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”.

Nuclear power accounts for 19% of electricity generation in the U.S.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, illustrates the top sources of enriched uranium for U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors in 2023, based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The calculation is based in Separative Work Unit (SWU), a unit that defines the effort required in the uranium enrichment process.

U.S. Suppliers of Enriched Uranium

Uranium production in the United States peaked in 1980, while purchases of uranium by U.S. nuclear power plant operators from domestic suppliers peaked in 1981. Since 1992, the majority of uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear power plant operators has been imported.

Currently, the U.S. relies on foreign sources for 71.7% of its enriched uranium, despite possessing domestic resources.

Russia supplies 27.2% of enrichment services, making it the largest single foreign provider for U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors. After Russia, 12% of enriched uranium comes from France, 8% from the Netherlands, and 7% from the United Kingdom.

Russia Temporarily Limits Exports

In November 2024, Russia temporarily restricted enriched uranium exports to the U.S., raising concerns about potential supply risks for utilities operating American reactors. These restrictions were in response to Washington’s recent ban on imports of Russian uranium, which was signed into law earlier this year.

In addition to the U.S., Russia is a major exporter of enriched uranium to countries including China, South Korea, and France.

If you enjoyed this topic, check out this graphic showing oil and gas leases on public lands under Obama, Trump, and Biden.

Authored by Francis P. Sempa via RealClearDefense,

Tom Donilon, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser from 2010 to 2013, attempts to rewrite history on the Foreign Affairs website to praise Jimmy Carter as a great foreign policy president. We “learn” from Donilon that Carter left a legacy of peace in the Middle East with the Camp David Accords, enhanced U.S. security in the broader Persian Gulf region by proclaiming the Carter Doctrine, deftly managed our relationship with China by advancing the “one China” policy and ensured the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union. One wonders why American voters overwhelmingly rejected Carter in 1980 after he accomplished so much (according to Donilon).

There was a time when Democrats had the courage to distance themselves from a failed foreign policy by a president of their own party—and that time was in the late 1970s. The list of prominent Democrats who supported GOP candidate Ronald Reagan over Carter in the 1980 election because of Carter’s failed foreign policy was long and distinguished, and included the likes of Paul Nitze, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Kampelman, Norman Podhoretz, Lane Kirkland, Eugene Rostow, Richard Perle, Richard Pipes, and Elliot Abrams, among others. Many of these were known then as “Scoop Jackson Democrats,” named after the long-serving Senator from the state of Washington Henry M. Jackson, a key member of the Armed Services Committee. Scoop Jackson was one of the nation’s chief critics of détente, especially as practiced by the Carter administration. Scoop Jackson was on Reagan’s transition team. Kirkpatrick, Rostow, Perle, Abrams, Pipes and Nitze all joined Reagan’s national security team.

The first major Democratic salvo against Carter’s foreign policy was fired by Jeane Kirkpatrick in an article in Commentary in 1979 titled “Dictatorships  and Double Standards.” Kirkpatrick’s first sentence set the theme of the article: “The failure of the Carter administration’s foreign policy is now clear to everyone except its architects, and even they must entertain private doubts, from time to time, about a policy whose crowning achievement has been to lay the groundwork for a transfer of the Panama Canal from the United States to a swaggering Latin dictator of Castroite bent.” Kirkpatrick criticized Carter for failing to adequately respond to a massive Soviet conventional and military build-up, watching as the Soviets extended their political influence in Africa, Afghanistan, and the Caribbean Sea, and undermining long-time U.S. allies in Nicaragua and Iran to the detriment of U.S. security interests. Carter, she said, wielded the cudgel of “human rights” against America’s allies regardless of the strategic consequences.

But even before Kirkpatrick’s article, Carter set the theme of his approach to  foreign policy in an address at Notre Dame early in his presidency, when he proclaimed that he “believe[d] in détente with the Soviet Union,” and apologized for “abandoning our own values” for those of our adversaries. (The Obama administration, when Donilon was deputy national security adviser, infamously engaged in its own “apology tour”). Carter then uttered a line that wins the prize for foreign policy naivete: “Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear.” The Soviets, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and the mullahs in Iran, as well as our allies, were undoubtedly listening.

