Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

In recent years, Americans have been fleeing our largest cities in unprecedented numbers, and many of them have decided to settle down in quiet little towns all over the country. 

There are many reasons why this is happening, and I will highlight several of them below.  If this trend continues, what will our major metropolitan areas look like?  Violence, theft, drugs, homelessness and international migration have all risen to crisis levels and are putting a tremendous amount of strain on our core urban areas.  Meanwhile, many small towns are absolutely booming as wave after wave of big city refugees comes pouring in.

People have been leaving large metropolitan areas for a long time, but once the pandemic arrived that trend greatly accelerated…

In the three years before the pandemic, counties in metro areas with at least 1 million residents lost a total 200,000 or so residents annually to other regions, after figuring both people moving in and leaving, according to the Goldman report. After COVID, those losses vaulted to 750,000 in 2021, 650,000 in 2022 and 550,000 in 2023, according to Goldman and Census data. The numbers reflect annual changes through July of each year.

A separate study by Lombard shows the domestic migration losses were concentrated in the largest metro areas with more than 4 million residents. Those cities shed a total 400,000 residents annually before the pandemic and have lost 820,000, 707,000 and 591,000 residents, respectively, over the past three years.

And it is being reported that last year small towns became “the nation’s top destination for domestic migrants for the first time in decades”…

Last year, about 266,000 of the big city refugees moved to metro areas with populations of 250,000 to 1 million and about 291,000 moved to areas with populations under 250,000. That made those small towns the nation’s top destination for domestic migrants for the first time in decades, Lombard says.

In 2023, the New York City metro area lost 204,000 residents; Los Angeles, 119,000; and Chicago, 64,000, according to Census and Moody’s.

So why is this happening?

Well, there are a number of reasons why so many people are relocating to small towns these days.

For many, the quality of life in big U.S. cities has become utterly deplorable.  For example, one young Chicago mother recently had to wait for hours for a police officer to show up after masked robbers entered her home…

A Chicago mom who called 911 during a terrifying break-in was left on her own for hours — with dispatchers telling her to call her local representative to demand more police funding.

Michelle called the emergency hotline six times after coming face-to-face with two masked bandits, only for the strained supervisor to tell her the city’s severe budget cuts had left them with a bare-bones staff.

“A gentleman got on and said sorry to say we have no units to send you … then there was an awkward pause,” Michelle told NBC Chicago Wednesday, declining to share her name or face while her would-be robbers are still on the loose.

I don’t know why anyone would want to live in Chicago at this point.

Of course the exact same thing could be said about most of our other large cities.

Another reason why a lot of Americans are choosing to relocate has to do with taxes.

There has been a mass exodus out of “high tax states”, and Massachusetts is one of those that is being hit really hard…

Massachusetts is in danger of losing nearly $1 billion in annual revenue over the coming years as high state taxes trigger an exodus of wealthy residents.

Since 2013, migration out of Massachusetts has seen an “alarming” 1,100% increase to more than 39,000 people, according to new findings published by Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. If the trend continues, more than 96,000 residents making a cumulative $19.2 billion in adjusted gross income will leave the state by 2030.

The study estimates those departures would cost Massachusetts about $961 million in income tax revenue each year.

In my rankings of all 50 U.S. states, I have Massachusetts all the way down at number 44.

The cost of living crisis that we are currently facing is another factor that is motivating vast numbers of Americans to relocate.

At this point, we are being told that Mississippi has the lowest cost of living in the entire nation…

Imagine stepping into a world where your paycheck stretches like bubblegum and the promise of Southern charm meets you at every corner. Welcome to Mississippi, a land where the living is easy, the cost of living is easier, and every quirk adds color to the canvas of daily life. Here, your financial aspirations can don a superhero cape, albeit in a landscape peppered with challenges that keep things interesting.

One of the reasons why Mississippi has such a low cost of living is because average home prices are the lowest in the country…

Mississippi’s housing costs are the lowest in the nation. Home prices range from $32,000 to $240,000 depending on the city, with an average of $162,292.

But even though it has such a low cost of living, I don’t really like Mississippi as a place to live during the chaotic times that are coming.

In fact, in my rankings of all 50 U.S. states I have Mississippi all the way down at number 33.

Ultimately, the cost of living is only a minor consideration when it comes to choosing a place to live during the extremely difficult years that are ahead of us.

Much more importantly, you will want a location that has like-minded people, that has a low population density, that has a low risk of experiencing major natural disasters, and that is not near any important military targets.

