A new subsea data cable incident occurred in the Baltic Sea on Thursday, raising concerns about the vulnerability of underwater infrastructure in the heavily trafficked shipping lane. The incident adds to increasing fears of potential sabotage in the region. 

Mattias Lindholm, a spokesman for the Swedish Coast Guard, told The New York Times that the C-Lion1 Finland-Germany fiber line was damaged off the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. He provided no details on when the damage occurred or what caused it.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of Sweden said that his government took “all reports of possible damage to infrastructure in the Baltic Sea very seriously.” 

Finnish networking company Cinia, which operates the high-speed fiber line, told Bloomberg that the connection between Finland and Germany remains uninterrupted. However, they noted there appears to be a “scratch” on the line but provided no further details. 

What is clear is that the cable was not completely severed, unlike previous incidents in recent years.

Between November and January, there were three incidents of damaged undersea cables in the Baltic Sea – from data cables to power cables… 

“It’s a great concern to see the number of incidents over recent months in our critical undersea infrastructure,” Henna Virkkunen, executive vice president of the European Commission for tech sovereignty and security, told reporters in Helsinki, adding, “These incidents have the potential to disrupt vital services to our society, such as connectivity and electricity transmission, and also carry a significant security risk.”

However, a Washington Post article last month citing anonymous officials said these cable incidents were likely caused by negligence rather than sabotage. Sure. 

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: At $1.1 trillion, annualized interest on the US federal debt is now the second-largest budget item—and is on track to become the largest.

Meanwhile, long-term interest rates are climbing, even as the Fed lowers short-term rates.

Can the US government keep kicking the can down the road? Or will Trump have to reset the system?

Doug Casey: Starting in the 1960s, a growing number of people noticed the size of the debt and annual deficits. Even back then—when numbers were trivial compared to current levels—it was said this can only end up one of two ways: Either runaway inflation, where the dollar loses all value, or catastrophic deflation caused by massive defaults in debt.

It occurred to me, in the 1980s, that it could wind up with both happening, either in sequence or simultaneously in different sectors of the economy. While you couldn’t rule out a soft landing, the most likely eventual result would be financial and economic chaos.

Massive money printing and debt accumulation have gone on for something like 80 years, and the system has held together. Why should it end now? Maybe they can wring one more cycle out of the corrupt Keynesian system. That said, I think we have finally reached the actual crisis point. Although this certainly isn’t the first time the inevitable seemed imminent…

What’s genuinely different this time is Trump. For whatever reasons—yes, I know what the party line is—he and Elon are radically reforming the government and may yet change the downward trajectory of America. At least they’re throwing sand on the slippery slope.

I thoroughly approve of his massive firings of employees, disbanding agencies, and cutting the budget by hundreds of billions. The risk is that he might bring on a deflationary collapse. Many of the government grifters and their pals, who are getting rich through the likes of USAID, will have to radically reduce their spending. Many could wind up in bankruptcy, defaulting on their mortgages and other debt. That’s how a deflationary credit collapse could start.

Trump’s very familiar with bankruptcy proceedings. Having bankrupted numerous entities, he sees the dangers of bankruptcy. Will that scare him away from making more radical moves? I don’t think so. He sees a chance to both carve his name in stone and save what’s left of America. Plus, he sees what he’s doing as a path to personally bankrupt some of his enemies and hurt all of them. He has plenty of reason to be righteously vindictive.

He’s going for a full reset of the system. It’s risky because he has no philosophical core, just gut feelings. And no grasp of economics, just business experience (which is different). But something had to be done to keep the US from turning into a socialist cesspool like all the countries in Europe.

Along with massive deregulation, I expect he’ll do something with the monetary system.

The cuts that DOGE is making are spectacular and wonderful. If they can eliminate the deficit, then the government won’t have to print money. But not printing increasing amounts of dollars could easily set off a credit collapse, the deflation alternative.

On the other hand, Trump seems to have lots of spending schemes up his sleeve, which will need massive amounts of money. Like taking over Gaza, buying Greenland, and buying back the Panama Canal, among others. We’re talking many hundreds of billions. The unwinding of old distortions, only to replace them with new distortions and different government interventions.

The big monetary question is, when the system resets, what will gold have to do with it?

My guess is that gold is going to play a major role in the reset.

International Man: What past monetary resets have occurred in US history, and how do they compare to today’s situation?

What does it mean for the US dollar?

Doug Casey: The biggest reset in history occurred in 1933 when Roosevelt confiscated gold from US citizens at $20.50 per ounce before revaluing it to $35. That was a massive criminal theft, and it was done by executive order, not even an act of Congress.

The next reset was in 1964, when Johnson took all the silver out of US dimes, quarters, and half dollars, and fraudulently replacing it with pot metal that looked like silver to the casual observer.

The next big reset was in 1971 when Nixon ceased redeeming gold to foreign governments, much as Roosevelt had denied redeemability to American citizens.

Smaller monetary frauds were committed over the years, such as in 1982, when copper was taken out of the penny. It was replaced with zinc with a copper coating to make it look the same. But even using zinc, which trades for about $1.50 a pound, it costs about 3.7 cents to mint a penny.