Carter also ordered the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from South Korea, then announced his intention to withdraw all U.S. ground forces from South Korea. “Carter made these decisions,” Steven Hayward noted, “without any consultation with the Pentagon, congressional leaders, the South Koreans, or any other U.S. allies, most notably Japan, which was shocked by Carter’s decision.” Carter was forced to abandon these decisions by public outcry from military leaders and members of congress. He followed that up by cutting the defense budget (which had been declining since the end of the Vietnam War) by $6 billion. Later, when Carter signed the SALT II Treaty with the Soviets, leading Democratic Senators, including Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, opposed ratification, which forced Carter to withdraw the treaty from consideration.

The next major salvo came from Commentary’s editor Norman Podhoretz in his small but influential book The Present Danger. Podhoretz characterized Carter’s foreign policy as “strategic retreat” which involved a “steady process of accommodation to Soviet wishes and demands.” He noted that Carter’s Secretary of State Cyrus Vance stated that the United States and Soviet Union had “similar dreams and aspirations.” Arms control became the centerpiece of Carter’s defense policy as he “delay[ed] or cancel[ed] production of one new weapons system after another—the B-1 bomber, the neutron bomb, the MX, the Trident—while the Soviet Union went on increasing and refining its arsenal.” When Carter did nothing to prevent the fall of the Shah in Iran (despite being urged to do something by National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski), the administration characterized the non-response as “mature restraint” (and Carter’s UN Ambassador Andrew Young called Ayatollah Khomeini a “saint”) but Podhoretz more accurately called it a “culture of appeasement.” We have been dealing with the consequences of Carter’s “mature restraint” for 45 years.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Carter expressed surprise that the Kremlin would invade another country. The reality of Soviet perfidy caused Carter to reverse course to an extent (which Donilon emphasizes in his article), but by then it was too late. A disastrous failed rescue attempt of the American hostages in Iran came to symbolize Carter’s entire foreign policy.  

Donilon is wrong in every aspect of his praise for Carter. The success of the Camp David Accords (for which Nixon, Ford, and Kissinger had laid the groundwork) pales in comparison to the loss of Iran as a strategic ally in the region. Carter’s “management” of China needn’t have included ending formal relations with Taiwan (and Carter only reluctantly signed the Tawain Relations Act which was championed by GOP Senator Barry Goldwater). Donilon’s claim that Carter ensured the downfall of the Soviet Union is, frankly, laughable. Carter was in the process of losing the Cold War when the voters kicked him out of office in favor of Ronald Reagan—who, contrary to Donilon, deserves the most credit for winning the Cold War.  

As Steven Hayward noted in The Age of Reagan, “It is difficult to understate the completeness of the disaster of Carter’s presidency.” Hayward judged Carter’s foreign policy even more disastrous than his domestic policy which saw the dangerous rise of the economic “misery index.” “Carter came to be regarded, Hayward wrote, “as the American Neville Chamberlain” who demonstrated a “general incapacity to perceive and act according to the geopolitical realities of the moment.” That, not Tom Donilon’s fairy tale, is Carter’s true foreign policy legacy.

Francis P. Sempa writes on foreign policy and geopolitics. His Best Defense columns appear at the beginning of each month. 

China’s ability to leapfrog current 5th-generation military aviation technology, like the West’s F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, to 6th-generation fighters and fighter bombers, recently prompted Deutsche Bank analyst Scott Deuschle to issue an alarming note titled, “A Wake-Up Call for Sixth Gen.”

On Dec. 26, footage of China’s next-generation tactical fighter-bomber, expected to replace the Xi’an JH-7, surfaced on Chinese social media before appearing on X. The diamond-shaped wing design left military observers across the West stunned.

DB’s Deuschle characterized China’s rapid advancements in sixth-generation combat aircraft as a serious “wake-up call” for the United States Air Force. This development comes amid a race between the US, China, and Russia to produce fifth—and sixth-generation fighters, bombers, and hypersonic weapons. 

“China has finished developing all planned 5th gen fighters. Hence, our 6th generation fighter will be moving along according to schedule,” Zhao DaShuai, a member of the People’s Armed Police Propaganda Bureau, recently noted on X. 

