Speaking Jeffrey Epstein and things being kept under wraps (more on that later), a prosecutor with a famous last name quietly joined the sex trafficking case against Sean “Diddy Combs late last year…

In a thinly covered news story from December that’s suddenly relevant again (read on), New York Prosecutor Maurene Comey – whose father James Comey famously refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information & then participated in the Russia collusion hoax – joined the prosecution against Combs. The younger Comey has previously worked as lead prosecutor on both the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases, as well as that of former Epstein cellmate Nicholas Tartaglione. More on that below…

Combs is currently facing multiple serious legal charges, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation for purposes of prostitution. These charges stem from allegations that, from at least 2008 to the present, the impresario led a criminal enterprise aimed at exploiting and abusing women, protecting his reputation, and concealing his conduct. The alleged crimes encompass sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

Multiple allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors have been made. Last October, attorney Tony Buzbee announced he was representing 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct; 25 of these accusers were minors at the time of the alleged incidents – while he’s also been accused of drugging and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy in a New York City hotel in 2005 and a 17-year-old boy in 2008 who aspired to be on the reality TV show “Making the Band.”

According to former dancer Adria Sheri English, who claimed she was “pimped out” by Diddy, the embattled rapper would hold sex-crazed “freak offs” that often took place away from the “main party” but were kept a secret.  

In addition to dozens of celebrities, including Jay-Z, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ashton Kutcher, Usher, Kanye West, and Pharrell Williams, several famous politicians are alleged to have attended Diddy’s extravagant parties, including:

• Bill and Hillary Clinton
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Sen. Cory Booker 
• Andrew Cuomo
• Al Sharpton

How many of these figures were at the ‘main party’ vs. the ‘freak off’ rooms is unknown, however questions have been raised over whether Diddy was running an blackmail operation similar to what Epstein is suspected of.

According to a TMZ documentary about the Diddy raid “They have 250 cameras they took from his houses. A lot of people may be running from that tape,” said rapper Mark Curry, a former Bad Boy Records artist. TMZ executive producer Charles Latibeaudier said that Combs was “allegedly obsessed with recording everything that went on in his home.”

“I don’t think it’s just celebrities that are going to be shook,” said Combs’ former bodyguard, Gene Deal. “He had politicians in there. He had princes in there. He also had a couple of preachers in there.”

And so it suddenly becomes very interesting that the daughter of James Comey is now involved in the prosecution. Is she handling depositions? Or determining which witnesses are involved in the case?

A Brief Timeline

Maurene Comey becamse a US attorney in the Southern District of New York in 2015.

In 2019, when she was just 30-years-old, Comey became one of the lead prosecutors in the Jeffrey Epstein case before he was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019.

Two years later, she became one of three lead prosecutors in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s partner in crime and daughter of suspected Mossad operative Robert Maxwell. 

Before becoming a US attorney, Comey clerked for US District Court chief judge Loretta Preska of the SDNY – who notably oversaw a long-running defamation case filed by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre against Maxwell.

Comey was also involved in the case of Nicholas Tartaglione, a former NYPD officer who was convicted of killing four men in 2016, and who was briefly Epstein’s cellmate in the Manhattan Metro Correctional Center. Tartaglione claims to have helped Epstein after ‘finding him unconscious’ (and totally not trying to kill him) prior to Epstein’s actual death.

In 2016, Tartaglione suspected a man named Martin Luna had stolen money from him – for which “Tartaglione tortured Martin and then forced one of Martin’s nephews to watch as he strangled him to death with a zip-tie,” according to a statement by the US Attorney’s Office.

Two days after Epstein’s death, NY Times reporter James B Stewart, who had spent 90 minutes with Epstein a year prior, wrote “The overriding impression I took away from our roughly 90-minute conversation was that Mr. Epstein knew an astonishing number of rich, famous and powerful people, and had photos to prove it. He also claimed to know a great deal about these people, some of it potentially damaging or embarrassing, including details about their supposed sexual proclivities and recreational drug use.

And so, whether this is just a case of ‘it’s a small world’ or something a little (or a lot) less innocent, James Comey’s daughter is now involved in a second case where high-profile celebrities and politicians may have been secretly filmed engaging in sexual activity with minors.

Authored by Ronald Beaty via RealClearEnergy,

By February 21, 2025, the trumpet has sounded: Donald Trump’s second term has begun, and with it, the swift reversal of Biden’s LNG export pause. This isn’t mere policy tinkering—it’s a seismic recalibration of America’s role in the global energy chessboard. 

For conservatives, it’s a clarion call to reclaim energy dominance, secure jobs, and outmaneuver rivals. Yet, as the United States barrels toward an LNG export renaissance, a fresh realism must guide us—one that marries unapologetic ambition with a clear-eyed reckoning of trade-offs. RealClearEnergy readers—policymakers, industry titans, and patriots—deserve a vision that celebrates this moment while charting its complexities.