Copper trades for about $4.50, which means old copper pennies are now worth about 10 cents in metal. Since it costs about 13 cents to mint a nickel, we can expect that they’ll soon be made of steel, like the Canadian nickel, or eliminated, as pennies soon will be.

The most recent monetary upset was the creation of Bitcoin, which was created as an alternative to the dollar. It’s a step towards obviating the role of government in the money business. I believe it will succeed.

I’d say the acceptance of Bitcoin belongs on a scale with these other events. Why? Because Bitcoin has caused the dollar to be recognized as a fiat currency in the popular jargon. Before Bitcoin, the word “fiat” was viewed as pedantic. Something only gold bugs cared about. Now, most everybody sees the dollar as just paper, a fiat currency.

This is a very good thing. The public is seeing reality.

International Man: The gold market is typically driven by paper trading, with large physical deliveries being rare.

However, someone in the US recently took possession of approximately 30 million ounces of physical gold. For context, the US government claims to hold 261 million ounces of gold—though many question the accuracy of that figure. These recent physical deliveries equal over 11% of the US government’s reported gold reserves.

What do you make of this? Historically, what have large movements of physical gold signaled?

Doug Casey: Large transfers of money usually signal fear. In a stable world with high levels of trust, it’s more convenient to store your gold at a central facility where ownership can be tracked not by necessarily moving the gold but by just changing the ownership of gold that’s in one place.

But when people take delivery of massive amounts of gold, it might signal a bank run. There’s fear that it may no longer be there.

All we know is that this is going on between major players and governments—you might say malefactors of great wealth, to use Teddy Roosevelt’s phrase. The retail public isn’t involved. The proof of that is that the premiums on gold coins are still close to historic lows, although they’re increasing.

There are lots of questions, but it seems to me that this is an overture to a major upset. That’s why people are taking possession of physical gold. They want it in their own possession.

International Man: The US government still values gold at approximately $42 per ounce on its balance sheet—significantly below its market price.

Could it revalue this gold to reflect its actual market value? And if so, what would be the implications?

Doug Casey: It’s always good to recognize the real value of anything.

Politically assigned values are usually phony and create distortions in the marketplace. It never ends well when you pretend lies are true.

I’m confident that the US, and possibly other governments, will soon revalue gold to at least its market price. Or perhaps a much, much higher price that would allow redemption of currencies with specific amounts of gold.

People talk about “backing” the dollar with 10%, 20%, or 40% of its stated value with gold. But that’s ridiculous. Redeemability, one for one, is what counts.

The dollar started out as a receipt for a specific amount of physical gold, 1/20th of an ounce. Is it possible Trump will raise the price of gold to a level where the dollar is again redeemable? I’d say yes. It would be part of the solution to the $37 trillion national debt.

I suspect he’s planning on revaluation of all government assets. The US government has title to many millions of acres of BLM and Forest Service land, which is carried on the books at basically zero. It amounts to about 1/3 of the total US land area, but it’s now dead capital. It should be revalued to what it’s worth. Better yet, it should be distributed to the citizens of the US or at least sold.

I’d add in redundant military bases. There are hundreds that should be closed. And they will be if Trump cuts military spending by 50%, which he has intimated. The US government has lots of assets that should be liquidated to pay off its most pressing debts. A giant garage sale to avoid bankruptcy.

That’s something Trump is very familiar with.

Going back to gold, the key is an audit to determine how much gold the US government actually owns—followed by making the dollar redeemable with a fixed amount of gold. I doubt that will happen. But it could, should, and would if we return to a stable, trust-based world.

International Man: Past monetary resets have generated incredible speculative opportunities.

How do these historical examples compare to the opportunities available today?

Doug Casey: The question is what gold “should” be priced at.

At around $3,000 an ounce, gold is now about where it should be—from a historical point of view—relative to houses, cars, clothes, meals, and so forth.

From that point of view, there’s not much speculative upside in gold. But if the dollar is transformed from a fiat currency into a receipt for gold—which it should be since that’s the only way to stabilize the system for the long term— a massively higher gold price is needed.

I spelled that out in my 1993 book, Crisis Investing for the Rest of the ’90s. I came up with numbers. Depending on which parts of the money supply you wanted to use, gold would have to be many thousands, perhaps $40,000 per ounce.

My podcast partner, Matt Smith, has done a great analysis, which has gone viral, discussing this. He found, whether in US dollar terms, Euros, Chinese Yuan, or other currencies, that the likely price for revalued gold is someplace between $20,000 and $30,000 per ounce.

I suggest everybody listen to that podcast (LINK) for a full explanation of why that’s the case.

So, what should you do?

If you haven’t built a significant holding of gold coins, do it now. Gold stocks are starting to move up after a long bear market, and if gold is revalued, gold stocks will explode upwards.

*  *  *

In this rare message, legendary gold investor Doug Casey shows you the secret to how he invests and the most lucrative “insider” way of multiplying your gold mining stock returns. Click here to see it now.