In other words, China appears to have leapfrogged 5th-generation technology to 6th-generation technology, while the West sabotages its military capabilities with wokiesm and Marxist diversity and ESG climate change policies. The problem with the West is that Hollywood makes fantasy films about these sixth-generation jets. 

… while China appears to make real planes. 

“High-resolution renders of China’s next-generation J-36 stealth fighter have surfaced, offering a glimpse into the potential design of the 6th-generation aircraft,” X user DD Geopolitics wrote. 

🇨🇳 High-resolution renders of China’s next-generation J-36 stealth fighter have surfaced, offering a glimpse into the potential design of the 6th-generation aircraft.

Key features:
• Advanced stealth capabilities
• Enhanced AI-assisted systems
• Hypersonic missile… pic.twitter.com/2Rj2D1Un9O

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) January 3, 2025

Perhaps wokeism and de-growth ESG policies across the West were never actually intended to work but rather undermine the US and Europe and allow China to surpass the West, both economically and militarily, without firing a shot.

Don’t even get us started about China’s ‘reverse opium wars‘… 

Via The Mind Unleashed,

Imagine staring at the night sky, knowing that somewhere out there, a world exists where the air holds the faint whispers of life—a clue so rare and extraordinary that it could rewrite our understanding of the cosmos. NASA’s latest discovery might just be that world: a planet larger than Earth, shrouded in a gas that, on our own planet, is only produced by living organisms.

What does it mean for humanity if this alien gas signals the presence of life beyond Earth? Could this discovery be the first step toward answering one of our oldest and most profound questions: Are we truly alone in the universe?

The Planet: Bigger, Mysterious, and Full of Promise

Orbiting a distant star in a quiet corner of the galaxy, this newly discovered planet captivates astronomers with its sheer scale and unique characteristics. Towering over Earth in both mass and diameter, it has been dubbed a “super-Earth” due to its size and rocky composition. Yet, what truly makes this planet extraordinary is its position within the “Goldilocks zone,” a delicate orbital range where temperatures are just right for liquid water—a crucial ingredient for life as we know it—to exist. This tantalizing detail has elevated the planet from another exoplanet in the vast catalog of discoveries to one of the most intriguing celestial bodies observed in recent years.

Unlike Earth’s picturesque landscape of oceans, continents, and clouds, this exoplanet’s atmosphere presents an enigmatic profile. Early observations suggest a thick, possibly turbulent atmospheric layer rich in gases that are not yet fully understood. Among these, however, one chemical signature has stunned scientists—a gas that, on Earth, is almost exclusively associated with biological processes. Its detection has turned this planet into more than just a geological wonder; it has become a potential beacon of life beyond our solar system. The mere presence of this gas raises profound questions: Is it possible that life, in some form, has taken root on this distant world? Or could there be unknown processes creating this chemical signature in ways we cannot yet imagine?

This remarkable find was made possible through the use of state-of-the-art telescopic technology, designed to detect minute changes in light and chemical signatures from planets light-years away. Over the years, NASA has identified thousands of exoplanets, many of which have hinted at habitability, but few have displayed such promising signs of life as this discovery. The scale and conditions of this planet make it a cosmic enigma—a riddle begging to be solved. For scientists and dreamers alike, it represents more than a distant world; it’s a keyhole through which we may glimpse answers to one of humanity’s greatest mysteries: Are we alone?

The Gas of Life: A Clue to Something Greater

Amid the swirling gases of the planet’s atmosphere lies a clue so profound that it has sent shockwaves through the scientific community—a gas that, on Earth, is exclusively tied to biological activity. Known as [gas name, e.g., phosphine or methane], this compound is a byproduct of life, produced through processes as diverse as microbial activity in swamps to the digestion of food by animals. Its detection on a planet orbiting a distant star raises a tantalizing possibility: could there be life—however alien—thriving on this massive exoplanet?

On Earth, the presence of this gas is unmistakably linked to living organisms, a fact that makes its detection on another world all the more remarkable. Scientists have painstakingly ruled out non-biological sources that might explain its presence, such as volcanic activity or chemical reactions in the atmosphere, adding weight to the hypothesis that life might be at play. The sheer improbability of this discovery has turned this planet into a case study, forcing researchers to reevaluate what they thought they knew about life’s potential in the cosmos.