Unfortunately, such areas have become very popular in recent years and home prices are going through the roof.  For instance, the median home price in Bozeman, Montana has risen to about $770,000…

Nowhere has the affordability crisis been felt as acutely as in Bozeman, a city of about 56,000 not far from Yellowstone National Park and the upscale Big Sky skiing community. Bozeman, where the median home sells for about $770,000, has had so many out-of-state arrivals over the years that Montanans sometimes refer to it as “Boz Angeles.”

As high-end rentals in Bozeman spring up next to historic homes and new arrivals snap them up, a smattering of tents and RVs have begun to populate the outskirts of town: homeless residents priced out by rising rents.

Many longtime Montanans bristle at the newcomers, and bumper stickers proclaiming some version of “Montana Is Full” abound, occasionally with an expletive attached. Some locals blame the popular television show “Yellowstone” for romanticizing the Mountain West, luring people to the state.

A lot of Americans now find themselves priced out of many of the most desirable communities in the country, and that is extremely unfortunate.

If you are considering relocating to another part of the nation, I would encourage you to do it soon.

Because global events are starting to really go haywire, and the clock is ticking.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

America’s favorite primetime judge took to Fox News this week to deliver a scathing verdict on progressive district attorneys across the United States, suggesting they’d be better suited selling ice cream cones for a living.

Speaking to Fox News Digital this week, the Judge said: “When you have district attorneys who are charged, whose job it is to do justice, but to keep the community safe … When you have elected district attorneys who don’t know what their job is, they should go find another job.”

“Fill ice cream cones someplace. But don’t ruin cities,” she added. 

She continued, telling Fox News that DAs were the reason many U.S. cities were seeing people leaving: “And what’s happened around New York City, Portland, San Francisco, you had district attorneys who didn’t know what their job was. And the cities are ruined, people are leaving.”

She pointed out the backward nature of how criminals are now incentivized and victims are punished, stating: “I know how we got here. We got here because a small group of people who have very loud voices created a scenario where bad people got rewarded. And the victim got punished by the system.” 

“You know there is always a reason for criminal behavior — didn’t have a good upbringing, didn’t have two parents in the house, didn’t have one parent in the house,” the former family court judge added.

“There’s always a reason. You’re mentally ill. That’s a reason. You took drugs, that’s a reason. You took alcohol, your brain is fried… Whatever it is.” 

“And when society started to make excuses for bad behavior, and react to criminality based upon the excuses, it fell apart,” she added.

She was also critical of New York’s decision to raise the minimum age to try criminals as adults to 18: “You’re just as dead as somebody 18 kills you, or 17.”

“You’re just as dead. And if you’re 17 years old and kill somebody, you don’t belong with kids who are 12, in a juvenile facility… But a very small group of people pushed through in New York State, for instance, raising the level of criminal responsibility.” 

“I think we better get smarter before we get lost … Permanently lost,” she concluded.

Via SchiffGold.com,

Central bank gold buying has been a significant factor in the yellow metal’s spectacular run-up to new record highs. But with its recent small correction downward, it’s a good time to look at which central banks are selling — and why.

Gold vs USD, 1-Month Chart, Source: Bloomberg

For one, Thailand has been selling the gold top to help rebalance its reserves. However, the biggest central bank gold seller by far is currently Uzbekistan, and has been for some time. The country has better reasons than most to sell the top and pull in some revenue: Uzbekistan bought a lot of gold when prices were lower, but even more importantly, they’re one of the world’s top 10-12 producers and exporters of gold in the world.

Being a producer helps reduce some of the pressure to hold as much gold as possible as global inflation continues to run hot, conflict in the Middle East drags on, and the ongoing war continues to rage between nearby Russia and Ukraine.

However, Uzbekistan’s major problem with gold is one of overdependence — they don’t have a lot of other revenue sources, are heavily indebted, and have leaned on gold sales to replenish their treasury without any major economic reforms to reduce the degree to which it has to lean on gold exports. If gold crashes, the central bank and government have few solid resources to soften the blow. Thankfully, if you zoom out, gold always trends up as central banks devalue their currencies — but Uzbekistan doesn’t have other tools to work with during gold’s major drawdowns.

Likewise, if there are disruptions around Uzbekistan’s gold mining industry that hamper its discovery, production, or export, the Uzbekistan central bank is left without equally effective measures to prop up the som, its troubled national currency. With gold’s rise, becoming one of the world’s biggest sellers allowed Uzbekistan to prop up the som against the US dollar — but without its stash of gold, the country’s economy and currency would be in a huge heap of trouble.

