Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

There will be new faces in the Senate when the 119th Congress convenes on Jan. 3, 2025.

Thanks to flipping four seats, the GOP will control the upper congressional chamber, 53-47, for the first time since early January 2021.

Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.), while they also won their elections on Nov. 5, have already been sworn into the Senate and therefore will not be considered freshmen. Both previously served in the House.

Additionally, new senators from Ohio and Florida will be appointed by their state’s governor to succeed Sens. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Vance will be sworn in as vice president on Jan. 20, while Rubio is expected to win Senate confirmation as Secretary of State.

Their resignation dates and successors have yet to be announced.

Below are the new members of what some have called the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”

Angela Alsobrooks

Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, will succeed Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is leaving Congress after 37 years, 17 of them in the Senate.

She defeated former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, with 54.7 percent of the vote.

Alsobrooks, 53, previously was the executive of Prince George’s County and the county’s top prosecutor.

She comes into Congress as a progressive who, for instance, is for abolishing or reforming the filibuster, especially to codify the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned.

The filibuster requires 60 votes in order to advance most legislation in the Senate. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said the mechanism will remain in place.

Although Alsobrooks has called for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, she has said she backs the Jewish state’s right to defend itself. She has also called for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

She has blamed big companies “who are receiving record profits right now” for being behind high inflation.

Alsobrooks has also expressed support for an assault weapons ban and prohibiting ghost guns.

Jim Banks

Jim Banks will replace Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who was elected governor of Indiana.

Banks, 45, a Republican, defeated Valerie McCray, a Democrat and clinical psychologist, with 58.7 percent of the vote.

A conservative, Banks heads to the Senate after serving in the House since 2017, representing Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District.

He is a staunch ally of President-elect Donald Trump, whose “complete and total” endorsement of him cleared the GOP primary field.

“Jim Banks is running for the United States Senate from the Great State of Indiana. I know Jim well, have seen him tested at the highest and most difficult levels and WIN!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“Strong on the border, crime, our military, and our vets, Jim will fight for low taxes and regulations, sanity in government, and our under-siege 2nd Amendment.”

Banks ran on issues that included securing the border, protecting the unborn, supporting veterans, fiscal responsibility, opposing wokeness in public schools, and supporting law enforcement.

John Curtis

John Curtis, a Republican, will succeed Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who declined to run for a second term following a Senate career that included staunch criticism of Trump, and voting to convict him in both his impeachment trials.

He defeated Democrat environmentalist Caroline Gleich with 62.5 percent of the vote.

Curtis, 64, has represented Utah’s 3rd Congressional District since 2017. He previously was mayor of Provo, Utah.

While not an opponent of Trump, he is not a staunch ally.

“I do have my own mind, and I’m not a rubber stamp. My stamp is the stamp of the state of Utah,” Curtis told ABC News.

He told the outlet that one of his disagreements with Trump is on the issue of the spending.

Trump added $7.8 trillion to the national debt during his first term, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Curtis’s message to Trump?

“Mr. President, from time to time, I’m going to disagree with you. And it will be respectful,” Curtis told ABC News. “And I think when I disagree with you, it will be helpful. And I hope you’ll listen to me.”

Ruben Gallego

Ruben Gallego, a progressive Democrat, will take the seat of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), who was known for her independent streak, having been a Democrat who resisted calls to abolish the filibuster, thereby saving the institutional mechanism amid pressure from the left.

He has been in Congress, representing Arizona’s 7th Congressional District from 2015 to January 2023 and now the state’s 3rd Congressional District. He previously served in the Arizona House of Representatives.

Gallego, 45, defeated former TV anchor and gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, a Republican, with 50.1 percent of the vote.

He struck a critical tone toward his fellow Democrats, especially as it pertains to the Latino vote.

“There is no winning nationally without Latinos,” he told CBS News.

“Go touch grass and meet real Latinos.”

Gallego served in the Marine Corps and fought in the Iraq War.

Jim Justice

Jim Justice, currently the Republican governor of West Virginia, handily defeated Glenn Elliott, a Democrat and former mayor, with 68.8 percent of the vote.

He will succeed Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), who chose not to run for reelection after a career of more than 14 years that included going against his party on issues such as energy and the filibuster, which he was against abolishing despite left-wing pressure and intimidation.

However, Justice, 73, will not enter the Senate until after he resigns as governor on Jan. 12.

“My whole thinking behind all this is the continuity of government is essential during transitions,” he told reporters on Dec. 27.

After all, he said, the real legislating will occur when Trump takes office.

“I could move on, and I could be sworn into the Senate between Jan. 3 and when President Trump takes office,” he said.

“There’ll be some things happen, but there won’t be anything happening really until when President Trump takes office.”

Justice, a multimillionaire, was previously a coal tycoon. His English bulldog, Babydog, is a celebrity; he even appeared with Justice at the Republican National Convention.

Dave McCormick

Dave McCormick, a Republican, will enter the Senate with extensive experience in the business sector and in the federal government.

He narrowly defeated Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) with 48.8 percent of the vote, or 16,205 votes.

McCormick, who sought to cobble together a broad coalition that included pro-Trump voters and non-voters, ran on tying Casey to President Joe Biden.

He said Casey was out of touch with Pennsylvania voters.

McCormick criticized out-of-control spending and a “war on fossil fuels” for high inflation.

Additionally, he called for securing the border, treating the cartels like terrorist organizations, and therefore using military action against them, and exporting natural gas.

An Army veteran, McCormick, 59, served in the 1991 Gulf War.

He also served in multiple roles in the Bush administration.

Bernie Moreno

Businessman Bernie Moreno, a Republican, is a political newcomer. Born in Colombia, he became a U.S. citizen at age 18.

He narrowly defeated Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) with 50.2 percent of the vote, or 209,652 votes. Brown had been in Congress since 1992, and 17 of those years were spent in the Senate.

Moreno, 57, was initially a Trump critic but became a staunch supporter of the president-elect.

His campaign website includes 16 issues he cares about, including securing the border, standing with law enforcement, defending the Second Amendment, “beating Communist China,” fiscal responsibility, election integrity, and congressional term limits.

On the last point, Moreno told The Epoch he would only serve 12 years, or two terms.

Lisa Blunt Rochester

Lisa Blunt Rochester, a progressive Democrat, enters the Senate having represented Delaware’s at-large congressional district since 2017.

She defeated Republican Eric Hansen with 56.6 percent of the vote to succeed Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who has been in the Senate since 2001.