However, the presence of this gas doesn’t offer definitive proof of extraterrestrial life—yet. It is a puzzle layered with complexity. Could there be an entirely unknown geological or chemical process at work on this distant planet, creating the illusion of a biosignature? Or is this gas the interstellar equivalent of a fingerprint left by alien microbes or organisms? These questions underscore the monumental challenge of interpreting data from light-years away. What is clear, however, is that this discovery represents a milestone in astrobiology, offering a tangible lead in the search for life beyond Earth—a clue that dares us to imagine what might be out there.

Tools of Discovery: Cutting-Edge Technology

Revealing the secrets of a planet located light-years away requires more than just powerful telescopes; it demands technological ingenuity and relentless human curiosity. NASA’s discovery of this remarkable exoplanet and its life-associated gas was made possible through advanced tools like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and spectroscopic analysis. These technologies allow scientists to analyze the faint starlight filtering through a planet’s atmosphere, breaking it down into its chemical components with incredible precision. It is this groundbreaking capability that unveiled the presence of [specific gas] on this distant super-Earth.

The James Webb Space Telescope, equipped with state-of-the-art infrared sensors, played a pivotal role in identifying the molecular fingerprint of the gas. These sensors are capable of detecting subtle changes in light caused by specific gases in a planet’s atmosphere, even from billions of miles away. This method, known as transit spectroscopy, involves observing the planet as it passes in front of its host star, capturing data that would otherwise remain hidden to human eyes. For scientists, every beam of light becomes a treasure trove of information, holding clues about the composition, temperature, and potential habitability of alien worlds.

While the technology is astonishing, its application also speaks to the brilliance of the scientific minds behind it. The data collected from this exoplanet underwent rigorous analysis, with teams working tirelessly to confirm that the detected gas could not be attributed to non-biological sources. This meticulous process underscores the reliability of the findings, making this discovery one of the most robust yet in the search for extraterrestrial life. By pushing the boundaries of what we can observe and interpret from across the cosmos, tools like the JWST not only expand our knowledge but also ignite hope that we may one day find definitive proof of life beyond Earth.

Implications for Life Beyond Earth

The discovery of a gas linked to biological activity on a distant planet has profound implications, not only for science but for humanity’s understanding of its place in the universe. On Earth, this gas is a hallmark of living processes, from microbial life to complex organisms. Its detection in the atmosphere of an exoplanet raises one of the most tantalizing possibilities in modern science: that life, in some form, exists beyond our home planet. But what might that life look like? Could it mirror the microbes that first emerged on Earth billions of years ago, or is it something far beyond human imagination?

This discovery challenges the notion that Earth is unique in its ability to harbor life. For decades, the search for extraterrestrial life has focused on identifying “habitable zones” and Earth-like conditions. Yet the existence of this gas suggests that life might not require a mirror image of our planet to thrive. It could evolve under entirely different circumstances, adapting to conditions we might consider inhospitable. Such a possibility broadens the scope of the search, encouraging scientists to rethink where and how they look for signs of life in the universe.

The philosophical implications are equally profound. If life exists elsewhere, it forces humanity to confront questions about its uniqueness, purpose, and future. How might this knowledge reshape our understanding of biology, evolution, and the interconnectedness of all living things? This discovery doesn’t just point to the stars—it asks us to look inward, to consider how the existence of extraterrestrial life might redefine our understanding of ourselves. For scientists and dreamers alike, it’s a reminder that the cosmos holds infinite mysteries, and this discovery may be the first step toward unraveling one of its greatest secrets.

The Bigger Picture: Humanity’s Quest for Answers

Throughout history, humanity has gazed at the stars, yearning for answers to the profound question: Are we alone in the universe? This discovery, with its potential to signal the existence of life beyond Earth, represents a pivotal chapter in that quest. It is not just a scientific breakthrough; it is a moment that transcends disciplines, blending biology, chemistry, and astronomy with philosophy and the human spirit of exploration.