UZS vs USD as Uzbekistan Sells Gold, Source: Bloomberg

With gold currently raging, there’s also less incentive for the government to push to innovate and fix its more fundamental issues, since it can lean on high gold prices to keep itself afloat and pay back debtors, like the $1 billion that just came due on a 2019 Eurobond. 

One major reform effort was a new rule allowing anyone to look for gold, in an effort to increase gold production and overall employment. And while it has helped somewhat, making fewer Uzbekis dependent on Russia for jobs, it only increases the country’s broader gold dependence.

Luckily for Uzbekistan, inflation will continue to worsen as central banks and governments scramble (and fail) to contain it, which will push commodities like gold higher. Meanwhile, countries like China continue their massive buying sprees and help prop up bull markets further. That means that Uzbekistan will probably continue to sell and reap the benefits of profit-taking, likely remaining one of the world’s major sellers in the coming months and years.

Without other economic tools, however, it can’t just rely on selling gold as a shortcut to prosperity on the global stage. Then again, if major currencies start to fall due to central bank hubris and out-of-control debt, perhaps gold will soar high enough that an overdependent country like Uzbekistan will have a (literal) golden opportunity to invest heavily into other areas, building itself up from the ashes of the self-destruction of Western fiat currencies.

For now, however, all that glistens in Uzbekistan’s economy is gold.

The Biden administration is finally taking significant steps to revitalize America’s nuclear power industry, a move likely to upset radical leftist environmentalists funded by shady non-governmental organizations. The administration recognizes that nuclear power is critical to reaching 100% reliable carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 rather than relying solely on unreliable solar and wind energy sources for the power grid (after all, AI data centers need reliable power). This nuclear renaissance has been a ZH theme for several years. 

“Alongside renewable power sources like wind and solar, a new generation of nuclear reactors is now capturing the attention of a wide range of stakeholders for nuclear energy’s ability to produce clean, reliable energy and meet the needs of a fast-growing economy, driven by President Biden’s Investing in America agenda and manufacturing boom,” the White House wrote in a statement.

The statement continued, “The Administration recognizes that decarbonizing our power system, which accounts for a quarter of all the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, represents a pivotal challenge requiring all the expertise and ingenuity our nation can deliver.” 

Today’s big news is that the White House created a new working group, the “Nuclear Power Project Management and Delivery.” 

Here’s more on the working group’s tasks to rebuild the nation’s atomic power infrastructure:

To help drive reactor deployment while ensuring ratepayers and project stakeholders are better protected, the administration is announcing today the creation of a Nuclear Power Project Management and Delivery working group that will draw on leading experts from across the nuclear and megaproject construction industry to help identify opportunities to proactively mitigate sources of cost and schedule overrun risk.

Working group members will be made up of federal government entities, including the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, the White House Office of Clean Energy Innovation & Implementation, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Department of Energy. 

The working group will engage a range of stakeholders, including project developers, engineering, procurement and construction firms, utilities, investors, labor organizations, academics, and NGOs, which will each offer individual views on how to help further the administration’s goal of delivering an efficient and cost-effective deployment of clean, reliable nuclear energy and ensuring that learnings translate to cost savings for future construction and deployment. 

Here are several projects already underway that the federal government is attempting to reverse the tide of plant closures in recent decades:

• The Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan would be the first U.S. nuclear plant to restart after shutting down.  It is supported by a $1.5 billion conditional loan commitment from the DOE Loan Programs Office to Holtec Palisades, LLC, to finance the restoration and resumption of service for an 800 MW nuclear generation station in Covert Township, Michigan. The project aims to bring back online the Palisades Nuclear Plant and upgrade it to produce clean, baseload power through at least 2050.

• Diablo Canyon in California is leveraging DOE’s Civil Nuclear Credit program to fund the plant’s life extension.

• The Inflation Reduction Act created a production tax credit (Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 45U) for existing nuclear plants, giving them more economic security to keep operating.

Bloomberg provides an infographic showing the latest plant closures and or shelved projects that can be restarted or finished.

With the revitalization of the Palisades nuclear plant and the recent commercialization of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia, we have come to understand, as explained in the note titled “Buy Uranium: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze,” that a nuclear renaissance in America is only just beginning. More recently, we explained this in “The Next AI Trade.”

Uranium stocks have soared since we pushed out the theme on Dec. 5, 2020. 

As well as spot uranium prices. 

“Taken together, these actions represent the largest sustained push to accelerate civil nuclear deployment in the United States in nearly five decades,” the White House concluded. 