Rochester, 62, ran on a platform of supporting abortion rights, gun control, fighting for LGBTQ rights, combating climate change, and working in a bipartisan manner.

Tim Sheehy

Tim Sheehy, a Republican, never served in public office prior to unseating Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who has served in the Senate since 2007, with 52.6 percent of the vote.

He called for securing the border, protecting the Second Amendment, fiscal responsibility, supporting veterans, opposing a national abortion ban, and combating the threat from China.

Sheehy was recruited by Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) in his capacity as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the official campaign and finance arm of the Senate GOP. More than $300 million was poured into the contest in what is a solidly red state.

Sheehy, 39, is a former Navy SEAL and businessman working in aerospace.

He has not been without controversy, however, as there have been differing accounts of how a bullet came to be lodged in his right arm.

Elissa Slotkin

Elissa Slotkin will move from the House to the Senate.

She defeated former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) with 48.6 percent of the vote, or 20,217 votes.

Slotkin, 48, has been in Congress since 2019, representing Michigan’s 8th Congressional District between 2019 and 2023 and currently the state’s 7th Congressional District.

She prides herself on working across the aisle.

“Bipartisanship is deeply unsexy to people,” she said at an event this month hosted by the outlet Punchbowl News.

“I think that the most important thing is for people to emulate the behavior that we teach our kids in school, which is ​‘treat each other with respect, even when you disagree,’” she added. “Do that in public, do that in private, do that on social media.”

Prior to entering Congress, Slotkin served in the CIA. 

Jeff Louderback contributed to this report.

As early as Monday morning, President Joe Biden is reportedly planning to ban new offshore oil and gas development across 625 million acres (250 million hectares) of US coastal territory, according to Bloomberg sources. The move comes just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office and could complicate his “Drill, Baby, Drill“ policies aimed at boosting domestic fossil fuel production and reversing the de-growth climate policies implemented by radical Democrats. 

Bloomberg sources said the executive order prohibits the sale of new drilling rights across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Simultaneously, Biden will allow new oil and NatGas leasing in the central and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico.

Biden’s decision relies on a provision of the 72-year-old Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This allows the president to withdraw federal waters from future oil and gas leasing. Section 12(a) OCSLA does not include language that would allow any future presidents to reverse the ban. 

“That was tested after President Barack Obama banned offshore drilling in parts of the Arctic Ocean and dozens of canyons in the Atlantic Ocean,” the New York Times noted, adding, “During his first term in office, Mr. Trump tried to revoke the ban. In 2019, US District Court Judge Sharon Gleason in Alaska ruled that Mr. Obama’s ban could not be undone without an act of Congress.” 

The last-minute executive order, expected sometime Monday, under the guise of ‘climate change,’ is actually just environmental activists in the Biden administration suffering from ‘TDS’ taking one last shot at Trump before he steps into the White House. The goal of the radical left is to derail Trump’s campaign promise to boost domestic energy production. 

In early September, Trump stated, “Starting on Day 1, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refiners, new power plants, new reactors, and we will slash the red tape.”

Remember Trump’s campaign promise: “I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.” 

I will cut the price of ENERGY and ELECTRICITY in HALF within 12 months. We will seriously expedite our environmental approvals, and quickly double our electricity capacity. This will DRIVE DOWN INFLATION, and make AMERICA and MICHIGAN the best place on earth to build a factory… pic.twitter.com/N3UFtLXf8L

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2024

To achieve this, the incoming president must rapidly increase oil, NatGas, and coal production across the US, even on federal lands. However, the Biden-Harris team, driven by radical far-left climate policies that effectively function as de-growth while exacerbating inflation, already appears poised to sabotage Trump’s efforts to lower energy costs, which would effectively help to defeat the inflation monster Biden-Harris released. 

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The artificial hill of pottery shards is puny and localized; the consequences of our system will bring down the system in ways the system is completely blind to.

We’re all familiar with the plot device of the self-destruct sequence counting down while our hero / heroine frantically tries to find the kill switch that turns it off. The system–however we choose to describe it–is self-destructing and there’s no switch to turn it off.

We’re drawn to the notion that cabals and conspiracies are the root source of the system’s ills. If these cabals were exposed and disempowered, then the system would quickly right itself and all would be well again.

Cabals and conspiracies are not the source, they’re a symptom of a deeper, structural self-destruct mechanism, a mechanism we take for granted as the way the world works.

Regardless of ideological label–capitalist, socialist, communist–all systems are markets of some kind with producers, sellers and buyers / consumers. The market may be more or less open, or more or less controlled by the state, warlords or cartels, but in all cases there are producers, sellers and consumers.

In all cases, neither the producer, the seller nor the consumer have any responsibility for the downstream consequences of what’s produced, sold and purchased. Every participant is incentivized to maximize their self-interest without regard for the future consequences of this pursuit of self-interest.

The producer of the plastic bottle has no responsibility for what happens to the bottle after production, the seller has no responsibility for what happens to the bottle after it’s sold, and the consumer who tosses it in the river after consuming the contents has no responsibility for what happens to the bottle once they’re done consuming the product.

The market has no internal, intrinsic responsibility for the consequences of narrow self-interest nor any mechanism that looks beyond the present. The market is blind to future consequences, and imposes no responsibility to do so on any participant.

The only possible result of this system is self-destruction. Consider the Great Pacific Garbage Gyre, the poetic name for a floating mass of plastic and other waste generated by the “growth at any cost” global economy roughly the size of Texas. (See chart below.) This is not the only garbage patch in the planet’s oceans; it’s merely one of the biggest.

Who cares about a floating island of garbage? It’s harmless, right? Indeed. Can the same be said of the “forever” chemicals, the depleted freshwater aquifers, the mountains of electronic and other waste leaking toxic sludge and the rest of the consequences of a system that is blind to everything but “growth at any cost,” self-interest and the eternal Now?

Cabals and conspiracies attract our attention because they are intentionally cloaking the destructive consequences their self-interest is passing on to others. The tobacco cabal worked diligently for decades to obfuscate the deadly consequences of smoking, as the means of maximizing their profits / self-interest.

So let’s identify the cabal that intentionally created the Great Pacific Garbage Gyre to further their self-interest. Do we finger the producers of the 300 million tons of plastics produced annually, or the corporations that sold the 300 million tons of plastics, or the consumers who bought the 300 million tons of plastics?