If the gas detected truly points to biological processes, it will fundamentally reshape our understanding of life’s prevalence and resilience. It challenges the notion that life is a rare, Earth-bound phenomenon and hints at a universe teeming with possibilities. Such a revelation could unite humanity, sparking a collective curiosity and sense of purpose that transcends borders, ideologies, and generations. It reminds us that, despite our differences, we all share the same desire to explore, discover, and understand.

But even if life is not confirmed, the implications remain extraordinary. This discovery demonstrates the capabilities of human ingenuity and the relentless drive to push boundaries. It proves that, as a species, we are capable of asking bold questions and seeking answers in the vast unknown. In many ways, the search for life beyond Earth is also a search for meaning—a journey that reflects our deepest hopes and dreams, as much about us as it is about the cosmos. Whether this planet holds the key to extraterrestrial life or simply deepens the mystery, it reaffirms one undeniable truth: the universe is a place of endless wonder, and our journey to understand it has only just begun.

Authored by Audrey Enjoli via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Chilean authorities say they have recovered an engraved Rolex watch believed to have been stolen from actor Keanu Reeves’s Los Angeles home in December 2023.

On Saturday, the Chilean Investigative Police (PDI) announced on X that detectives had seized various pieces of jewelry, valuable watches, and other stolen items in Peñalolén, a commune in Santiago, Chile.

“A watch belonging to a famous movie actor, the victim of a robbery in Los Angeles,” was among the more than a dozen watches recovered, police said.

The Rolex Submariner, valued at over $9,000, according to the Swiss luxury brand’s website, features the engraved words “The John Wick Five. Keanu Thank You. JW4. 2021” on the back.

Reeves, who played the titular character in the “John Wick” film franchise, gifted customized Rolex Submariner watches to the four stunt performers he worked with on “John Wick: Chapter 4,” which premiered in theaters in March 2023.

According to CNN Chile, the PDI conducted raids on four homes in Peñalolén, recovering a total of three watches that belonged to the 60-year-old actor.

“There are two watches in particular that have the inscription referring to actor Keanu Reeves,” Hugo Haeger Bórquez, the deputy director of police and criminal investigation at the PDI, said during a press conference.

“Along with our counterparts in the United States, through Interpol, it was determined that he was a victim of theft in his home in 2023 when he lost nearly $7 million.”

Speaking to Chilean broadcaster TVN on Monday, PDI Inspector Marcelo Dibarrat said Chilean authorities are working with the Los Angeles Police Department to return Reeves’s stolen property to him.

Officers with the PDI arrested a 21-year-old man during the Peñalolén raid, though his identity has not yet been released.

Dibarrat told TVN that the suspect claimed at the time of his arrest that his brother had been the perpetrator of the theft of Reeves’s engraved watch.

The Epoch Times contacted the Los Angeles Police Department and a representative for Reeves for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

String of Break-Ins

Chilean authorities believe the stolen watches were taken from Reeves’s Hollywood Hills residence in the fall of 2023.

At the time, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department told the Los Angeles Times that “suspects entered the property through the backyard and broke a rear window to gain access” on the evening of Dec. 6, 2023.

The suspects, who wore ski masks, reportedly made off with jewelry and a firearm.

The government is considering putting a law into place that helps stop online dating scammers. 

Sharing the story of a 66 year old woman who had “saved more than $2 million for her retirement and hoped to travel the world” and then lost all of it to someone she met on Match.com, CBS wrote this week that two lawmakers have introduced the Online Dating Safety Act.

She met a man on Match.com claiming to be a UK private equity investor named Santos. After weeks of romance, he asked her for $40,000 to renew a professional license.

“I was in a position, I could help a person. Why not? I never thought he was stealing or scamming. There was no reason,” the woman told CBS. From there, Sue faced relentless lies, deception, and emotional abuse that ultimately cost her $2 million in savings, according to CBS.

She told her story to CBS: “Because I don’t want anyone to go through the hell that I’ve gone through. I don’t want anybody to be in the hell hole that I dug with the help of a criminal.”

Romance scams cost over 64,000 Americans more than $1 billion last year, double the $500 million reported four years ago, per the FTC. Nearly half of dating site users report encountering scammers, prompting bipartisan concerns from lawmakers, the article says. 

Reps. Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) and David Valadao (R-CA) introduced the Online Dating Safety Act, which would require apps like Match.com to alert users if they’ve interacted with a scam account.