The Triumph of American Shale

Let’s start with the stakes. Biden’s 2024 LNG export freeze was a sop to climate ideologues, stalling terminals like CP2 and choking billions in Gulf Coast investment. Trump’s Day One reversal—likely formalized by now—unleashes a torrent: the U.S., already the world’s top LNG exporter at 11.9 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), could double capacity by 2035, hitting 30 Bcf/d with 12 new projects. This isn’t just gas—it’s leverage. Europe, unshackled from Russia’s grip since Ukraine’s transit deal died January 1, 2025, will guzzle 20 Bcf/d by decade’s end. Asia, led by China’s 100 million metric tons per annum (MTPA) appetite, follows suit. The American Petroleum Institute pegs this at 1.5 million jobs—welders in Louisiana, traders in Houston, families thriving.

Conservatives see the gospel here: free markets, not green dogma, deliver prosperity. LNG exports, projected to rival oil’s $200 billion annual haul, turbocharge GDP while slashing allies’ reliance on despots. Russia’s Gazprom, bled dry at 5% of global LNG share, can’t compete with Sabine Pass’s bounty. Qatar scrambles as U.S. shale undercuts its Hormuz Strait chokehold. This is Reagan’s “peace through strength” reborn—energy as a weapon of liberty, not coercion.

A New Realism: Beyond Blind Boosterism

Yet, triumphalism alone won’t suffice. LNG’s ascent demands a conservatism that’s muscular but mature—call it “shale realism.” First, the price paradox: flooding markets with 100 MTPA could drop global LNG from $15/MMBtu to $8 by 2032, a boon for buyers but a squeeze on producers. Henry Hub, at $2.50/MMBtu today, might climb to $4 as exports drain stocks, testing Trump’s “cheap energy” pledge. Conservatives mustn’t flinch—higher domestic prices are the cost of global primacy, a trade-off worth every penny if it bankrupts Putin’s war chest.

Second, the tariff tightrope. Trump’s 10% EU levy threat—60% for China—could backfire. Europe might stomach it, grateful for gas over Russian blackmail, but China’s retaliation could cap U.S. LNG at 15 MTPA, rerouting flows to Japan or India. Here’s a novel fix: tie LNG deals to trade pacts—discounts for tariff waivers. Imagine Beijing swapping solar panel exports for $10/MMBtu gas, a détente that cools trade wars while greening China’s grid. It’s pragmatic, not pandering—a conservative win through cunning.

The Climate Conundrum: LNG as Bridge, Not Bogeyman

Enter the green chorus: LNG’s methane leaks—1% of output, per the Environmental Defense Fund—could add 100 million tons of CO2-equivalent annually at scale. Trump’s likely methane rule rollback stokes their ire, and they’re not wrong to flag emissions. But here’s where shale realism shines: LNG isn’t the enemy of climate goals—it’s the midwife. Displacing Europe’s coal (30% cleaner) and China’s (55% of its mix), U.S. gas could cut global emissions by 500 million tons yearly, dwarfing leaks. By 2040, this bridge could halve coal’s share, buying time for fusion or next-gen solar.

Critics cry “fossil fuel lock-in,” but that’s a strawman. LNG’s flexibility—unlike rigid pipelines—lets renewables scale without blackouts. Picture Germany: its coal plants fade as U.S. gas fills gaps, wind turbines humming by 2035. Conservatives should own this narrative: LNG isn’t denialism—it’s discipline, a transition fuel that starves tyrants while science catches up.

Geopolitical Judo: Flipping the Board

Now, the grand play. Trump’s LNG surge isn’t just supply—it’s strategy. Europe, at 40% of exports by 2030, becomes a U.S. vassal in energy, not ideology—NATO’s glue thickens without a bullet fired. China, hooked on 20% of our LNG, trades coal smog for American molecules, a dependency Trump can tweak with tariffs or diplomacy. Russia, limping at 20 billion cubic meters to Europe, pivots to a discounted Siberia 2—China pays $8/MMBtu, not $12, bleeding Moscow dry.

Here’s an original twist: LNG as soft power. Trump could launch an “Energy Freedom Initiative”—subsidized exports to Africa’s microgrids, outpacing China’s $50 billion oil grab. Kenya’s 100 MW solar pairs with U.S. gas backups, electrifying villages without Beijing’s strings. By 2040, America owns the developing world’s energy soul—capitalism’s quiet coup.

The Balanced Ledger: Risks and Remedies

Shale realism demands candor. Oversupply risks stranding $50 billion in terminals if Europe goes 60% renewable by 2035—Cheniere’s bet could sour. Methane’s shadow looms; a voluntary industry standard—say, 0.5% leakage caps—could blunt critics without EPA meddling. Trade wars might shrink exports to 20 Bcf/d, but a “LNG bloc” with Japan and India hedges that bet.

