have to “politely” explain to regulators the business they presume to regulate.

That their taxes pay the salaries of these parasites, often with additional “taxes” levied under the table, compounds the absurd injustice. Large, connected, crony-socialistic enterprises can absorb the costs, gaming the system to subsidize themselves and stifle the competition. Ultimately, it’s the much-heralded but much-abused entrepreneurs and small businesses who are crushed. Europe has snuffed out its innovation and economic dynamism almost entirely. The U.S. is well down the same path.

Unfortunately, Trump wants the government to “help” business instead of simply getting out of its way. Business will supposedly thrive behind tariff walls, but its going to be the large, crony-socialistic enterprises that benefit. Trump’s Stargate project will throw half a trillion dollars at well-heeled Silicon Valley outfits to develop AI. China’s DeepSeek and Musk’s latest iteration of Grok has made Stargate obsolete before it spends its first dollar. The one thing Trump and team can do that will help all business is slash spending, reducing the government’s drain on the economy and the national debt’s upward pressure on interest rates.

Honest, successful businesspeople—and the U.S. still has plenty—must deal with reality. They have to produce a good or service at a cost less than what the market will pay for it. The miracle of profit propels production and progress. Yet, it’s the villain in the unreal worlds of government, academia, and mainstream media and entertainment, none of which would survive a day if somebody out there wasn’t generating profit. America is built on profit, not politics. General recognition of that fact would restore some sanity in what’s loftily called the “national discourse.”

The business of America has been and must be business. Trump can’t elucidate an Ayn Rand-type defense for the morality of free enterprise, production, and profit. However, he realizes that the productive element of society is supporting its own parasitic destroyers. Nor can he elucidate a John Quincy Adams-type defense of a foreign policy in which America minds its own business. However, he apparently recognizes that the empire cannot be sustained.

It remains to be seen if Trump and team can turn around America at home and abroad. They’re taking on a powerful Overclass that produces far less than it takes, destroys far more than it creates, and will fight tooth-and-nail to preserve its sinecures. One thing is clear. Without recognition of hard realities and a dramatic turnaround, America’s government will go the way of other failing enterprises that couldn’t change course, sooner rather than later.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/01/2025 – 22:10