The waste stream is generated by the system, not a cabal, and the system is constructed of values and what I call the mythology of Progress, a mythology of make-believe and play-acting, in which we watch a video of a group recycling a tiny sliver of the waste generated by global tourism and then declare, “See? Technology is solving the problems created by the system! No worries, it will all get solved by new technologies.”

Absolved by this magical-thinking, we’re free to continue pursuing our part of consequence-free “growth at any cost.” This is the internal logic of the market-system, and it operates the same under any ideological label.

In theory, political rulers are supposed to the future consequences, but rulers only rule by authority granted in the present moment. If their supporters are forced to sacrifice for some distant benefit, they will find someone else to support.

Every civilization that produces “forever” goods ends up creating mountains of waste. Broken pottery shards pile up into artificial hills. But the scale of the modern system is so colossal that the consequences are now planetary, affecting our health and complex systems we don’t fully understand, much less control. The artificial hill of pottery shards is puny and localized; the consequences of our system will bring down the system in ways the system is completely blind to.

Even if technology consolidated the Great Pacific Garbage Gyre at enormous expense, what would we do with the artificial garbage island? And since the system spews out 300 million tons of new plastic every year, a new Great Pacific Garbage Gyre will soon form.

There is no “off” switch on the system’s self-destruct sequence. We’ll only notice, or care, when the system started breaking down under the crushing weight of the consequences that have been piling up and ignored with play-acting solutions such as recycling.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

San Antonio Express-News reported that FBI agents are investigating bomb threats against Elon Musk’s SpaceX’s Starbase launch facility near Boca Chica Beach in Brownsville, Texas.

The bureau’s San Antonio field office confirmed to the local media outlet an ongoing investigation into “possible bomb threats in South Texas in recent weeks.”

Here’s more color on the situation via the outlet:

A witness near Starbase, the commercial space company’s rocket development and launch facility at Boca Chica Beach, told authorities he heard several individuals discussing the matter on Christmas Eve.

“While we are working to carefully vet and investigate the information we have received, we want to reiterate that the safety and security of the American people is the FBI’s highest concern,” the bureau said in a statement Thursday night. “We will continue to work closely with our law enforcement and private sector partners to respond to this — and all threats against any of our citizens.”

…

The report was made by Calvin Wehrle of Galveston, who frequently camps along Texas 4 near the Starship launch site.

In an interview Friday, he said he was there on the afternoon of Christmas Eve when an SUV pulled up with five male passengers who rolled down their windows to converse. They said they were from the Middle East.

“I said something like, ‘What are y’all here for?’ and the driver said, ‘Oh, we’re here to blow (Starship) up,'” Wehrle said. “I just went stone cold, and he said, ‘Oh, I got you. I was joking.'”

As the conversation went on, though, Wehrle’s visitors said at least three times they were in South Texas to attack Starship. He reported the incident to SpaceX and the sheriff’s office and said he was contacted later by an investigator.

The current national security environment is alarming, especially in light of the New Orleans terror attack and the rising threat of “lone wolf” attackers (i.e., “individual jihad“) ahead and or during Trump 2.0. 

Biden-Harris administration intentionally flooded the nation with millions of illegal aliens, many of which are unvetted and from third worlds, and some of which are pre-trained terrorists who crossed not just on the open southern and northern borders but also through legitimate refugee pathways. There’s also the rising threat of radicalized Americans, like the New Orleans attacker, influenced by ISIS propaganda. 

NEW: Hamasniks are taking over streets in New York City chanting to ‘globalize the intifada’ the same extremist religious ideology that was behind the New Orleans New Year terror attack pic.twitter.com/lZ1vmdy1VJ

— Ari Hoffman 🎗 (@thehoffather) January 1, 2025

Back to the five individuals in the SUV near Starbase making bomb threats, their motives remain unclear. It’s uncertain whether they’re part of a rogue, leaderless jihadist cell or simply Democrats expressing ‘TDS’ (Trump Derangement Syndrome) to disrupt the Jan. 10 Starship launch. At this point, it’s anyone’s guess.

Via Remix News,

“Ukraine is now ruled by an oligarch who increasingly relies on foreign aid. A state where corruption is rampant and there are no real democratic structures,” former German Finance Minister Oskar Lafontaine told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, cited by news agency V4NA.

The former minister emphasized that independent parties and mass media are banned in Ukraine and establishing democracy and independence would take a long time.

Reports of corruption are common in Ukraine, especially in the military, according to Magyar Nemzet. A recent anti-corruption investigation identified 30 Ukrainian officials suspected of embezzling funds, including employees of housing and maintenance departments, as well as representatives of commercial structures across Ukraine. Prosecutors say 15 of them were members of organized crime groups.

And as Zelensky goes begging for more money from President Joe Biden for the war, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office announced last week that it has uncovered a large-scale scheme to embezzle more than $3.7 million from the state budget — funds that had been meant for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to finance everything from heating and electricity to military infrastructure construction work. 

Prosecutors say some of these goods were purchased at significantly higher prices than market prices. Some of the suspects are also accused of abuse of power and negligence in military service. One of the defendants, the head of a regional housing and maintenance department, is suspected of illegally purchasing $285,000 worth of commercial equipment, land and other valuables that were registered in the name of an intermediary. 

Magyar Nemzet lists several scandals, including in January 2023 when Deputy Defense Minister Vitaly Polovenko announced that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry had terminated contracts with companies owned by Lviv businessman Ihor Hrynkevich, who was involved in the scandalous procurement of clothing for the armed forces. That same month, the Security Service of Ukraine announced that it had detained a colonel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the CEO of a defense supply company on suspicion of corruption.

In Ukraine, high-level corruption ranks second among the main concerns of Ukrainians after the Russian-Ukrainian war, a survey conducted by the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption revealed. The results of the research previously presented by the Transcarpathian news portal Kárpáti Igaz Szó show that 71.6 percent of the population consider this to be the country’s second-biggest problem, and 73 percent of entrepreneurs think the same.

According to 87.9 percent of the population and 81.3 percent of businesses, the level of embezzlement in the country has increased compared to 2022. Many hold Zelensky responsible, with 47.5 percent of citizens and 48.3 percent of company representatives stating that combating corruption is the responsibility of the president and his office.

In contrast, 36.9 percent of respondents and 32.4 percent of business people say that the anti-corruption agency, or the Supreme Council, is the one that should take action to curb corruption. The responses also included claims that the Council of Ministers and ministries can be held accountable for the spread of corruption.