Europe’s seasonal natural gas draw has been the largest in years, driven by colder temperatures, reduced wind power generation, and the end of Russian gas imports via Ukraine. The situation is particularly dire in Germany, sending power prices sky-high, resulting in the crippling of its industrial base. However, relief comes from the US, as record-high LNG exports are poised to help replenish Europe’s dwindling reserves. 

Most important chart Europeans should be watching… 

The latest data from BloombergNEF shows that US pipeline gas flows to LNG export plants reached 15.7 billion cubic feet on Tuesday—an all-time high and nearly 20% higher than a year ago.

Soaring LNG exports have crowned the US as the world’s biggest supplier of LNG. Some figures show output could double by the end of the decade as demand from Europe and Asia continues to rise. 

Since the Ukraine war in 2022, US LNG exports to Europe have surged. 

In fact, the US has become the number one gas dealer for Europeans. 

“Europe, in particular, has turned to American LNG to help replace the loss of Russian pipeline gas since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine,” Bloomberg noted, adding, “More US supply could provide relief to LNG buyers in Europe and Asia, which have been grappling with higher prices.” 

At the end of 2024, Samantha Dart, co-head of global commodities research at Goldman, told clients that it’s “theoretically” possible that US LNG Gulf exports could replace all of Russian NatGas flowing into the EU. 

Dart’s note came just days after President Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I told the European Union that they must make up their tremendous deficit with the United States by the large-scale purchase of our oil and gas. Otherwise, it is TARIFFS all the way!!!”

Meanwhile, tight supplies on the energy-stricken continent have sent Dutch TTF Natural Gas Futures, the benchmark for Europe’s gas trading, up nearly 157% since bottoming around 22 euros per megawatt-hour about one year ago. 

Trump’s ‘America First’ policy will likely drive even more US LNG shipments to Europe as Brussels seeks to avoid a tariff dispute with Washington.

The second chart of the note should be a major focal point for the Europeans.

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A British husband couple who were on a motorcycle journey around the world while arrested last month have been charged with espionage in Iran.

An Iranian judiciary spokesman, Asghar Jahangir, told the Mizan news agency in Tehran on Tuesday the couple had “collected information” in several parts of the country while posing as tourists.

Lindsay Foreman, a motivational speaker, and her husband Craig Foreman were heading for Australia and crossed into Iran from Armenia on Dec. 30, according to their social media posts.

They were detained by Revolutionary Guards in the city of Kerman, 300 miles southeast of Tehran, late last month.

Jahangir said the Foremans were detained, “during a series of coordinated intelligence operations and while collecting information in Kerman city.”

The couple, who are believed to be in their 50s, are accused of having links to intelligence agencies of “hostile countries.”

A British Foreign Office spokesman said: “We are deeply concerned by reports that two British nationals have been charged with espionage in Iran. We continue to raise this case directly with the Iranian authorities.”

“We are providing them with consular assistance and remain in close contact with their family members,” he added.

The Foreign Office (FCDO), on its website, advises against all travel to Iran.

The guidance warns travel insurance will probably be invalidated in Iran and says, “Having a British passport or connections to the UK can be reason enough for the Iranian authorities to detain you.”

In a post on her Facebook page on Dec. 30, Lindsay Foreman said, “Despite the advice of friends, family, and the FCDO (which strongly advises against travel to Iran for British nationals), we’ve chosen to keep moving forward.”

‘Aware of the Risks’

“Yes, we’re aware of the risks,” she wrote. “But we also know the rewards of meeting incredible people, hearing their stories, and seeing the breathtaking landscapes of these regions could far outweigh the fear.”

On Jan. 3, she posted another message on Facebook, which said: “Travel continues to teach me that humanity’s core is shared: kindness, humility, and respect for one another. Sometimes, it’s the quietest moments that leave the loudest impressions.”

After that the Facebook page activity stopped, although it is not clear when the couple were detained.

The Foremans, who described their journey as “PP (positive people) K2K (knee-to-knee) motorbiking around the world” had also posted regularly on YouTube about their travels.

Last month they posted a video from the city of Tabriz in north-west Iran, in which Lindsay Foreman said: “I feel content. I’m in Iran, having an amazing time.”

An Iranian tourist guide who appeared to be hosting the couple, said on the video, “Please don’t listen to media, come and discover Iran.”

Lindsay Foreman was carrying out a research project, asking people what constitutes a “good life,” and was due to present her findings at a conference on positive psychology in Brisbane in July.

Iran has a track record of detaining foreign nationals and accusing them of espionage, often releasing them in exchange for Iranians captured abroad, or other diplomatic rewards.

In March 2022, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori, dual British-Iranian citizens, were released after being detained for several years in Iran.

In exchange for their release, Britain paid Iran a £40 million ($50.3 million) debt dating from the rule of the Shah of Iran in the 1970s.

The UK government accepted it should pay the “legitimate debt” for an order of 1,500 Chieftain tanks, which was not fulfilled after the shah was deposed and replaced by the Islamic regime.

Last month Iran released an Italian journalist, Cecilia Sala, who had been detained for a month, in exchange for Iranian businessman Mohammad Abedini, 38, was arrested at Milan Malpensa Airport on a U.S. warrant for allegedly supplying drone parts that Washington said were used in a 2024 attack that killed three U.S. soldiers in Jordan.