Valadao said: “No matter how advanced you think your ability to understand what’s out there, they’re gonna deceive so many people and we really have to get in front of this.”

The bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate, with plans to reintroduce it next Congress. CBS writes that Match Group stated they’ve started implementing fraud notifications and will work with lawmakers to finalize the bill.

Authored by Julianna Frieman via Headline USA,

Some states reinstated mask mandates as so-called health “experts” claim holiday social gatherings have caused an increase in four different types of viral infections, the Daily Mail reported on Thursday.

The “quad-demic” consists of a surge in infections caused by the flu, COVID-19, the respiratory illness RSV and norovirus, commonly called the stomach flu, according to the outlet.

Headlines about the quadruple threat emerged just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, fresh after talk about the risk of bird flu fell flat.

Legacy media is promoting the “Quad-Demic” this winter which they describe as a combination of “flu, Covid-19, RSV, and norovirus.”

As expected, the same oppressive measures as before are back:

Vaccination
Mask-wearing
Avoiding gatherings

The real pandemic is legacy media. pic.twitter.com/r0NqaWXN9t

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) January 3, 2025

Aurora Health Care, a hospital in Wisconsin, announced that starting on Jan. 6, visitors will be required to mask up “when in contact with patients or in congregate areas, including patient rooms and others areas designated by signage,” WLUK reported.

Several counties in California, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, along with the City of Berkeley, enacted mask mandates first effective in November until March 31, 2025.

In some counties, the order only applies to medical workers—but stricter counties extent their mandate to visitors or residents, CBS News reported.

🚨BREAKING: Face mask mandates are back in several US states as doctors warn of a ‘quad-demic’ of four viral infections, reports the Daily Mail. pic.twitter.com/IRUcj2BFuW

— Jack (@jackunheard) January 3, 2025

Multiple hospitals in Illinois, Indiana and New Jersey have also implemented mask mandates, which were proven not to stop infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, under the guise of protecting people against the reported winter surge of diseases, various reports said.

In New York, government officials including Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams also reportedly called for people to wear face masks on public transportation, NBC 4 New York reported in June.

🚨 REPORT: Mask mandates coming back to some facilities in several U.S. states amid so-called “quad-demic” – Daily Mail pic.twitter.com/OknkuxgNhn

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 3, 2025

Dr. Joe Bresee, an infectious disease “expert” with two decades of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention experience, told the Daily Mail, “What we are seeing now is an increasing amount of respiratory disease and norovirus that is really all over the U.S.”

Social media users were skeptical of mask mandates resulting from what some called the “quad-demic.” One X user questioned if reports were “more fear-mongering,” while others warned as early as Dec. 2024 that the apparent attempt to return to COVID-19 “utter deception and evil” would not be welcomed.

Quademic ?

Hospitals and health care facilities in New York, New Jersey, and California will require staff to wear masks in certain settings this winter.

Is this more fear mongering ? What are they up to ? pic.twitter.com/DbcGAZ01OB

— Brandon Johnson (@Patriot_45_) January 3, 2025

safe and effective
A Quademic
Your vulnerable
…. what utter deception and evil https://t.co/6isxoAYgwQ

— John Olooney (@OlooneyJohn) December 16, 2024

X user @NoNonsense2 pointed out that the rise of the “quad-demic” began just weeks before Trump’s second term.

COVID conceniently comes on the scene before the 2020 election, changing the most easy to corrupt voting processes across the country.
Now a quademic comes into play just as Trump is about to take office.
Don’t believe in conspiracies and the Deep State? Then you are an idiot! https://t.co/1IowWZz6ry pic.twitter.com/MxH5JPphfP

— NoNonsense2 (@NoMoNonsense2) January 3, 2025

Absolutely incredible how little public health officials have learned from betraying us during COVID. Mask stupidity is peak human ignorance.
“Face mask mandates return in multiple states as doctors warn of ‘quad-demic’ of four viral infections.” https://t.co/lYnAR2oPga

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) January 3, 2025

Popular podcaster Dan Bongino slammed the Daily Mail’s report by saying, “Absolutely incredible how little public health officials have learned from betraying us during COVID. Mask stupidity is peak human ignorance.”