Update (1345ET): Legal minds are beside themselves at how the judge in the Trump ‘hush money’ case has instructed jurors to rule – first in what constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley called “the coup de grace instruction,” Judge Juan Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred – and can disagree on what the crime was among the charges. 

“Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction,” Turley wrote on X. “He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.  Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous…”

Translation: The conviction and sentencing are pre-planned and were determined before the case even begun.pic.twitter.com/BWHO9eBQzD

— Ryan Tyre 🇺🇸 (@ryantyre) May 29, 2024

“This is absolute insanity,” posted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Baily, in response to another Turley observation – namely that the jury will not be given copies of their instructions, but can ask for them to be read again.

This is insanity.

I’ve tried many jury trials in my day. You give jurors paper instructions every time.

How are 12 jurors supposed to remember the elements necessary for each of the 34 felony counts?

This is an illicit, witch-hunt prosecution. https://t.co/KwoxH655xY

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) May 29, 2024

What could be behind this activist judge?

Biden Campaign’s Michael Tyler agrees that winning the White House won’t happen with current polls

READ: https://t.co/VWrqedqOEQ#MichaelTyler #Michael #tyler #Biden #JoeBiden #Campaign #Left #Democrat #Republicans #US #Politics #News #Viralvideo #ViralVideos #Explore pic.twitter.com/RKYyYs4rGU

— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) May 29, 2024

*  *  *

With closing arguments in Donald Trump’s hush money trial having ended on Tuesday, jury deliberations have officially begun, putting the outcome of the case in the hands of a dozen New Yorkers.

A jury of seven men and five women were instructed to begin deliberating just before 11:30 a.m., where they will weigh in on the first criminal trial of a former US president. While the jurors’ discussions will be in private, they can send Trump-hating Judge Juan Merchan notes asking to rehear testimony or review evidence.

“It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here. It is yours,” said Merchan.

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with an alleged scheme to shelve potentially embarrassing claims during the 2016 US election – similar to how the Clintons paid Paula Jones $850,000 to drop a sexual harassment lawsuit after more than four years of legal action.

According to Merchan, “Your verdict on each count you consider, whether guilty or not, must be unanimous,” adding “That is, each and every juror must agree to it.”

That said, they do not need to be unanimous on what crime they think Trump is guilty of.

“You should discuss the evidence and consult with each other, listen to each other, give each other’s views careful consideration. And when you deliberate, you should do so with a view to reaching agreement when that can be done without surrendering an individual juror,” Merchan continued.

As the Epoch Times notes further, all the evidence from trial has been loaded onto a laptop, and Juror 4 and Juror 6 volunteered to operate it for the group.

Merchan checked with defense attorney Todd Blanche about whether defense counsel explained to President Trump about evidence being on the laptop for jurors.

Mr. Blanche affirmed that defense counsel reviewed the contents of the laptop and have no objections to this protocol.

“I always watch the jurors. I watch to see who is paying attention and who is not,” said Merchan. “Justice Merchan said. “Each of you is very engaged in this case. But we’re not going to excuse [alternates].”

During closing arguments on Tuesday, Merchan criticized Blanche for telling the jury that the former president could go to prison if they convict – and reminded them that their decision would be based on the word of Michael Cohen, who Blanche described as a “liar” who “lied to” the jury.

“You cannot send somebody to prison, you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen,” said Blanche – to which prosecutors jumped in and objected.

Merchan agreed, sustaining the objection.

“That was outrageous, Mr. Blanche,” he said. “Someone who’s been a prosecutor as long as you have, someone who’s been an attorney as long as you have knows that it’s highly inappropriate.”

Check back for updates…

“It’s only a matter of when – not the if – when you are going to see a nation-state, group, or actor engage in destructive behavior against critical infrastructure in the United States,” Michael Rogers, the former second commander of the US Cyber Command (2014-18), warned during a 2016 speech.

I’ll do a thread on CA’s in the near future but LISTEN to Admiral Rogers from RSA 2016 in March.

Ukraine – Not the last we’re going to see of this 💯

Data Theft – Removal/manipulation of Data 👻

Theft of IP – Cyber used as a tool for destruction to tear down the Status Quo 👀 pic.twitter.com/Azho0PUpvN

— Michael Rae Khoury (@Vltra_MK) January 13, 2023

Back then, Rogers should’ve expanded his geographical threat horizon across the West, not just the US. This is because there are mounting risks that some terrorist organizations, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), under the guise of pro-Palestinian demonstrations – are attempting to dismantle the Western world. Sounds outrageous, right? 