The Associated Press and PA Media contributed to this report. 

Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss told the audience at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that her country is “failing,” and needs a MAGA-type movement to save it.

“We now have a major problem in Britain that judges are making decisions that should be made by politicians,” said Truss, speaking from National Harbor, Maryland, and adding that the British judiciary is “no longer accountable” due to reforms by her predecessor, Tony Blair, who handed power over to an “unelected bureaucracy.”

“There’s no doubt in my mind that until those changes are reversed, we do not have a functioning country. The British state is now failing, is not working. The decisions are not being made by politicians,” Truss continued.

Truss also said that UK voters have grown increasingly angry because they keep voting for change – only to be let down over and over, including by current PM Keir Starmer.

“The same people are still making the decisions. It’s the deep state, it’s the unelected bureaucrats, it’s the judiciary,” Truss said. “And I think what ultimately will happen, what I hope to see, is a movement like you have in the US with Maga [‘Make America great again’], with CPAC, with all these organisations, that ultimately pushes change we all want. We want to have a British CPAC.”

Truss then said “We want Elon and his nerd army of muskrats examining the British Deep State!”

FMR. UK PM LIZ TRUSS: “We look across the Atlantic with envy.”

“We want illegal immigrants deported!”

“We want taxes to be cut!”

“We want a Trump revolution in Britain!”

“We want Elon & his nerd army of muskrats examining the British deep state!” pic.twitter.com/BkK7Mwut4O

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 20, 2025

Truss’s comments are emblematic of a growing right-wing movement across Europe – as voters in Germany, Austria, France and the Netherlands have been gravitating towards populism amid failed ‘green’ policies, unchecked immigration, and censorship policies that violate basic human rights.

According to the NY Times, which spoke with Europeans who voted for right-wing candidates, people cast their ballots “in fury, in frustration, in protest and perhaps most of all in a bid to bring change to a system they believe has failed to fulfill the contract between their democratically elected governments and the people.”

They talked openly about nationalism, immigration, stagnant economies, the cost of living, housing shortages, anger at the elite and their countries’ perceived buckling to what many consider politically correct views.

Their voices offer a window into the choices Europeans may make in the year ahead. The main event will be a Feb. 23 snap federal election after the collapse of the governing coalition in Germany, where the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, has made tremendous gains. Voters in Italy, Poland, Norway, Ireland, Romania and the Czech Republic — all countries where populist movements are either well established or on the rise — are also expected to choose leaders on the local or national level.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is on track to win the next election.

Farage has notably slammed the impact of Net Zero on the British Economy, and says he’s on a mission to “reindustrialize” Britain and achieve a “180 shift” in the country’s policies.

There’s reason for cheer at Reform HQ this morning: Nigel Farage’s party is leading Labour in a YouGov voting intention poll for the first time. According to the poll, Reform UK leads on 25 points with Labour in second place on 24 per cent and the Conservatives in third on 21 per cent. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats are on 14 per cent and the Greens on 9 per cent. While there have been a handful of polls to date putting Reform in the lead, they have so far been regarded as outliers. In response to the poll, Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform, said: ‘Much more to come as common sense policies welcomed to save Britain and make us better off’. –Spectator.co.uk

h/t Watts Up With That

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

A Modern Monetary Theory “Superbonus” trial is underway in Italy. The state pays 110 percent of home renovations…

In an effort to stimulate the economy during Covid, MMT proponent and then Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte came up with a not so brilliant idea that is now so popular no politician has been able to completely turn it off.

Contractors are going door-to-door offering to renovate homes for free.

The cost of scaffolding is up 400 percent, And the cost of the program, estimated at 35 billion Euros is now 220 billion euros and rising.

How to Torch 220 Billion Euros

Please consider How to Torch 220 Billion Euros

In the depths of the COVID pandemic, with the ECB committed to keeping sovereign spreads low and the EU fiscal rules suspended, Italy launched what would become one of the costliest fiscal experiments in history. Prime Minister Conte announced that the government would subsidize 110% of the cost of housing renovations. The “SuperBonus,” as the policy was called, would improve energy efficiency and stimulate an economy that had barely grown in over two decades. Consumers would face neither economic nor liquidity constraints:

Rather than direct cash grants, the government issued tax credits that could be transferred. A homeowner could claim these credits directly against their taxes, have contractors claim them against invoices, or sell them to banks. These credits became a kind of fiscal currency – a parallel financial instrument that functioned as off-the-books debt. The setup purposefully created the illusion of a free lunch: it hid the cost to the government, as for European accounting purposes the credits would show up only as lost tax revenue rather than new spending.

Contractors often inflated renovation costs; for instance, a €50,000 project might be reported as €100,000. The bank would purchase the €110,000 tax credit at near face value, enabling the contractor to pocket the difference, sometimes sharing it with the homeowner. At times, no work at all was carried out, in which case, invoices for non-existent work on fake buildings were a perfect tool for organized financial crime.