Conservatives mustn’t dodge these. Champion LNG, yes, but innovate: tax credits for methane capture, not just drilling. Pair exports with fusion R&D—$1 trillion by 2040, privately led. This isn’t capitulation—it’s command of the future.

The Verdict: A Legacy Worth Forging

Trump’s LNG reversal is a conservative dream: jobs, power, liberty. By 2035, 35 Bcf/d could flow—40% to Asia, 30% to Europe—redefining energy’s map. Prices might settle at $10/MMBtu, coal withers, and Russia fades. Yet, shale realism elevates this beyond bravado. It’s a chance to wield LNG as a scalpel—cutting rivals, bridging climate gaps, and electrifying allies—all while fueling America’s heartland.

RealClearEnergy’s readers know the drill: energy isn’t sentiment—it’s strategy. Trump 2.0 can etch a legacy not just of dominance, but of dexterity. Let’s seize it, eyes wide open, and shape a world where American gas lights the way.

Ronald Beaty is a former Barnstable County Commissioner, and a lifelong resident of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Something sinister is lurking in the heart of Africa, and no one knows what it is. A mysterious illness has swept through two remote villages in northwestern Congo, killing 53 people in just five weeks – some within hours of falling sick.

Health officials are scrambling to figure out what’s behind the deadly outbreaks in Equateur Province, but answers remain elusive. With 419 reported cases and the death toll rising, fear and speculation are gripping the region.

A Tale of Two Villages

The outbreaks began on January 21 in two villages separated by more than 120 miles. In the tiny village of Boloko, the first victims were children who had eaten a bat (oh?). Within 48 hours, they were dead, according to the Associated Press. Weeks later, hundreds more cases surfaced in Bomate, where at least some patients also tested positive for malaria. Are the two outbreaks connected? Health officials still don’t know.

Dr. Serge Ngalebato, medical director of Bikoro Hospital, says this is an ‘unusual situation.’

“The first one with a lot of deaths, that we continue to investigate because it’s an unusual situation, (and) in the second episode that we’re dealing with, we see a lot of the cases of malaria.” 

Congo’s Ministry of Health reports that about 80% of patients share symptoms including fever, chills, body aches, and diarrhea. These symptoms are common in many tropical infections, but what has scientists on edge is the rapid death of many victims.

Initially, fears of Ebola ran high, as the virus has struck Congo multiple times before. But lab tests in Kinshasa ruled out Ebola and its deadly cousin, Marburg. Now, health officials are considering everything from viral hemorrhagic fever to food poisoning, typhoid, and even meningitis.

“The speed at which people are dying in Boloko is alarming,” the WHO Africa office said in a statement. “We need to accelerate laboratory investigations, improve case management, and strengthen surveillance before it spreads further.”

Congo’s Deadly Pattern

This isn’t the first time an unknown illness has swept through Congo. Just last December, a similar outbreak claimed dozens of lives. The country’s weak healthcare system and remote geography make it difficult to track and contain diseases before they spiral out of control.

Many of these deadly outbreaks stem from the region’s deep forests, where viruses jump from animals to humans. Scientists warn that as long as people continue eating bushmeat—including bats, a known carrier of deadly pathogens—Congo will remain a hotbed for mysterious diseases.

“All these viruses have reservoirs in the forest,” said Gabriel Nsakala, a professor of public health at Congo’s National Pedagogical University. “As long as these forests exist, we will always have outbreaks.”

The Congolese government has sent teams of experts to the affected villages, but the remote locations are making containment efforts difficult. Patients are receiving treatments targeting their symptoms, but without a known cause, there’s no cure in sight.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization is calling for urgent international assistance. The U.S. has historically been the largest donor to Congo’s health sector, but with foreign aid currently under review, it’s unclear whether resources will arrive in time.

As the mystery illness continues its deadly march, one thing is clear: Congo is once again at the mercy of an invisible killer. And until scientists can crack the case, fear and uncertainty will reign supreme.

Authored by Mark Oaks via RealClearPolicy,

For years, unelected regulators and global financial firms have colluded and used other people’s money to force businesses to address climate change and social issues. Under the guise of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), proponents diverted capital away from the energy sector, prioritizing political activism over prudent financial stewardship. The resulting misallocation of capital is most acutely felt in Europe, where energy prices are four times higher than in the U.S.

Sadly, the EU continues to push ESG through regulation with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directives (CSRD). The CSRD imposes sweeping ESG mandates on companies with operations in the EU, even if they are headquartered in the U.S. “CSRD is the EU’s new regulation requiring companies to disclose their environmental and social impact…and hold businesses accountable for their sustainability efforts.”