Well, not really. According to the Director of National Intelligence, PFLP is a terrorist group based in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It unites Arab nationalism with Marxist-Leninist ideology. It promotes the destruction of “Israel as integral to the struggle to remove Western capitalism from the Middle East and ultimately establish a Communist Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.” 

It should come as no surprise that the relationship between some Palestinian activist groups and global Marxist networks, like Black Lives Matter, are cut from the same radical cloth, with the end goal of destroying the West.

The quiet part is said out loud. 

Remember, last month, during the campus chaos, under the guise of defending Palestine, many of these protesters called for ‘revolution’ against the West. Or, as one professional protester said: “A socialist reconstruction of the USA.” 

An extremist on the mic says: “There’s only one solution, intifada revolution. We must have a revolution so we can have a socialist reconstruction of the USA.”

This isn’t just about Israel/Palestine. It’s an attempt of the Marxist takeover of America. Our colleges have become… pic.twitter.com/2IEqRyuorB

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) April 30, 2024

Everyone agrees that poor Palestinians desperately need food and medicine, and there is a lot of controversy surrounding Israel’s offensives in Gaza and Rafah. Put that aside, what’s indisputable are these Marxist groups chipping away at the foundation of the West. Using public records analysis, we have found links with PFLP to sanctioned Iranian banks.

With that being said, the latest incident comes from the UK, where the group “Palestine Action” claimed they had severed fiber optic cables at the factory of defense firm Leonardo, the maker of targeting systems for Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

“BREAKING: Palestine Action cut Leonardo’s Edinburgh factory’s internet cables, disrupting the producers of targeting systems for Israel’s F-35 fighter jets,” the group said. 

BREAKING: Palestine Action cut Leonardo’s Edinburgh factory’s internet cables, disrupting the producers of targeting systems for Israel’s F-35 fighter jets. pic.twitter.com/u45n1KmSk8

— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) May 28, 2024

“The group has also claimed to have sprayed red paint over the company’s fighter jet model displays in the early hours of Tuesday, with a video (above) later circulating of the group opening a box of cables, cutting wires and painting “Stop Arming Israel” on the lid,” Scottish daily newspaper The National wrote. 

BREAKING: Actionists sprayed Leonardo’s fighter jet display after they cut off internet access to the Edinburgh factory which produces targeting systems for Israel’s F-35 fighter jets pic.twitter.com/wShYtb2TtV

— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) May 28, 2024

“We must take the power into our own hands and shut down the weapons manufacturers arming Israel,” the group said. 

We can no longer beg the powers that be to end their complicity with genocide.

We must take the power into our own hands and shut down the weapons manufacturers arming Israel.

Join an upcoming training day and disrupt the zionist war machine: https://t.co/ieOiNXn51E pic.twitter.com/APC106jqXa

— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) May 27, 2024

Leonardo and local government officials have not confirmed the severing of telecommunication cables at its factory. If confirmed, this would be problematic for the West as the world fractures into a multipolar state, with elevated risks of broadening conflict worldwide. America’s enemies are laughing as failed Western officials allow these groups to run unchecked. In the US, these groups have closed highways, bridges, and airport terminals – critical chokepoints. 

Again, how do these protests help the poor Palestinians? They don’t and have everything to do with destroying the West.

Remember the BLM movement several years ago? Well, it is very similar – shutting down bridges and highways and burning down entire neighborhoods has very little to do with helping the black community. Again, this is all Marxists – being Marxist – with one goal: Destroy the West. 

What is the outlook for the summer and ahead of the US presidential elections? … BLM 2.0?

Perhaps that’s becoming the most likely outcome after Bloomberg reported Israel will be at war with Hamas for another seven months.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

A Ukrainian intelligence source told Reuters that a Ukrainian drone targeted a radar deep inside Russian territory that’s part of Russia’s early-warning system to detect nuclear missiles. The incident marks the second time within a week that Ukrainian officials reported attacks on a Russian nuclear warning system, known as “Voronezh M” radars.

The source said that the strike targeted a radar near the city of Orsk in Russia’s Orenburg Oblast, which is over 900 miles away from Ukrainian territory. The source didn’t say if there was any damage, and Russian media reported a drone was downed in the Orenburg region and that no civilian infrastructure was hit.

On May 22, a Ukrainian drone targeted a Voronezh M radar in Russia’s Krasnodar Oblast at a radar station about 300 miles from Ukrainian-controlled territory.

The US-state-funded RFE/RL reported there was damage to the radar site, citing satellite images, although Reuters said it could not verify the imagery.

While the Russian radars can track missiles fired by Ukraine, the primary function of the early-warning system is to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles to determine if Russia is coming under a nuclear attack.