Corruption in Ukraine has been getting much coverage lately. One widely followed account on X called out the additional billions U.S. President Biden is sending to Ukraine, to which one commenter stated: “Zelensky has genuinely pulled off one of the greatest money heists of all time,” with X owner Elon Musk pitching in, calling Zelensky “All-time champ.”

Screenshot

Read more here…

Imagine trying to trademark a color. Difficult, right? Now, think about what it would take to trademark a smell.

While technically possible, registering a scent trademark is a daunting endeavor. The act of trademarking a scent is surprisingly rare, with only a handful of successful registrations worldwide.

As Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley reports, the graphic below, by Rosey Eason, is a visual summary of the 15 scents trademarked in the U.S. as of mid-2023.

The Two-Pronged Test

To succeed, a scent must meet two stringent criteria:

1. Non-Functionality: The smell can’t be the primary purpose of the product. A perfume or air freshener’s fragrance, for instance, is its core function and thus ineligible. (That said, a perfume’s composition can be patented.)

2. Distinctiveness: Consumers must unequivocally link the scent to a specific brand. Think of Play-Doh: its unique aroma has become synonymous with the brand itself.

Demonstrating these criteria demands substantial evidence, including data on consumer perception and association with the brand. This heavy burden of proof is one of the main reasons that the list of trademarked scents is so short. So then, what has been trademarked?

An Exclusive Club of Trademarked Scents

Play-Doh is perhaps the most well-known example of a trademarked scent. Play-Doh’s aroma is described as having a “sweet, slightly musky, vanilla fragrance with slight overtones of cherry” combined with “the smell of salted, wheat-based dough”. The parent company, Hasbro, claims that the scent has been in use since the mid-1950s.

Interestingly, many of the other trademarked aromas are used to brand more practical, industrial products. The list includes fruity smell used in vehicle lube, and a banana/evergreen scent used in gun bore cleaner.

The first ever U.S. “smell mark” was awarded to a company called OSEWEZ, which produced thread and yarn infused with the scent of plumeria blossoms. At the time, the company’s owner said, “We did this as a kind of gimmick. I never really thought we could do it.”

Authored by Ben Sixsmith via The Critic,

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” goes the saying.

It can be true.

Many are the kind words that have been spoken at the worst possible time. Many are the charitable causes that have had the opposite effect to that which was intended.

But it can also be too kind. In 2015, the historian Tom Holland, reflecting on the Rotherham grooming gangs, posted:

The true nightmare of #Rotherham is that the motives of those who turned a blind eye, however monstrous the consequences, were indeed noble.

“It wasn’t the indifference that was noble,” he clarified, “But the concern not to demonise a minority. Caring for the weak. The Christian thing.”

Amid renewed interest in the subject of grooming gangs, this week, Mr Holland has received a lot of criticism. He replied:

My position remains:

• The authorities have a responsibility to preserve good race relations.

• This is a noble goal.

• In the context of the grooming gangs, this goal resulted in fatefully wrong decisions being taken.

• 10 years on, the tragedy of this is even more evident

To be clear, I am a fan of Holland’s, and am quite aware — unlike some of his fiercer critics — that he is not claiming that the failure to stop the rape and abuse was noble but that it sprang from a misplaced noble impulse.

But the fact remains that this is outright wrong.

The officials in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and elsewhere did not have a high-minded concern for social cohesion — they had a selfish and small-minded desire not to rock the boat. 

In defence of Holland, the author and lecturer Adrian Hilton wrote:

He isn’t speaking about individual motives, but social virtue, and he is absolutely right: the King’s peace—pax regis—is a noble pursuit. You can cavil with his hierarchy of nobleness, but public order is indeed a noble pursuit. And so is child safeguarding.

Obviously, when a concern for “public order” is enabling mass child rape, “public order” is not the virtue that it might have been. If my concern with litter in the park is causing me to hurl abandoned puppies into the bin, that “social virtue” has warped into something perverse. Still, Hilton is hinting towards that with his reference to a “hierarchy of nobleness”, so I’ll ask again — to what extent was that a motivation?

Now, it is true that officials were concerned about public order. Turning to page 112 of the independent inquiry into the grooming gangs in Telford, for example, one finds:

Between 2006 to 2008, senior management within the Council were concerned that allegations about Asian male involvement with CSE in Wellington had the potential to start a “race riot” …

But what else does one find? One finds the fear of “complaints of racism” and of being “politically incorrect”. That doesn’t sound noble to me — it sounds cowardly and self-centred. Indeed, it makes it sound like the concern with public order had less to do with virtuous ideals than with protecting their careers and their institutions. There is a difference between being concerned with peace for its own sake and being concerned with peace because your arse is on the line if there turns out to be violence.

Yet the failure to stop the rapes had many causes — and they don’t get any nobler. In the Jay Report into the grooming gangs in Rotherham, for example, we hear appalling details about the classism and misogyny of police officials. According to one witness, the attitude of some police officers was that the victims were “undesirables” who could not be trusted. 

“Police weren’t arsed with us, really,” said one victim who was key to the belated investigations in Rochdale, “They don’t give a fuck when you’re not from a wealthy background.”

Then there is the whiff of outright corruption — the laptops and documents that were stolen in Rotherham, with, in the latter case, “no signs of a forced entry to the key-coded and locked security doors”.

Whatever went missing, one doubts that it was evidence of a sincere concern for the public good.

Again, the desire to explain a sin is not the same as the desire to excuse it. I am not suggesting that Messrs Holland and Hilton are anything but appalled by the failure to stop the rapists. But it is a mistake to ennoble that failure. That failure was not just tragic but actively wicked and it is important to appreciate that if appropriate accountability is going to be achieved.

The road to Hell is not always paved with good intentions. Some of its paving stones are also cowardice, venality and spite.

Samantha Dart, co-head of global commodities research at Goldman Sachs, said colder-than-average weather across the EU “is a stronger driver” than the halt in Russian NatGas exports via Soviet-era pipelines running through Ukraine, which will, in turn, pressure EU NatGas prices higher. By Friday, EU NatGas prices reached levels not seen in over a year, exceeding 50 EUR/MWh. 