That is why I, along with 25 of my fellow state financial officers, sent a letter to President Trump asking him to direct the United States Trade Representative to open an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into the European Union’s CSRD. This provision allows the President to take action against foreign regulations that unfairly burden U.S. businesses.

The CSRD is costly, prioritizes political agendas over investor returns, and undermines U.S. sovereignty. Given the sweeping scope of the EU’s ESG requirements, a Section 301 investigation is fully justified.

The directives mandate companies to report on ESG impacts and performance, including initiatives to reduce their environmental impact. And, even though President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, it requires companies, including U.S. businesses, to develop and implement a Paris-compliant transition plan for climate change mitigation.

Beyond their own operations, businesses must disclose the potential ESG impacts of companies within their supply chain, including Scope 3 emissions. In 2024, even the SEC shied away from such onerous disclosures due to high compliance costs, inconsistent and unreliable Scope 3 data, and the legal uncertainties surrounding the rule itself. The CSRD also introduces a radical concept of “double materiality.” This means not only reporting on financially material risks, but also on speculative societal impacts. This goes far beyond the long-established U.S. legal definition of materiality, creating a legal minefield for American businesses.

The directives also invite frivolous lawsuits from activist groups and trial lawyers seeking to weaponize ESG disclosures. They are built on assumptions about climate change that will force companies to incriminate themselves. Traditional energy has no reliable, abundant, affordable alternatives, so, of course, companies are dependent on it for their underlying activities.

Since CSRD requirements extend European regulators’ authority to U.S. companies, these bureaucrats will dictate in-scope issues that American companies must address, including within their domestic operations. This regulatory overreach undermines U.S. sovereignty.

U.S. companies are unwinding from the coercive ESG scheme. Many of our largest financial institutions, including banks, insurance companies, and asset managers, have pulled out of the collusive global net-zero alliances. The EU, in contrast, seems determined to carry on the deleterious ESG cabal despite the demonstrably detrimental impacts that have resulted.

The recent American Airlines retirement plan litigation highlights the risks of prioritizing non-pecuniary interests in investment decisions. Judge Reed O’Connor noted that ESG investments often underperform traditional ones by about 10% and stated that it is irrational for shareholders or investment managers to push companies like Exxon to act in ways that undermine their own profits.

The EU’s ESG policies have already crippled European economies, driving energy shortages and economic stagnation. The directives will exacerbate capital misallocation and weaken the economies of both Europe and the United States. This not only harms the financial interests of states but also drains financial resources from shareholders.

Even within Europe, the directives are controversial. President Macron of France has asked the EU to postpone their implementation indefinitely. As Brussels re-examines the directives, the U.S. has an opening to assert its opposition.

President Trump’s administration has taken critical steps to free American markets from the grip of ESG mandates. We must extend that fight to the international stage. By taking a firm stance now, the U.S. can protect American businesses, restore market principles, and encourage Europe to rethink its self-destructive policies.

We must act swiftly to ensure that Europe’s regulatory failures do not become America’s burdens.

Marlo Oaks is the State Treasurer of Utah.

BP’s CEO is setting an ambitious goal to more than double the company’s market value to $200bn within five years, restoring it to pre-Deepwater Horizon levels, according to the Financial Times.

Murray Auchincloss told the Financial Times that BP plans to take advantage of “tremendous” demand for oil and gas after abandoning its push into green energy. “At the end of the decade, it would be nice to be back to where we were before Macondo,” he said, referring to the disastrous oil spill that cost BP $62.5bn in clean-up efforts.

His comments followed BP’s decision to cut annual spending on renewables by 70% and shift its focus back to fossil fuels. The company’s current market value stands at just under £70bn ($89bn).

BP’s latest strategy shift acknowledges that the energy transition is progressing more slowly than anticipated, though the market response has been anything but euphoric.

“Oil and gas demand is going to be around for a long time,” said CEO Murray Auchincloss when asked about BP’s future beyond 2050. He pointed to the rising electricity needs of data centers, making gas a crucial fuel source. “The challenge is how do we decarbonize this stuff as much as you can,” he added, noting BP’s active efforts in carbon capture.

The Financial Times report notes that despite dropping all renewable targets and planning to move its wind and solar businesses off the balance sheet, Auchincloss insists they will remain “very big” parts of BP. He defended the company’s measured approach, stating, “You don’t announce a strategy change until you change it,” arguing that premature announcements would have lacked credibility.

BP has faced criticism for slow execution, particularly after activist investor Elliott took a nearly 5% stake and pushed for more aggressive changes. A source familiar with Elliott’s position said BP’s plans fell short, advocating for major divestments and further cuts to renewables spending. Bloomberg first reported the hedge fund’s dissatisfaction.