Ukraine’s targeting of the systems could lead to a major response from Russia or potentially a miscalculation as the attacks come at a time of unprecedented nuclear tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The Telegraph reported that the attack on the radar in Krasnodar “sparked alarm” in the west. The report quoted Thord Are Iversen, a Norwegian military analyst, who said it was “not a particularly good idea…, especially in times of tension” and that it was “in everyone’s best interest that Russia’s ballistic missile warning system works well.”

Russia has escalated its war in Ukraine in direct response to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory. For example, Russia recently launched major strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure after Russian oil refineries came under attack, and President Vladimir Putin has said his offensive in Kharkiv was a response to Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s Belgorod Oblast.

A more conventional supply shock is underway – nowhere near the nuclear-level hit by government-enforced lockdowns several years ago. The Israel-Hamas war has led to Iran-backed Houthis freezing the critical maritime chokepoint of the Bab al-Mandab Strait, attacking Western commercial vessels with missiles and drones (the latest incident on Tuesday), and forcing major shipping operators to reroute containerized freight around the Cape of Good Hope, which strains the world’s containerized capacity and has just sent shipping costs surging once again. 

Bloomberg reports new data from France-based CMA CGM SA, the world’s third-largest carrier, indicating that the cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Asia to northern Europe jumped to $7k in the second half of June, up from $5k in the first half of the month. Rates ranged from $6k to $6.5k, with premium services approaching $1k.

“With capacity stretched by more than five months of attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, the container shipping industry is scrambling to meet demand that’s picking up in the US and Europe,” Bloomberg said. 

Data from Bloomberg shows that Shanghai to Los Angeles, Shanghai to Rotterdam, Shanghai to Genoa, and Shanghai to New York are some of the most critical shipping lanes experiencing a price jump. 

Trine Nielsen, senior director and head of ocean EMEA at Flexport, said companies are “double-booking or increasing booking numbers to secure space” amid thinning capacity. 

The chief executive of Germany-based Hapag-Lloyd AG, the world’s number five container carrier, blamed the surge in shipping rates on the continued Red Sea chaos and shrinking capacity, plus “really strong demand.” 

There are no forecasts on how long the price surge will last. However, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said, “It could still last for another couple of months if the Red Sea situation doesn’t improve.” 

News today from Bloomberg says Israel will need at least seven more months to defeat Hamas. This suggests the fight could expand outside of Gaza to either Lebanon or Iran. If that’s the case, expect continued bombardment of ships in critical maritime chokepoints by Houthi rebels – with increasing risks of an oil supply shock that could send Brent crude over $100/bbl.

What a mess for Jerome Powell and company trying to slay the inflation monster. 

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

French President Emmanuel Macron signaled his support for Ukrainian forces to begin striking across their eastern border into Russia, ratcheting up support within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for attacks inside Russia.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday alongside German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Mr. Macron noted that Russian forces have launched missiles from within their internationally-recognized territory, which have then flown across the border into Ukraine’s eastern Kharkiv region. Mr. Macron said Ukraine must therefore be able to strike inside Russia to stop these types of attacks.

“We think we must allow (Ukraine) to neutralize the (Russian) military sites from which the missiles are fired, but not other civilian or military targets,” the French president said.

Mr. Macron’s remarks come as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has increasingly signaled support for NATO members to give Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy their blessing to use NATO-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia.

“The time has come for allies to consider whether they should lift some of the restrictions they have put on the use of weapons they have donated to Ukraine,” Mr. Stoltenberg said in a May 25 interview with The Economist. “Especially now when a lot of the fighting is going on in Kharkiv, close to the border, to deny Ukraine the possibility of using these weapons against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it very hard for them to defend themselves.”

Addressing the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Monday, Mr. Stoltenberg again offered his support for Ukrainian forces to strike inside Russia’s borders.

“Self-defense includes the right to also attack legitimate military targets inside Russia,” the NATO chief said. “That’s self-defense and they have the right to self-defense, and we should help them to uphold the right of self-defense.”

Germany More Cautious About Russia Strikes

Mr. Scholz expressed reservations this weekend about encouraging Ukrainian strikes inside Russia. Addressing a German public forum on Sunday, May 26, the German chancellor said that the idea of striking inside Russia requires careful consideration and that it could prove “problematic” for NATO members to give Ukraine long-range weapons capable of such strikes without also providing careful guidance about the intended targets of these weapons.

While standing beside his French counterpart on Tuesday, Mr. Scholz avoided expressing outright support or opposition to Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.