Builders were going around offering to pay people money to renovate their houses. A scheme initially budgeted at €35 billion will end up costing Italian taxpayers €220 billion — about 12% of GDP. Annual costs ballooned from 1% of GDP in 2021, to 3% in 2022, and 4% in 2023. Only 495,717 dwellings would end up being renovated – meaning the average cost of the program was around €320,000 per home.

Riccardo Fraccaro – a lawyer, Five Star Movement politician, Modern Monetary Theory adherent and architect of the SuperBonus – saw the program as a way to push a fiscal expansion while complying with EU rules. By designing the Superbonus as a system of transferable tax credits, Fraccaro and his advisors sought to create a parallel financial instrument that did not immediately register as public debt.

The [European] Commission approved the inclusion of the Superbonus in Italy’s NRRP after its design, with full knowledge of the fact this program included a 110% subsidy.

When Italy’s deficit shot up in 2023 due to the Superbonus, rising from a projected 5.5% to 8% of GDP, there was no market panic. Italian bond spreads remained contained, thanks to the ECB’s Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI), which reassured investors without the ECB even needing to intervene. By removing the constraint of market discipline, the ECB allowed the Superbonus to persist far longer than it otherwise would have.

The very mechanisms designed to protect the euro may now be undermining it. When the ECB steps in to prevent market pressure on sovereign bonds, it removes a crucial disciplining force on national fiscal policies, creating perverse incentives for politicians to expand spending without regard for long-term sustainability.

New Rules Scale Back Program

The above article, written February 14 2025, is amusing but dated. The program is still in place, but at a reduced rate.

In 2023, Italy Scaled Back the Program to 90 Percent Free rather than 110 percent free.

With state expenses rising, the new government has announced — through the “Decreto Aiuti Quater” (Amendment to the Subsidies Decree) and the Budget Law 2023 — that it’s immediately scaling back the subsidy to 90%, and then will be gradually reducing it over the next few years (to 70% in 2024 and 65% in 2025). In a nutshell, the main changes to the 2023 Superbonus are:

• The Superbonus deduction has been lowered from 110% to 90% as of January 1, 2023.
• Credit transfers no longer apply, except for work already in progress and with applications submitted by February 16, 2023.

Only 65 Percent Free

This year, renovations are only 65 percent free.

But making repairs free is easy enough via a scheme of fraudulent kickbacks stating with 35 percent fictional markups.

Italy’s Public Debt Tops 3 trillion Euros

Reuters reports Italy’s Public Debt Tops 3 trillion Euros, Highest on Record

Italy’s public debt rose further in November, exceeding 3 trillion euros ($3.1 trillion) and hitting a record high, the central bank of the euro zone’s third-largest economy said on Wednesday.

The sustainability of Rome’s huge public debt has long been seen as a crucial factor for the survival of the euro zone, and Italy has been the most sluggish economy in the bloc since the launch of the single currency around 25 years ago.

The country’s public debt – already the euro zone’s second-largest after Greece in relation to gross domestic product (GDP) – is forecast by the government to rise to around 138% of GDP in 2026, from 135% in 2023.

If economic growth in 2025 comes in significantly below the government’s 1.2% target, as most forecasters expect, the debt-to-GDP ratio is due to increase further.

Rome, which was put under the European Union’s excessive deficit procedure last year, hopes to bring its deficit below the EU’s 3% of GDP ceiling in 2026, from 3.8% targeted last year and 7.2% in 2023.

European Union’s Excessive Deficit Procedure

France and Italy are both under excessive deficit procedures.

France is ungovernable as a result. Germany is up next.

Not to worry, MMT assures us that government debt does not matter.

Related Posts

March 27, 2024: Expect a Financial Crisis in Europe With France at the Epicenter

The EU never enforced its Growth and Stability Pact or Maastricht Treaty rules. The crisis is coming to a head with France and Italy in the spotlight. The first casualty will be Green policy.

December 1, 2024: French Government May Collapse, France Bond Yields Higher than Greece

A fiscal and political crisis is brewing in France over mandated debt brakes. Marine le Pen threatens to collapse the government.

January 9, 2025: Trump Demands Defense Spending 5 Percent of Europe GDP, No Chance of That

Much of the EU is struggling to get defense spending up to 2 percent of GDP. 5 percent of GDP has zero chance. Let’s discuss the math.

This month has seen a series of provocative incidents between the Australian and Chinese militaries. Last week a Chinese fighter jet and an Australian military plane had a close encounter, with each side condemning the other.

Canberra rebuked Beijing for “unsafe” military conduct after the Chinese jet released flares near an Australian air force plane patrolling the South China Sea. However, the Chinese government accused the Australian plane of “violating Chinese sovereignty and endangering Chinese national security.”

Following this, China sent warships down the eastern Australian coast, sailing just 150 nautical miles east of Sydney in a recent first.

The Australian navy has responded by sending its own warships to shadow and monitor the Chinese PLA Navy ships. They include three ships total: a Chinese frigate, a cruiser and a supply tanker.

“We are keeping a close watch on them, and we will make sure we are watching every move,” Australia’s Defense Minister Richard Marles said.