No other country in Northern Europe grinds to a halt like the British state does in reaction to a bit of cold weather. pic.twitter.com/IizvpxuFkv

— Wolf 🐺 (@WorldByWolf) January 3, 2025

“While this week’s key headline in natural gas has been the halt in the residual Russian gas flows through Ukraine, the main tightening driver of NW European gas fundamentals this winter is in our view colder-than-average weather currently forecast for the next two weeks, aided by low wind power and Norwegian production outages observed in December,” Dart said. 

She continued: “If this cold forecast realizes without other offsets, we see significant risks that TTF prices rally towards oil-switching economics in a 63-84 EUR/MWh range in the coming months, well above our 40 EUR/MWh 2025 TTF base case under average weather, to help manage European gas storage.” 

The latest data from Bloomberg shows that EU Natgas storage is 71.8% full at the start of the new year—this is well below the 16-year average of 74.29% for the same point in time. This indicates that increased heating demand and tightening supplies will force the continent to draw down supplies at the quickest rate in four years. 

Here’s more from Dart’s note:

• NW European tightening from Ukraine flow halt modest so far… We estimate that the halt in Russian gas flows from 42 mcm/d to zero from January 1st, which had been our base case and largely market consensus, represents a net tightening to NW Europe gas balances in the order of 16 mcm/d (2.7% of our 2025 expected demand in the region). To be clear, while NW Europe was not receiving any of that gas, we expect Austria to rely on pipeline imports from Germany to cover its gas demand1 and potentially additional marginal flows to complement Slovakia’s needs. Preliminary data for January 1st show German gas exports to Austria up by 9 mcm/d on the day.

• …especially when compared to significantly colder-than-average weather forecasts. A more significant and surprising tightening driver of January gas balances are the much-colder-than-average temperatures currently forecast for NW Europe for the next two weeks, over 4°C below the ten-year average. If realized, we estimate such low temperatures would lift NW European gas demand by more than 100 mcm/d in January.

• Stock-out risks are low, but storage refill, a challenge. To be clear, we see risks of an inventory stock-out as very low, even under such a cold weather forecast. The main challenge for Europe is that the lower that end-March storage levels are, the harder it will be for the region to refill ahead of the next winter. Specifically, under the colder-than-average scenario that is currently forecast, and assuming no offsets elsewhere in the balance, we would estimate end-Mar25 inventory levels to drop to 30% full (vs 35% under average weather). This would imply end-Oct25 storage levels in the low 80s% (vs high 80s% under average weather), well below the 90% full EU requirement. More specifically, we estimate this scenario would create a 21 mcm/d deficit in the market during the 2025 summer (relative to the 90% full EU storage target).

• G2O switching and LNG can solve 2025 tightness – at a price. Given European gas prices are already fully above hard coal generation costs, the next source of demand substitution is gas-to-oil (G2O) switching, in a 60 EUR/MWh (fuel oil) to 78 EUR/MWh (distillate fuel) range. During Europe’s energy crisis in 2022, we estimate G2O switching in industrial applications peaked at 24 mcm/d. In this higher TTF scenario we would also expect incremental LNG to be delivered to Europe (competed away from Asia). In addition to further changes to the European weather forecast, key drivers to watch from here include NE Asia weather forecasts and the ramp of the upcoming US liquefaction capacity additions. Venture Global’s Plaquemines recently exported its first commissioning cargo, while cargo loadings have remained unchanged so far at Cheniere’s Corpus Christi facility, which is undergoing a capacity expansion starting in early 2025.

Higher energy prices in the EU, particularly in Germany—the continent’s economic powerhouse—add to the continued headwinds crushing the country’s all-important automotive industry into a devastating downturn. 

On the bright side, at least for the US, the EU will be forced to replace Russian LNG with US LNG during the Trump 2.0 era. Dart noted last month that this is “theoretically” possible.

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

After avoiding the issue for years, the legacy media are now trying to manufacture public complacency and consent for the government’s digital identity – and by extension, CBDC – agenda.

On July 5, the day Keir Starmer became UK prime minister, we wagered that a Starmer government would intensify the push to roll out a digital identity system in the UK — a country that has, until now, resisted all recent attempts to introduce an identity card system, including, most notably, by Starmer’s backroom consultant and mentor, Tony Blair.

Unfortunately, that prediction has proven to be pretty much on the money. Since taking office, the Starmer government has:

• Launched the new Office for Digital Identities and Attributes, with the task of overseeing the country’s digital ID market. As of October 28, almost 50 organizations with DIATF-certified services had been added to the office’s register.
• Pledged to roll out a digital ID card for army veterans. As in the US, the UK government is also looking to launch a digital driving license by next year.
• Announced plans to introduce digital ID legislation for age verification purposes, meaning that young people will soon be able to use digital ID wallets on their phones to prove they are over 18 when visiting pubs, restaurants and shops.

Now, the propaganda is kicking into gear, and the main selling points, as always, are speed and convenience:

The UK government and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have released a video showcasing their digital identification system, set to be rolled out next year.

In the video, they depict anyone using a physical ID as clumsy and outdated.pic.twitter.com/cfXD0Q0441

— Lewis Brackpool (@Lewis_Brackpool) December 23, 2024

In its first commercial, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology chose a British pub as the venue to showcase the, ahem, benefits of digital identity. In Greece, the government is trying to push the EU’s digital identity wallet on the public by making it obligatory for accessing sports stadiums. In Spain, the government is trying to make it a prerequisite for accessing online porn while Australia has just passed a law making it necessary for all Australians to verify their age (presumably with its fledgling digital ID) to access social media.

As we have noted in previous articles, digital identity programs, and the central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) with which they are inseparably tied, are among the most important questions today’s societies could possibly grapple with since they threaten to transform our societies and lives beyond recognition, granting governments and their corporate partners much more granular control over our lives — precisely at a time when democracy is on the decline across the West, authoritarianism is on the rise and public trust in government is sinking to record lows.

Given what is at stake, digital public infrastructure such as digital IDs and CBDCs should be under discussion in every parliament of every land, and every dinner table in every country in the world. That is finally beginning to happen in the UK, but if early signs are any indication it is likely to be less an open debate than a barrage of propagandistic talking points. In the past three weeks alone, there have been gushing articles, op-eds and editorials on the potential wonders of digital identity in the Daily Mail, the Times of London, the Financial Times and Sky News.