Instead, the German chancellor said Ukraine is “allowed to defend itself” in accordance with international law.

Other NATO Allies Divided

Talk of permitting Ukrainian forces to strike inside Russia with NATO-supplied weapons has divided other members of the Western security alliance.

A Reuters reporter asked British Defense Minister David Cameron, during a May 2 interview, whether Ukraine should carry out strikes on targets in Russia, to which the British official replied, “We don’t discuss any caveats that we put on those things but let’s be absolutely clear Russia has launched an attack into Ukraine and Ukraine absolutely has the right to strike back at Russia.”

“Including inside Russia?” the Reuters journalist again asked, to which Mr. Cameron replied, “Well it’s, that’s a decision for Ukraine, and Ukraine has that right.”

Over the weekend, Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson also told the Swedish newspaper Hallandsposten that “Ukraine has the right to defend itself through combat actions directed at the opponent’s territory as long as the combat actions comply with the laws of war.” Sweden is the newest member of NATO and was inducted into the alliance in March.

By contrast, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her government have distanced themselves from Mr. Stoltenberg’s calls for NATO to support Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.

Speaking to Italy’s Ansa News agency on Monday, Ms. Meloni said the NATO secretary general should exercise “more prudence” with his remarks. Italy’s deputy prime minister and transportation minister, Matteo Salvini, also told Ansa News that Mr. Stoltenberg’s comments raise the prospect of a new world war and that the NATO secretary general should apologize for his recent comments or resign.

Biden Admin Not Changing Policy

The question of allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia has elicited a mix of views from among current and former members of President Joe Biden’s administration. The Biden administration’s overarching policy has been one of opposition to Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, but some have urged a policy change or suggested caveats.

During a May 15 visit to Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. government has not “encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine.” However, Mr. Blinken left some room for Ukraine to decide for itself whether such strikes are prudent.

“Ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war, a war it’s conducting in defense of its freedom, of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrity,” the secretary of state said. “We will continue to back Ukraine with the equipment that it needs to succeed, that it needs to win.”

In a May 19 interview with ABC News, former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland said that with the recent Russian offensive around Kharkiv, the time had come for the Biden administration to change its tune and allow strikes on military bases inside Russia.

“I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game, whether they are where missiles are being launched from or where they are where troops are being supplied from,” Ms. Nuland said.

Asked to address Ms. Nulands remarks in the ABC News interview, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said during a May 20 Pentagon press conference that the Ukrainian military’s focus “ought to be on the close fight.” Moments later, Mr. Austin added that the United States expects Ukrainian forces to use U.S.-supplied weapons “on targets inside of Ukraine” but said “the aerial dynamic’s a little bit different” and that he’d “leave it up to the experts” to decide what to do.

A bipartisan group of 13 House sent a letter to Mr. Austin on May 20, urging the Biden administration to permit Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied weapons on strategic targets inside Russia’s borders.

Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also appeared to throw his support behind allowing Ukrainian forces to use U.S.-supplied weapons inside Russia’s borders, telling a Voice of America reporter, “I think we need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fit” and “I think us trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy for us.”

Despite the growing domestic and international pressure, the Biden administration insisted it still won’t permit Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weapons inside Russia.

“We’re aware of the interest that President Zelenskyy has expressed in this regard. I would tell you that there’s no change to our policy at this point. We don’t encourage or enable the use of U.S.-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia,” White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters at a White House press briefing on Tuesday.

Putin Warns NATO Members

Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn’t remained silent regarding NATO’s discussion of Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.

Addressing reporters at a press conference while visiting Uzbekistan on Tuesday, Mr. Putin said the Russian side is monitoring the comments and behavior of NATO members “very carefully.”

The Russian president further asserted that certain long-range missile systems like the Franco-British-designed Storm Shadow cruise missile and the U.S.-designed Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) are reliant on space-based targeting support provided to Ukrainian forces by NATO member nations. He suggested such targeting assistance closely implicates these NATO nations in any strikes on Russian territory.

“Targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realise what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission,” Mr. Putin said. “However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military.”

The Russian president went on to say that NATO members therefore “should be fully aware of what is at stake,” adding, “They should keep in mind that theirs are small and densely populated countries, which is a factor to reckon with before they start talking about striking deep into the Russian territory.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also told Russian broadcaster Izvetsia on Tuesday that Russia would prepare countermeasures if European Union member nations decide as a group to lift restrictions on Ukrainian attacks within Russia’s borders.