“It’s not unprecedented. But it is an unusual event,” Marles said, but still stipulated that the vessels are “not a threat” at this point as they are “engaging in accordance with international law.”

“And just as they have a right to be in international waters, which is what they are doing, we have a right to be prudent and to make sure that we are surveilling them, which is what we are doing,” he added.

Additionally, New Zealand’s Defense Minister Judith Collins confirmed that NZ’s military is closely monitoring the ships’ progress.

She told a national broadcaster, “We have not been informed by the Chinese government why this task group has been deployed into our region, and we have not been informed what its future plans are,” and that “We will continue to monitor these vessels.”

Australia is shadowing three Chinese warships north east of Queensland just days after an “unsafe” encounter in the South China Sea. In the “unsafe” encounter, a Beijing fighter jet dropped flares on an Australian military plane, a P-8A Poseidon. SEE MORE: https://t.co/XZyUWcN0Cm… pic.twitter.com/JedKBupujH

— The Daily Telegraph (@dailytelegraph) February 14, 2025

Maritime analyst Bec Strating La Trobe University has questioned, “What is the Chinese navy doing this far south?”

She was quoted in the NY Times as describing, “That would be the thing that is causing anxiety. Is this intelligence gathering, is this really just signaling to Australia that the Chinese are also able to have naval presence in these areas?”

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Its self-exclusion from the proposed “army of Europe” coupled with creeping informal concerns about Germany and Ukraine’s territorial intentions make Poland the perfect US partner for dividing-and-ruling Europe after NATO’s proxy war with Russia finally ends.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski came out against Zelensky’s proposal for an “army of Europe” by flatly declaring that “it will not happen” despite many of his peers wanting to prioritize such plans in light of the US’ impending disengagement from the continent that JD Vance hinted at in his historic speech. Casual observers assumed that this lifelong Europhile would have jumped at the opportunity, as would former President of the European Council-turned-Prime Minister Donald Tusk, but that didn’t happen.

Even though they’re more of an Anglophile and Germanophile respectively than they are Europhiles, and their corresponding foreign patrons support Zelensky’s proposal, Sikorski and Tusk’s half of Poland’s ruling duopoly must most immediately appeal to public opinion ahead of May’s presidential election. They need to replace outgoing President Andrzej Duda with their fellow “Civic Platform” (PO) member Rafal Trzaskowski instead of allowing his fellow “Law & Justice” (PiS) member Karol Nawrocki to do so.

Tusk’s PO-led liberal-globalist coalition came to power in fall 2023 but have been unable to implement their radical socio-cultural agenda at home due to the (very imperfect) conservative president’s veto rights. Replacing him with Trzaskowski would enable PO to fulfill their plans while his replacement by Nawrocki would lead to a continued impasse until fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections. On the foreign policy front, both PO and PiS are pro-American, albeit to different degrees.

PO can’t be described as anti-American by any stretch, but it’s traditionally been considered more pro-German than pro-American, while PiS has evolved into an openly anti-German party that’s rabidly pro-American. Accordingly, PO might hypothetically want to participate in an “army of Europe”, but they have to play it cool for now ahead of May’s presidential elections. At the same time, however, they’ve also evolved since fall 2023 and have begun to promote some policies in support of the national interest.

These have taken the form of fortifying PiS’ border wall with Belarus that was built to stop illegal immigrant invasions, which that neighboring country’s leader at the very least turns a blind eye to as an asymmetrical response to Poland’s regime change campaign against him, and standing up to Ukraine. The latter has seen Poland revive the Volhynia Genocide dispute in recent months and declare that it’ll only provide arms to Ukraine on credit instead of continuing to give them everything for free like before.

With these policies in mind, which might be sincere and not just a charade to win over some so-called “moderate nationalists” from PiS, PO might also be serious about its opposition to the “army of Europe”. In that case, it actually wouldn’t matter whether Trzaskowski or Nawrocki replaces Duda in several months’ time since Poland might still exclude itself from this regional process in pursuit of what its ruling duopoly would have apparently agreed to be the national interest.

To elaborate, Poland has consistently sought to carve out a “sphere of influence” for itself in Central & Eastern Europe, whether overlapping with parts of its former Commonwealth or expanding beyond those borders into new domains like the Balkans. These ambitions have taken the form of the 2009 “Eastern Partnership” that it co-founded with Sweden, the 2016 “Three Seas Initiative” that it co-founded with Croatia, and the 2020 “Lublin Triangle” that it co-founded with Lithuania and Ukraine.

Prior to PO’s pivot back to the gist of these plans late last year, the early months of its most recent rule essentially saw it subordinating Poland to Germany’s “Fortress Europe” concept, which refers to the Biden Administration’s plans to have the EU’s de facto leader take control of the continent as its proxy. Germany’s incomparable economic strength and ruling coalition’s liberal-globalist ideology paired with Olaf Scholz’s December 2022 hegemonic manifesto to make this a very attractive scenario for the US.

Everything changed since then after Trump’s unprecedented political comeback over the past year, which is revolutionizing the US’ foreign policy and led to Vance’s historic speech last week where he hinted at his country’s impending disengagement from Europe. Vance’s speech also importantly coincided with new Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s praise of Poland as “the model ally on the continent”, however, thus suggesting that the US will once again favor Poland over Germany.