Auchincloss declined to comment on any engagement with Elliott but expressed no regrets about his first year as CEO. “Nothing comes top of mind,” he said.

Auchincloss acknowledged that the company will face short-term financial challenges as it rebuilds its oil and gas portfolio after years of downsizing. However, he emphasized that future growth will largely come from the U.S. and the Middle East.

“We’re more American than an awful lot of the American companies are,” he said, highlighting his focus on attracting U.S. investors. Over the coming weeks, BP’s management team plans to engage with more than a third of its shareholders through roadshows. Despite this push, Auchincloss clarified that relocating BP’s listing to the U.S. is “not on the agenda.”

Addressing concerns that BP lags behind rivals like ExxonMobil and Chevron in market value, he defended the company’s assets. “Our size is smaller, but the quality of our assets is exceptionally high,” he said, describing BP’s upstream operations as “world class” and a major competitive advantage. He also pointed out BP’s strong trading operations, something he claimed American companies lack.

Submitted by Vincenzo Lorusso via Donbass Italia, (emphasis ours)

Months ago, a grassroot media campaign was launched in Italy intended to communicate the popular discontent with the pro-war, anti-Russia policy of the supposedly “Italy First” Government of Giorgia Meloni (elected on a platform that soon became indistinguishable from Atlanticist “Super” Mario Draghi). Themed “La Russia non e’ il mio Nemico” (Russia is not my Enemy), the campaign was promoted on billboards all over Italy to underscore the warm relationship between the Italian people and Russia. And to distance the people as much as possible from a government that contrary to its historical roots has taken Russophobia to a near British level of absurdity. The campaign was as much loved by the people as it was hated by the authorities.

But last week, while delivering his acceptance speech for a honorary degree he was being bestowed by Marseille University, Italian President Sergio Mattarella compared the current Russia regime and policies to the Third Reich. And condemned any form of dialogue as a form of appeasement similar to Europe’s concessions to Hitler.

Unsurprisingly, the speech was quickly criticized by Russia’s MFA and its spokesperson Maria Zhakarova who criticized Mattarella’s speech as offensive (as well as, we may add, ignorant of history to a shocking degree). 

More notably, however, was the popular reaction to this statement made by Italy’s most senior political figure and representative of the Italian people.  

A petition was soon launched, condemning the speech…

“As Italian Citizens, fully identifying ourselves with the Italy born of the Partisan Insurrection of 1945 and the values of the Constitutional Fathers, we wish to express our complete Political Solidarity with the Russian government, the expression of that People who shed the most impressive contribution of blood in the Great Patriotic War, (twenty-seven million dead) which defeated and ended the genocidal Nazi-Fascist tyranny.

Our grandfathers and fathers, on other mountains and fields, challenged the enemy with weapons in hand, as did your grandfathers and fathers, paying with torture and death, nipped in the prime of life. We who saw fascism come into being, as opposed to the civilization movement composed of workers, laborers and peasants, who plowed the path for a true Europe of the Peoples, cannot besmirch history with a dystopian and erroneous vision, with unacceptable historical analogies between Russia and the Third Reich.

And even lately we believe that the same struggle for a new Nazism supported and foraged by Atlanticism has continued on the fields of the Donbass, which has as its first goal the destruction of A POLITICAL EUROPE OF PEACE, WORK AND SOLIDARITY, convenient and functional to a great power defended by two oceans but not to our Peoples.

Our Latin forefathers said that to err is human but to persevere is diabolical.

The narrative of the Atlantic “minculpop” in the unified networks and press, the most impressive war weapon of the collective West, describes the Russian special military operation as a prodigious attack on a sovereign country, forgetting the dramatic aggression suffered for years by the Russian-speaking peoples of the Donbass and the attempt at ethnic cleansing carried out by the Ukrainian coup regime, which has a robust overtly Nazi component at its core.

This is why we believe that the intervention of the government of the Russian Federation was a tragic but legitimate and inevitable reaction to the threat to the borders of the territory of Russia and its Peoples, who a few days ago had to endure tragic episodes of massacres of civilian population in the ‘Kursk area and since 2014 in the Donbass involving children, women and the elderly.

We do not accept this reversal of reality. The comparison with the Munich Conference of 1938 made by President Mattarella is a historical and political error that we stigmatize in the strongest terms.

We are convinced that you are aware of the deep friendship and respect that binds Our Ancient Peoples; we know your unwavering patience and discernment and your respect for almost three thousand years of Our Civilization and Culture that you esteem and respect.

We are not like the Baltic or Scandinavian governments; ours has always tended to be a deep and fruitful relationship, despite the fact that a fascist army invaded your country. We have memories of the generosity of so many women workers and peasants to our grandparents, betrayed and abandoned by a dictatorship with which we settled accounts.