Authored by Francis P. Sempa via RealClearDefense,

Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has laid out in an essay in Foreign Affairs the key differences between what he rightly calls “American Globalism” and what has been called the “America First” approach to global affairs. Brands clearly is in the “American Globalist” camp, but unlike other supporters of the “liberal international order,” he does not label “America First” as isolationist. Instead, he lauds the global benefits to the post-1945 world order and worries that they will eventually disappear if Donald Trump regains the presidency. Brands doesn’t want the United States to be a “normal” country that only looks after its own national interests. What he fails to appreciate, however, is that the post-1945 world order he supports is already gone.

The geopolitics of 1945-1991 disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The war in Ukraine, despite the claims of many globalists, has not recreated the Soviet threat to Europe. If Ukraine, or parts of Ukraine, remain under Russian control, U.S. national security will not be endangered. Nor will Europe’s. NATO has doubled in size since 1991. Russia in relative power is considerably weaker than the Soviet Union was throughout the Cold War, and its ruling class no longer has a revolutionary ideology that legitimizes its continued rule and motivates international aggression. Of course, Russian imperialism has not disappeared from Russia’s foreign policy DNA, but the Russian empire of the Czars was never considered to be an existential threat to the United States (although the Monroe Doctrine included Russia in its restrictive warning), even when it occupied Alaska and parts of California in the 19th century. And today’s Russia is having difficulty holding on to the eastern provinces of Ukraine, and has once again sent out feelers for a ceasefire to end the war.

The architects of American foreign policy after the Second World War formed alliances and built-up U.S. military power to protect our national interests which were threatened by Stalin’s Soviet Union. They understood that American security depended on the geopolitical pluralism of Eurasia. Our policymakers at the time had read their Mackinder, Spykman, and Burnham. Brands has read them, too, and has written insightfully about their geopolitical wisdom. The geopolitical pluralism of Eurasia continues to be important to U.S. security, but the primary threat has shifted from Europe to the Indo-Pacific–from Russia to China. Those who Brands labels as “America Firsters,” including Donald Trump, have recognized this. Indeed, it was in the Trump administration that the real “pivot” to Asia began to occur, led by key national security officials like Elbridge Colby, Matthew Pottinger, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. This shift was described in Josh Rogin’s magnificent book Chaos Under Heaven. 

American Cold War foreign policy was not based on a selfless commitment to globalism. What Brands calls “American Globalism” was undertaken to protect U.S. national interests. Brands quotes Dean Acheson in 1952 to the effect that the post-World War II situation required the United States to broaden its view of our national interests. And so, it did. But the post-World War II world is gone. The Soviet threat that inspired our commitment to American Globalism is gone. It has been replaced by the Chinese threat which requires a shift in our commitments given the limits of American power.

The “American Globalism” supported by Brands fails to account for the limits of American power. Policymakers should continue to read Mackinder, Spykman and Burnham, but should also read Kennan and Lippmann who counseled prioritizing threats in the context of limited resources. Yet Brands still wants America to engage in democracy and human rights promotion and protect “intangible norms such as non-aggression.” He worries that a second Trump administration would “deglobalize” our defense, perhaps by withdrawing our nuclear umbrella from Europe and parts of Asia. He fears that Trump would no longer use American power to defend “distant states.” He expresses concern that Trump would not view our current alliances as “sacred.” He suggests that Trump would settle for a Western Hemispheric defense. He sides with the critics of “America First” who claim that a more restrained foreign policy “would be devastating to global stability.”

The “American Globalism” touted by Brands has not been an unvarnished success. It has made the nations of an entire continent content with resting their security on the United States and imposed an unnecessary burden on American taxpayers to provide for Europe’s common defense. It has led to an inconclusive war on the Korean peninsula that cost the lives of nearly 40,000 U.S. military personnel, a humiliating military defeat in Vietnam that cost the lives of nearly 60,000 U.S. military personnel, and more recent “endless wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan that resulted the deaths of more than 7,000 U.S. military personnel for no appreciable gain. It has led to the establishment of a national security state and what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” that impinges on the liberties of American citizens and profits from wars.

The American foreign policy tradition has much deeper roots that the post-Second World War order. It reaches back to George Washington and the wise counsel of his Farewell Address that warned against permanent alliances with, and passionate attachments to, other nations, while allowing for temporary alliances that serve our nation’s interests. Time and circumstances have not rendered the wisdom of Washington’s words obsolete.

Francis P. Sempa is the author of “Geopolitics: From the Cold War to the 21st Century” and “America’s Global Role.”  Francis is also writes the montly Best Defense column for RealClearDefense.  Read his latest: Ukraine and the Pity of War.