That wouldn’t be surprising since it’s the same policy that Trump applied during his first term, but it would be greatly helped along if PiS remained in the presidency and Poland didn’t descend into the sort of liberal-globalist dystopia that Vance just railed against should Trzaskowski win. Even if he does, however, PO might exercise self-restraint and control some of its most extreme liberal-globalist impulses so as to not get on Trump’s bad side and risk being made an example out of like others already have.

The strengthening of Polish-US military ties throughout the US’ impending disengagement from Europe as it “Pivots (back) to Asia” to more muscularly contain China would advance both of their interests. From the American side, Poland can once again be wielded as a wedge for keeping German-Russia ties in check if they improve after the Ukrainian Conflict ends and the AfD plays a role in the next ruling coalition to help bring that about, which segues directly into what Poland stands to gain from this.

Simply put, its ruling duopoly’s dreams of restoring their country’s lost geopolitical glory could once again be entertained if the US returns to openly favoring Poland as its top European ally, which can lead to American backing for the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” and “Lublin Triangle” in pursuit of this. Poland would become the natural magnet for regionally disaffected states like the Baltics, Romania, and even Ukraine if the NATO-Russian proxy war ends in a compromise as expected so this is very plausible.

Depending on the outcome of the US’ reportedly planned rapprochement with Belarus, Poland might be encouraged to step up and repair relations with Russia’s top ally too, all in an attempt to lure Lukashenko away from Moscow and back towards his pre-summer 2020 “balancing act” to keep Putin on edge. None of this would be possible if Poland ceded even more of its sovereignty to the German-led EU by joining the “army of Europe” that Zelensky just proposed and thus weakened its military alliance with the US.

Some Poles also fear that the AfD’s possible role in Germany’s next ruling coalition could lead to the revival of at least informal claims to what Warsaw calls the “Recovered Territories” that were obtained after World War II. These were Polish for centuries before becoming German but it’s beyond the scope of this analysis to detail. Likewise, there’s also a risk that post-conflict Ukraine redirects some of its hyper-nationalism away from Russia to Poland, whose southeastern regions are claimed by some radicals.

Consequently, the US’ impending disengagement from Europe could embolden a partially AfD-ruled Germany and an irredeemably hyper-nationalist Ukraine to one day advance their claims to Poland (perhaps even jointly), which could only possibly be deterred by Poland’s close military ties with the US. Of relevance, Ukraine claims to already have almost 1 million troops while Poland and Germany are actively competing to build the EU’s largest army, with Poland already having the third-largest in NATO.

The preceding two paragraphs weren’t written to imply a prediction about Germany and/or Ukraine invading Poland, but simply to describe how Poland’s ruling duopoly might perceive the fast-moving processes in Europe right now and what they think they could possibly lead to. This interpretation would account for why the pro-German half of this duopoly that’s currently in power broke with Berlin over this issue and shows how easily the US can exploit this perception to continue dividing-and-ruling Europe.

Neither half of Poland’s ruling duopoly is expected to replace their fearmongering about a Russian invasion with fearmongering about a German and/or Ukrainian one, but they’re evidently concerned about the last two scenarios as proven by PO’s new approach towards the EU and the US. Refusing to cede more military sovereignty to the German-led EU while strengthening military ties with the US shows that even the most Europhilic half of this duopoly is hedging against the aforesaid threats.

Looking forward, PO will either expose the abovementioned approach as an electioneering charade after May’s presidential vote or it’ll continue along this trajectory by having Poland once again serve as the US’ top ally on the continent, following which its ruling duopoly would seek to derive some benefits. These could take the form of the US helping Poland restore its lost geopolitical glory in contemporary conditions via the “Three Seas Initiative” while deterring perceived German and/or Ukrainian threats.

The US’ impending disengagement from Europe would remain incomplete in that case since its continental focus would shift to Poland and its envisaged “sphere of influence”. The total amount of troops there would be less than what it now has in Europe, but it would still suffice for supervising them all after the Ukrainian Conflict ends. Everything depends on PO, however, and they might ultimately prefer keeping Poland subordinated to Germany instead of once again trying to rise as a regional power.

Authored by Gregory T. Kiley via RealClearDefense,

Interesting times.  Just one month into President Donald Trump’s second term in office and one would be forgiven for feeling a little whiplashed.  From invoking and revoking Federal Government-wide Office and Management and Budget policy memoranda to announcing wide-reaching tariffs and then staying implementation those same tariffs, Trump’s second tour White House has started eventfully.   

Hopefully, at least as far as Trade Policy is concerned, once personnel are in place, deliberate, rational, and thoughtful trade and trade negotiations will continue that seeks the long-term goals established by the president, while also helping American businesses in the short term to better fight back, level the playing field, and win here in the U.S. market with American consumers.   

On President Trump’s first working Monday in office his Office of Management and Budget released a memorandum freezing all federal financial assistance and grants.  This might have been a well-meaning attempt for the new Administration to review federal spending priorities, but such a blanket call to freeze funds was unprecedented and confusing to those not consulted – including the other branches of government. Within hours, OMB rescinded the far reaching, over broad memo, but will continue their review of funding – as they rightfully should.