Italy’s role must be to build bridges of civilization, prosperity and brotherhood in A MARE NOSTRUM OF PEACE.

Anyone who follows wrong friendships, through miscalculation or political cowardice, will be destined to pay the price: this we have as a historical example. 

We do not want to retrace known tragedies on our continent, at a time of deep ethical, cultural and political decadence.

We apologize for erroneous statements that we do not share: with facts we will try to redeem Our wounded country.

We ask everyone to sign this appeal by affixing their signature.”

Impressively, and reflecting the increasing impatience of the Italian population with a game that is no longer amusing to its people, the “petition”, or letter of apology, was signed by over 25,000 signatures in a matter of days and the numbers continue to grow. As a peace offering and a sign of respect, bound volumes of all the signatures were delivered to the MFA of the Russian Federation. While the book of comments, too long to print, was delivered to Maria Zhakarova by email.

Ms Zhakarova seemed touched by the outpouring of support for Russia among ordinary Italian people and in a small ceremony with the author promised that the book of signatures will be displayed in the Museum of the Great Patriotic War. 

Zakharova was presented with a petition with Italy’s apology for Mattarella’s statements pic.twitter.com/5QJObYrE0c

— Sprinter Observer (@SprinterObserve) February 22, 2025

Another message that is reaching the embassy of the Russian federation following Mattarella’a words was delivered by Matteo Brandi, head of the Pro Italia Party/movement, a small but rapidly growing political force that may well be an alternative government in waiting in the years ahead:

“I fully share the criticism of the spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to the incautious words of President Mattarella who compared Russia’s special operation in Ukraine to the Nazi aggressions of the past century. The majority of the Italian people are not enemies of Russia, they know that the real reasons for the war in Ukraine are the aggression of NATO and the Nazi-fascists in Kiev, and they remember the enormous sacrifice of 27 million dead made by the Russian and other Soviet peoples to defeat Nazism.” 

Perhaps, the people of some European countries have figured out that their hapless politicians neither represent their views nor their interests and are pushing back in a more direct way.

Will Italy’s attitude change, having backed, yet again, the wrong side? Time will tell, but it is a start……

A grand deal involving Turkey, Syria, and the Kurds is in the works, and on Thursday a historic announcement was made by the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Abdullah Ocalan, speaking from a Turkish prison, has called on the group that he founded to lay down its arms and disband. This is the result of years of running Turkish-PKK battles as well as fragile negotiations. The PKK has long been in an official state of war with the Turkish government, which considers it a terrorist organization.

“Convene your congress and make a decision,” Ocalan said in the statement, read aloud both in Kurdish and in Turkish. “All groups must lay down their arms and the P.K.K. must dissolve itself.”

Turkey’s war against the PKK, as well as the conflict’s extension into Syria and Iraq (the YPG/YPJ), has taken tens of thousands of lives. The crackdown on the PKK was its most intense in the 1990s. More recently and connected with the Syria crisis, Turkish warplanes have bombed Syrian Kurdish enclaves connected with the Rojava project.

“The rare message from Mr. Ocalan raised the possibility that a conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people over four decades could finally end,” the NY Times has stated. “It could also echo across borders, given Mr. Ocalan’s profound influence over members of the group in Turkey and Iraq as well as affiliated Kurdish militias in Syria and Iran.”

Ocalan has actually been in prison for a quarter-century at this point, but the influence of his leadership has remained strong, as Kurdish fighters almost worship him. His political doctrine is widely read and quoted.

But even with this huge step of the PKK’s dissolution, the question of implementing details as well as the next steps are highly uncertain. There’s also the question of whether the more hardline Kurdish factions will actually heed the call to lay down arms:

His message was greeted with joy in the Istanbul conference room where Öcalan’s allies gathered to broadcast his call, after displaying a photo of supporters visiting the white-haired septuagenarian. A group of older Kurdish peace activists ululated as the call to lay down arms was read out.

“This is the breaking point of history and it is a positive one,” said Sırrı Süreyya Önder of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) party. “We are here with a compass to find a possible route out of these dark chaotic days.”

Önder hinted at some of the potential problems to come, adding that while Öcalan called for the PKK’s dissolution and to lay down arms, this “requires the recognition of democratic politics”, and legal support for a sustained peace.

The Kurdish-led SDF in Syria is unlikely to immediately heed the call. They are supported by the US occupation in northeast Syria and American special forces advisors.

BREAKING — PKK’s Syrian wing PYD leader Salih Muslim says they agree with Ocalan’s statement

“There would be no need for weapons if we are allowed to work politically. If the reasons for carrying weapons disappear we will lay them down”

pic.twitter.com/gIPM2SsWsp

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) February 27, 2025

However this does mean the clock is ticking for the US occupation – which Turkey has long wanted to squeeze out. At the same time, the new HTS rulers in Damascus have been making overtures – offering Syria’s Kurds integration into the state and military, if they abandon hopes for a Kurdish autonomous state.