In an op-ed for the Daily Mail, Tony Blair, with characteristic zeal for digital public infrastructure (DPI), touts digital identity as a cure-all for just about everything, from bringing down NHS waiting lists to tracking illegal immigrants, to cutting benefit fraud and resolving the UK government’s fiscal crisis:

Around the world, governments are moving in this direction. Of the 45 governments we work with, I would estimate that three-quarters of them are embracing some form of Digital ID. The President of the World Bank, Ajay Banga, has said it is a top priority for the Bank’s work with leaders. But this is only one part of the immense, seismic change which this technological revolution will bring.

It is transforming drug discovery, with a whole raft of new treatments which will give us the chance to shift our healthcare system radically to prevention of disease rather than cure. If we used the potential of facial recognition, data and DNA, we would cut crime rates by not small but game-changing margins. There are interactive education apps now available which could provide personal tutoring for pupils.

But we need the right digital infrastructure to access all of this. And a Digital ID is an essential part of it.

In its article, “Why Britain Needs a Digital ID System“, published last week, the FT concludes that “if Britain wants a truly modern state”, digital identity is “an idea whose time has come”.  The article cites estimates from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (who else?) that a digital identity system could boost public finances by about £2bn a year, “mostly by reducing benefits fraud and improving tax collection, on top of broader economic gains”:

It reckons a voluntary system, built in part on the government’s existing — but low-profile — One Login initiative to enable a single sign-in to government services, could be set up within one parliamentary term and 90 per cent of citizens would sign up.

How will they achieve such a large take-up within such a short period, without coer? Yet according to The Times, an overwhelming majority of UK citizens are in favour of digital identity, citing a recent poll for the Times and Justice Commission:

The poll found that more than two thirds of Tory voters backed the introduction of digital ID cards, compared with 12 per cent who opposed it. Sixty per cent of those who voted Labour at the last election were in favour of the policy and 15 per cent were against it. Among Liberal Democrats, 54 per cent supported the idea compared with 16 per cent who did not. For Reform, the split was 59 per cent in favour and 21 per cent opposed.

One should perhaps be wary of reading too much into the results of one poll, especially when said results appear to chime perfectly with the long-term policy goals of the government of the day. Readers may recall that back in 2021, a flurry of polls claimed to show that a majority of Brits support the roll out of digital vaccine certificates, including one by the Serco Institute, an international think tank tied to the Serco Group, a British multinational defence, health, space, justice, migration, customer services, and transport company.

As Blair himself admitted recently, in reality the British public will need “a little coercing persuading” to embrace digital ID. That is presumably where the mainstream media comes in.

What Doesn’t Get Mentioned?

There are so many gaping gaps in the UK media’s no-warts-at-all discussion of digital identity that it’s hard to know where to begin. The FT, to its credit, concedes that “Britain has a dismal record in public sector IT — think of the Post Office Horizon scandal.” What it leaves out is the fact that this disastrous government IT program, which ruined the lives of thousands of Post Office submasters, was the brainchild of Tony Blair, the man whom the media are now treating as an authority on all matters technological.

Nor does the FT article mention that Blair was warned that the Horizon IT system could be flawed before it was rolled out, but chose to proceed nonetheless. When the anticipated problems began surfacing, his government did everything it could to cover them up. Yet somehow Tony Blair and his foundation are still a voice of authority on issues of digital governance.

The Post Office Horizon scandal is just one of a laundry list of IT disasters that successive UK governments have overseen, as our regular UK-based commenter Paul Greenwood recently reminded us:

This is brought to you from the same regime that cannot:

a) get e-Gates at major airports to function,
b) has repeatedly postponed eVisas because they cannot get them to work;
c) has repeatedly postponed Phytosanitary checks on agricultural imports at borders because ……..cannot get it to work…

(That’s not to mention) the Great NHS Computer Disaster…….the largest IT Project in Europe… [that cost more than £1 billion and never launched].

The NHS computer disaster, now used as a case study for how large government IT projects can go spectacularly wrong, costing billions of dollars in squandered public funds, was also launched by Anthony Charles Linton Blair. It involved the participation of IT consulting giants like Accenture and Fujitsu, which was the lead company behind the Post Office Horizon system and has been selected to lead the digital ID scheme, despite a pledge earlier this year to refrain from participating in UK government procurement.

Of the four articles on digital ID, not a single one has offered more than a token paragraph on the potential risks and downsides of digital identity. As the leading industry publication Biometric Update gleefully reported on December 16, the UK press has been “won over” on digital identity, and is now setting about “explaining why” to the British public.

Other issues that are completely ignored or glossed over include:

Privacy. All four of the articles pay lip service to the threat digital identity poses to privacy. The FT argues that “privacy arguments have less force when most adults happily carry smartphones stuffed with apps that can track everything from how many steps they do to what colour socks they buy.” However, as some FT readers pointed out in the comments thread, those apps can be turned off at any time. And whose to say that everyone’s mobile phone is “stuffed with apps”? Mine, for instance, has just two on it (Spotify and WhatsApp).

One thing a near-mandatory digital identity system will ensure is that we will never be without our trusted mobile phones. This sort of “digital coercion” — a term I learnt from the German financial journalist and digital rights activist, Norbert Häring — is on the rise just about everywhere. As Häring reported in September, this should hardly come as a surprise given that one of the main organisations pushing for the rapid rollout of digital public infrastructure (digital ID, digital health passes, instant payment systems, central bank digital currency…) is the corporate-controlled, WEF-partnered United Nations.

Security. Another major issue with digital ID is security, though it is totally glossed over in the MSM articles. While the FT mentions “dangers with hacking and cyber attacks”, it also claims that digital ID could help to combat “identity fraud.” Yet Norway and Sweden are suffering an epidemic of identity theft and cyber crime despite having rolled out digital ID systems years ago that are now thoroughly integrated into people’s daily lives? In Sweden, many cyber crimes involve BankID, the ubiquitous digital authorization system used by nearly all Swedish adults.

India, which is home to the world’s largest biometric-based digital ID system, Aadhaar, has suffered huge security problems, from identity theft to innumerable data breaches, including two in which the data of roughly a billion people were compromised. Much of it ended up for sale on the net. Said data included each person’s biometric identifiers (i.e. their iris and fingerprint scans). If this data is hacked, there is no way of undoing the damage. You cannot change or cancel your iris or fingerprint like you can change a password or cancel a credit card.

In South East Asia, cyber criminals have been targeting iOS users with malware that purloins face scans from the users of Apple devices to break into and pilfer money from bank accounts – thought to be a world first. Likewise, in India there have been reports of bank accounts being emptied using compromised Aadhaar numbers and biometric identifiers.