On Tariffs, the Presidential-candidate Trump ran on his plan to utilize tariffs as a tool of foreign policy, economic policy, and to Make America Great Again.  It should have come to no surprise that one of the first acts now President Trump did was to threaten the country of Columbia with tariffs if they did not accept back illegal aliens that our government plans to return. Columbia caved on the threat and accepted the returnees.  

Next has come a broad 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico announced January 31st, 2025. Purportedly tied to the excessive funneling of illegal fentanyl drugs into the United States, within hours of implementation, Mexico has agreed to send troops to the border to stop illegal immigration, resulting in at least a month delay in imposing the 25 percent tariff on Mexico goods. Canada similarly agreed to work with the Trump Administration to stem the flow of illegal drugs in exchange for a halt to implementation of tariffs.

Bold actions, some positive results, however, a better model could be found in the careful, deliberate negotiated approach of 2017-2020 Trump White House and Team.  

Still, with the confirmation of Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and nomination of Jamieson Greer to serve as the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), President Trump has an experienced team coming to hopefully make judicious use of Tariff policy. 

Another thing the first Trump Administration got right was a laser focus on China and its predatory practices.  Trump’s team needs to continue pushing the goals and intentions of China tariffs – to increase domestic production and jobs across America over Chinese government-assisted and enabled entities.  The tariffs are designed to encourage more domestic production, making it at least as expensive to import from abroad over manufacturing domestically.

The tariff regime is broken if it can advantage Chinese companies while disadvantaging American companies. This is an inequity about the current tariff system that President Trump can fix.  One example is Milwaukee Tool, which contrary to popular belief is actually a Chinese company.  The Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity in 2024 alleged the Chinese firm (like others) may not be paying its fair tariff share, taking advantage of America and hurting American competitors in the process.

Moving forward, this second Trump Administration should ensure the system doesn’t disadvantage American companies over their Chinese competitors that benefit from government subsidies. Trump should use his tariff authority judiciously, including the use of exemptions to help American companies battle back and, ultimately, invest more in the U.S. and create new manufacturing career opportunities in the process.  The same way the threat of tariffs gives the president leverage with world leaders; the use of targeted tariff exemptions can do the same to help American businesses grow strong again. 

These are indeed interesting times, and as the old English Phrase connotated, may we live up to their challenges.  The second Trump Administration has started with a bang, now the hard work of detailed negotiation and focused policy needs to follow.

Gregory T. Kiley, former senior professional staff member, Senate Armed Services Committee; and U.S. Air Force Officer

Pope Francis has at this point spent over a week in the hospital in Rome, battling pneumonia in both lungs, and in the last 24-hours there have been reports that his condition is stable and has seen slight improvement.

The 88-year old Pontiff entered the hospital on Feb. 14 with worsening bronchitis, leading doctors to eventually diagnose pneumonia, and reports in the initial days were dire.

Archbishop Giuseppe Satriano of Bari gave an update on Francis’ condition Thursday, saying “He’s a fighter, and I believe he’ll win this battle.”

Satriano described that he is awake, eating, and doing some work from his hospital bed, and that blood tests show slight improvements in his inflammation levels. The official Vatican assessment as of Thursday night is that Francis’ condition is “slightly improving” that he’s free of fever.

Still, the severity of the episode has led to speculation over possible resignation:

In a memoir, Life: My Story Through History, published last year, Francis wrote, “I think that the Petrine ministry is ‘ad vitam’ [‘for life’] and therefore I see no conditions for a resignation”, only to add in the next sentence, “things would change if a serious physical impediment were to arise”.

As the pontiff enters his eighth day in hospital on Friday, suffering from pneumonia in both lungs, Vatican watchers are wondering just how serious Francis, 88, thinks that physical impediment has to be.

On Thursday evening, the Vatican said that Francis’s condition was “slightly improving”, adding that his heart and circulation were in good shape and that he was free of fever and able to work.

However, in an interview on Italian radio, the senior Vatican cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi broached the topic on everyone’s mind and claimed: “I think he could [resign] because he is a person who, from this point of view, is quite decisive in his choices.”

This is the first time in his pontificate that the issue of resignation has been raised by a senior Cardinal. However, if he exits the hospital soon this is unlikely, as Pope’s traditionally serve till death. It is extremely rare for a Pope to step down, with his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI having been one of the exceptions to the historic rule.

As talk of a potential conclave in the near future heats up I thought it would be helpful to make a diagram of the current ideological makeup of the College of Cardinals pic.twitter.com/FHXgoRyYR0

— Al Carbo (@carbo_al) February 18, 2025

Newsweek commented, “The possibility of resignation resurfaced when Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi noted that if Francis’ ability to engage directly with people was compromised, he might consider stepping down.”

Conservative and traditional Roman Catholics have been critics of Francis’ leadership, saying he represents a liberalizing trend in church life. Liberals have tended to hail him as being open to the world and a voice of ‘progress’.