Thus this ‘grand bargain’ will ultimately be another win for Turkey in the region, and the Pentagon will eventually be forced to pull back. But this is also reportedly what Trump has wanted – a US withdrawal done in a way that doesn’t leave a security vacuum.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Observers were shocked on Wednesday after former Romanian presidential front-runner Calin Georgescu was temporarily detained and charged on six counts amidst police raids against some of his closest supporters as he was preparing to file for his candidacy in May’s election redux. The first round last December was annulled on the basis that an unnamed state actor promoted him on TikTok prior to the vote but it was later discovered that this was just another party’s marketing campaign gone wrong.

It was explained here how Georgescu’s election could have ruined the US “deep state’s” escalation plans against Russia while this analysis here added more context after the annulment. The immediate run-up to the latest developments saw Vice President Vance lambast the Romanian government as anti-democratic for what it did last December. 

Wednesday’s events were then followed by Musk retweeting a video of State Department whistleblower Mike Benz describing the “deep state’s” interest in Romania.

Benz drew attention to how Romania agreed to host NATO’s largest airbase in Europe and has played a crucial role in clandestinely transferring Pakistani military equipment to Ukraine. These are important points, as is the “Moldova Highway” that’s mentioned in the two analyses cited above since it completes the last part of the corridor stretching from Greece’s Mediterranean ports to Western Ukraine, but there’s more to what’s happening that just geopolitics. Ideology is arguably just as significant of a factor.

Romania has been under liberal-globalist control for decades after these forces exploited its political dysfunction and endemic corruption to continually install their preferred candidates into power. Georgescu represents the most promising opportunity in years for a populist-nationalist revolution that could finally resolve the aforementioned systemic challenges and thus restore Romania’s sovereignty. His appeals to history, religion, and national interests genuinely resonate with many of his compatriots.

Georgescu can therefore be described as a “Romanian Trump”, but both figures are really just tapping into the populist-nationalist zeitgeist that’s been spreading across the West for years in reaction to the liberal-globalists’ socio-political and economic excesses. He’s his own man, as is Trump, and both simply embody the trend of the times. Like all revolutionaries (or counter-revolutionaries from the perspective of regaining the power that was seized from the people), however, they’re also facing lots of resistance.

It took Trump over eight years before he was able to neutralize the “deep state’s” subversive plots so it’s no surprise that Georgescu, who only just recently began his political career, is having a hard time. Trump was a trailblazer though whereas Georgescu is following in his footsteps so it’s possible that Trump could lend Georgescu a helping hand to greatly speed up the time that it takes for him to neutralize his own “deep state’s” subversive plots. It’s here where the ongoing struggle between the US and EU is relevant.

“Vance’s Munich Speech Vindicated Putin’s Summer 2022 Prediction About Political Change In Europe” and made clear that the US stands on the side of all populist-nationalist movements on the continent. The Romanian “deep state’s” latest attempt to take down Georgescu is essentially a gauntlet thrown at the Trump Administration by its liberal-globalist opponents in Brussels who fully back Bucharest. They want to test whether the US will do anything in response to the EU’s rolling coup in Romania.

What’s unfolding in this Balkan country is nothing less than the opening of another New Cold War front, albeit this time an ideological one between liberal-globalists and populist-nationalists, which also interestingly pits nominal NATO allies against one another as the EU and the US take opposite sides. It’s incumbent on the Trump Administration to do what’s needed to ensure that Georgescu is allowed to run as president in May’s election redux and that the vote is truly free and fair instead of flawed as usual.

To that end, targeted sanctions against Romanian figures, credibly threatening to withdraw its troops from Romania, suspending arms contracts, and extending full political support to populist-nationalist protesters could pressure the authorities into reconsidering the wisdom of doing Brussels’ bidding. At the same time, a comprehensive pressure campaign could also backfire if the German-led EU exploits it as the pretext for deepening its already immense control over Romania, though that could backfire too.

It was explained here in response to the likely next German chancellor’s pledge to “achieve independence” from the US that military, economic, and energy factors make that a lot easier said than done. If provoked, like could soon happen if the German-led EU pushes back against the US’ potentially impending pressure campaign on Romania, then Trump could weaponize each of them in his own such campaign against the EU and Germany that he stands a good chance of winning on both fronts.

Altogether, what just happened in Romania places the country at the center of the intra-Western ideological dimension of the New Cold War, which will determine the future of Europe. Liberal-globalists will either entrench their power in full defiance of Trump, possibly at enormous costs to their countries, or they’ll be democratically deposed by populist-nationalists who share the same worldview as his team. This struggle is historic and the consequences of its outcome will reverberate for decades.