As we shift into a world where digital public infrastructure (DPI) increasingly dominate our lives, the security of our data, including our biometric identifiers, seems to be increasingly at risk. Of all the UK articles on digital identity in the UK, not a single one mentions the word “biometric” once, perhaps because that might actually scare off some readers.

Exclusion.  While often touted as a tool for social and financial inclusion, the reality is that digital identity systems are inherently exclusionary. As the World Economic Forum admits, while verifiable identities “create new markets and business lines” for companies, especially those in the tech industry that will help to operate the systems while hoovering up all the data, they also (emphasis my own) “open up (or close off) the digital world for individuals.”

It is not just the digital world that could end up being closed off; so, too, could much of the analogue world. As the now-ubiquitous WEF infographic suggests, a full-fledged digital identity system, as currently conceived, could end up touching just about every aspect of our lives, from our health (including the vaccines we are supposed to receive) to our money, to our business activities, our private and public communications, the information we are able to access, our dealings with government, the food we eat and the goods we buy.

It could also offer governments and the companies they partner with unprecedented levels of surveillance and control powers.

A Gateway to CBDCs. One other thing that doesn’t get a mention in any of the articles is the role digital identity will play as a gateway to CBDCs. In a 2021, the FT conceded that without a government-backed digital identity system, CBDCs would be unworkable:

“What CBDC research and experimentation appears to be showing is that it will be nigh on impossible to issue such currencies outside of a comprehensive national digital ID management system. Meaning: CBDCs will likely be tied to personal accounts that include personal data, credit history and other forms of relevant information.”

Here’s the former governor of Sweden’s Riksbank, Stefan Invges, openly admitting in 2018 that without “a government-sponsored” digital identity, “that explains in a digital form who you are, you can’t run a CBDC system”:

Sweden’s Central Bank Governor just described a six-step plan on how they would implement their own digital currency:

– 24/7 payments anywhere
– Cross currency & borders
– Update legal tender laws
– Issued directly from the bank
– Digital IDs
– Physical cash incase it fails pic.twitter.com/I8XFGt8u4e

— Rhythm (@Rhythmtrader) November 22, 2019

So, if digital identity goes hand-in-hand with CBDCs, then surely any balanced discussion of digital identity must take into consideration the potential implications, both positive and negative, of a CBDC — including its likely programmable features. After all, both the Bank of England and the UK Treasury seem fairly intent on developing a digital pound, which is currently in the design phase. Given that most Brits appear to harbour suspicions rather than excitement about such a prospect, its omission from the media coverage so far is hardly surprising.

Clearly, all discussion of digital identity in the UK media will be anything but balanced — unless, of course, the focus is on the digital identity system being rolled out in China. As we reported in August, some of the UK and the US’s biggest media outlets, including Time magazine, New York Times, the Financial Times, The Economist and the US government-funded Radio Free Asia, recently had a field day warning about the Chinese Communist Party’s planned digital identity system.

The ostensible goal of the new digital ID system is to cut down on the personal information that internet platforms can collect from their users. However, in the subheading to its article, “China’s New Plan for Tracking People Online“, The Economist asks whether the digital ID proposal is “meant to protect consumers or the Communist Party”. The FT cites the concerns of a China-based Western consultant that the proposals could “significantly expand the government’s ability to monitor people’s activity online.”

The exact same thing could be said of the digital identity systems being rolled out by almost all Western governments, but never is. The only time Western news outlets deign to cast a critical look at the emerging digital ID systems is when it is in relation to non-Western countries, in particular China and India. By contrast, when it comes to the systems being developed by Western governments, the media’s stock response is silence. In the case of the UK, however, the public’s deep-rooted scepticism of the need for a national ID system calls for a different approach: blatant propaganda. Whether it works, time will soon tell.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak shared an update on the proposed Russian gas pipeline to China through Kazakhstan, which was analyzed here in November, shortly before the start of the year. He confirmed that “This process, so to speak, is underway. Estimates, the feasibility study and negotiations are now underway.”

This statement shouldn’t be misinterpreted as assuming that the project is a done deal like RT implied in its report, however, since it’s more of a message to the US at this point.

The previously mentioned analysis cited last summer’s about the continued Sino-Russo pricing dispute over the Power of Siberia II (POS2) pipeline, which boils down to China demanding bargain-basement prices (reportedly equivalent to Russia’s domestic ones) while Russia obviously wants something better. This impasse hasn’t yet been resolved, and while some like Asia Times’ Yong Jian consider the trans-Kazakh proposal to be an agreed-upon rerouting of POS2, that’s arguably a premature conclusion.

Pricing disputes still exist and the “process” that Novak described has only begun. It’s far from finalized and might still take a while to be completed, if ever, as suggested by the POS2 and Pakistan Stream Gas Pipeline precedents. The first, which was earlier known as the “Altai Pipeline” before the decision to reroute it via Mongolia, has been discussed for a full decade already with no deal in sight. The same goes for the second, which was first agreed upon in 2015, but no progress has been made since then either.

Amidst the latest talk of the Russia-Kazakhstan-China (“RuKazChi”) gas pipeline, Russia’s last direct gas pipeline to Europe was just shut down after Ukraine’s decision to let their five-year transit agreement lapse. Russia can still indirectly export gas to Europe via TurkStream, and Europe can always compensate for this long-foreseen loss of 5% of its gas import total via more Russian LNG, but the writing is on the wall that the EU will continue diversifying from Russia under American pressure.

In that event, Russia’s lost budgetary revenue from energy exports to Europe can only realistically be replaced by China, but Russia is still reluctant to agree to the bargain-basement prices that China is reportedly demanding. Its decisionmakers’ thought processes can only be speculated upon given the opacity and sensitivity of these talks, but this might reasonably be due to the expectation that the US’ more muscular containment of China could coerce Beijing into agreeing to better prices with time.

Another possibility, which isn’t mutually exclusive at this point at least, is that they might also be holding out hope that some of their European exports could one day be resumed seeing as how the infrastructure still exists but their partners made a US-pressured political decision to cut off imports. The best-case scenario from their perspective would therefore be that China agrees to prices closer to the market rate while the EU resumes some of their Russian gas imports after the special operation ends.

The reality though is that Russia is unlikely to have its cake and eat it too, and there’s no guarantee that either of its two main gas partners – the EU and China – will behave as expected even at a later date. The EU won’t resume any pipeline imports unless it receives approval from the US while China is known to operate on a much longer timeframe than most so it might hold off on clinching a deal indefinitely until Russia finally accepts its bargain-basement price demands. This places Russia in a very bad position.

Unless something changes, Russia might very well be coerced by the unfortunate circumstances in which it finds itself into agreeing to China’s reported proposal to sell it gas at domestic prices, which could turbocharge China’s superpower rise while placing Russia in a greater position of dependence.

That might be preferred by Russian decisionmakers over sitting on these reserves indefinitely without receiving any financial benefit from them as sanctions start to create fiscal and monetary challenges.

From the US’ perspective, it’s worse for Russia to turbocharge China’s superpower rise and enter into a relationship of greater dependence with it that could be exploited by China to procure other resources at equally cheap rates than to allow the partial resumption of Russian exports to Europe. At the same time, such resumptions couldn’t be approved until after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, and this would be politically impossible in any case unless the US could spin the outcome as a victory of sorts over Russia.

Likewise, Russia couldn’t agree to this arrangement unless it too was able to spin the outcome as a victory, especially if the informal terms include a commitment not to build any new pipelines to China in exchange for the abovementioned proposed resumption overcompensating for that lost revenue. Therein lies the need for creative diplomacy of the kind suggested here last month and here the other day, the insight of which will now be blended, summarized, and built upon for the reader’s convenience.

The gist is that the US and Russia could agree to a series of mutual compromises culminating in the partial restoration of an energy bridge between Russia and the West for the purpose of depriving China of its envisaged decades-long access to ultra-cheap Russian resources for fueling its superpower rise. No one should assume that everything proposed below will enter into force, but these suggestions could help move their talks along.

From the US’ side, its possible compromises could take the form of:

* Ukraine finally holding elections as part of a US-backed “phased leadership transition” against Zelensky, who’s the top obstacle to a lasting peace, and then legitimizing the following two agreements;

* Ukraine restoring its constitutional neutrality in order to exclude itself from ever joining NATO and thus resolving the core security concern that provoked Russia’s special operation;

* Ukraine demilitarizing and denazifying everything east of the Dnieper in what had for centuries been Russia’s traditional “sphere of influence” (everything west had traditionally been under Polish influence);

* The US terminating its bilateral security agreement with Ukraine in order to assure Russia that any cessation of hostilities wouldn’t be a ruse for rearming Ukraine and reigniting the conflict at a later date;

* The US agreeing that no Western peacekeepers will deploy along the DMZ between Russia and Ukraine east of the Dnieper (all parties might agree to an entirely non-Western peacekeeping mission though);

* The US also agreeing that Article 5 won’t apply to any Western country whose uniformed troops in Ukraine, which would be unilaterally deployed there in this scenario, come under attack by Russia;

* The US approving the EU’s partial resumption of Russian gas pipeline imports in order to buoy the bloc’s struggling economy via an influx of low-cost fuel (but higher-priced than what China demands);

* The US and EU returning some of Russia’s seized assets as “compensation” for the West retaining control over the European portion of its pipelines;

* The US lifting its sanctions on the Russian-EU energy trade, including Russia’s use of SWIFT, and expanding this to include more countries and spheres as a reward for keeping the peace with Ukraine;

* The US waiving sanctions on Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 project for itself, the EU, India, and Japan so that they can replace lost Chinese investment and ensure that they receive this gas instead of China;

* The US replicating the preceding policy on a case-by-case basis to squeeze out and ultimately replace all Chinese investment in Russian energy projects to preclude the possibility of more future exports to it;

* and the US building upon the trust that it hopes to regain with Russia through these compromises to resume frozen strategic arms control talks on a priority basis before the expiry of the New START in 2026.

From Russia’s side, its own compromises could take the form of:

* Agreeing to only the partial demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine west of the Dnieper (ideally with the first influenced by the Istanbul Agreement while the second might remain superficial);

* Limiting its control of Ukrainian-claimed lands to only Crimea and those four regions that voted to join Russia in September 2022’s referenda;

* Tacitly accepting that it won’t be able to assert control over the parts of Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions west of the Dnieper but nevertheless continuing to officially maintain such claims;

* Agreeing to limited military restrictions on its side of the DMZ as a trust-building measure for furthering the rest of the complicated negotiation process and then complying with these terms;

* Informally agreeing to prioritize the development of its Arctic and Pacific fleets over its Baltic and Black Sea ones in a tacit cession of influence to NATO that soberly reflects the current military realities;

* Formally acknowledging the loss of control over the EU and Ukrainian portions of its pipeline infrastructure (ideally in exchange for “compensation”, including the return of some of its seized assets);

* Tacitly accepting that the rest of its seized assets are lost, but possibly agreeing that they can be invested in rebuilding Ukraine and/or Syria or donated to the UN, perhaps to fund a new African project;

* Informally agreeing not to build new pipelines to China or expand energy exports to it so long as sanctions-waived energy investments from and exports to others overcompensate for that lost revenue;

* Unofficially preferring sanctions-waived investment from others (America, Europe, India, Japan, South Korea) in its resource-rich Arctic and Far East regions as opposed to that from China;

* Doing the same with regard to preferring tech imports from them (and Taiwan too, which was Russia’s main source of high-precision machine tools a year ago);

* Tacitly accepting that these sanctions waivers can be rescinded in an instant if Russia reneges on the Ukrainian or Chinese terms of this proposed grand deal;

* and negotiating with the US in good faith on strategic arms control, which could ultimately include restoring limits on intermediate-range missiles in Europe that lead to warehousing the mighty Oreshniks.

For as politically difficult as these compromises might be for each side, the US could spin them as having stopped Russia from controlling all of Ukraine and thus preventing it from planting its boots on the Polish border, while Russia could spin them as having stopped Ukraine from joining NATO and thus preventing that bloc from planting their boots on its exposed western border. Moreover, Russia would relieve pressure upon it in Europe, while the US Navy would control the bulk of China’s energy imports.

The key to this is the US offering Russia a decent deal in Ukraine with lucrative sanctions-waived energy and tech opportunities that would incentivize Russia into informally agreeing to deprive China of decades-long access to ultra-cheap resources for fueling its superpower rise at the US’ expense. This grand deal is Trump’s to lose, and the world will know that he fumbled it if Russia makes progress on new pipelines to China, which could accompany or be followed by him “escalating to de-escalate”.