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

During his recent campaign for president, Donald Trump repeatedly stated that he had a secret plan for settling the war in Ukraine. 

He suggested that he would be able to resolve the conflict within a day of so of taking office. That obviously was political hyperbole because the war is still going on. Trump and people in his administration are now talking to Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russian officials in an effort to find a way to end the war and possibly even normalize relations between the United States and Russia.

There is one great big obstacle, however, to bringing an end to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. That obstacle is NATO, the old Cold War dinosaur that should have gone out of existence with the end of the Cold War, just like the Warsaw Pact did.

Instead, NATO not only remained in existence, it also ultimately became the root cause of the war between Ukraine and Russia.

It’s that critically important point that is lost on the U.S. mainstream media. For them, the war began at the moment that Russia invaded Ukraine. Nothing that preceded that invasion matters to the mainstream media. What came before the invasion is simply considered irrelevant.

But it’s not irrelevant, especially because it might well prove to be an insurmountable obstacle to a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.

With the surprise end of the Cold War, the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — lost its big official enemy — Russia (or, to be more exact, the Soviet Union), which meant the end of the big Cold War racket that had kept the national-security branch in high cotton in terms of power and taxpayer-funded largess.

The Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were panicky. At first, they announced that they were willing to participate in the “war on drugs.” They then converted their old partner and ally Saddam Hussein into an official enemy, who they used to scare the American people for some 11 years. Then, their interventionist and deadly foreign policy in the Middle East brought about the 9/11 retaliatory strikes and they were off to the races again, with the “war on terrorism” replacing the Cold War’s “war on communism.”

But they never lost sight of the possibility of reconverting Russia into a renewed official enemy, as part of a new Cold War, especially given that the anti-Russia Cold War sentiment was so deeply embedded within the American people. That’s when they began using NATO to expand eastward toward Russia’s border by absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact.

An important thing to note about this was that U.S. officials had promised Russia that NATO would not expand. It would stay, they repeatedly stated, right where it was.

It was a lie. Instead, NATO was used to expand eastward, which enabled NATO’s missiles, tanks, weapons, troops, and planes to get ever closer to Russia’s border. It’s worth mentioning that NATO includes Germany, the nation that wreaked untold death and destruction on Russia in the two world wars.

Why would U.S. officials do that? To get their official enemy — and big cash cow — back. They were not ready to let go of Russia as America’s official enemy. And they knew — as an absolute certainty — what Russia’s reaction would be to having U.S. and German missiles, forces, tanks, planes, and armaments getting ever closer to Russia’s borders. They knew that Russia would react negatively — very negatively. And the reason they knew that was because they knew that that is precisely how they would react if Russia began doing the same thing in Cuba.

Moreover, Russia repeatedly told them what would happen if they threatened to absorb Ukraine into NATO. Russia would invade to prevent that from happening. Thus, not surprisingly, NATO threatened to absorb Ukraine, knowing full-well that that would provoke Russia into invading.

Thus, when Russia did invade, U.S. and European officials and the U.S. mainstream press cried, “Aggression! Aggression!” And they were right from a legal standpoint. Russia had no legal right to invade Ukraine, and Ukraine had the legal right to join NATO. But what U.S. officials, European officials, and the U.S. mainstream press steadfastly avoided confronting — and still avoid confronting — is that, as a practical matter, U.S. officials had broken their promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastward and that, as a practical matter, that was the reason for the Ukraine-Russia war.

Why is all that pre-invasion history important insofar as a peace treaty is concerned? Because if one takes the official U.S.-European narrative seriously — that Russia invaded Ukraine because it is an aggressor nation that is hell-bent on conquering the world — then how do they arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the war, given that the real reason that Russia invaded Ukraine was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO?

Thus, how does Trump guarantee Russia that Ukraine won’t ever join NATO? Sure, he can give his word. He can even put it into writing. But everyone knows that the U.S. government does not keep its word, and everyone knows that the U.S. government lies. Indeed, everyone knows that the U.S. promised Russia that NATO would not move eastward, and it did anyway.

Moreover, even if Russia believes Trump and takes him at his word, Trump could die from a heart attack tomorrow. Moreover, four years from now, America will presumably have a new president. What then? What assurance does Russia have that a new president won’t suddenly announce that NATO is absorbing Ukraine.

Therefore, the best assurance that Russia could be given would be the total dismantling of NATO. 

With no NATO, there is no threat of NATO’s suddenly absorbing Ukraine. Moreover, no more NATO means no more former Warsaw Pact members as members of NATO. 

But what are the chances that Trump will bring an end to this Cold War dinosaur? Very slim, unfortunately, which will make it very difficult to arrive at a lasting peace in Ukraine.