With Putin successfully evading and flaunting all European attempts to halt Russian oil exports one year after western nations imposed a Russian oil embargo at the end of 2022 (which has proven even more porous than the US embargo on Iranian oil exports which recently hit a five-year high), Brussels’ attempts to starve the Kremlin of its oil revenues may finally get some traction with the help of three major Greek shipping firms which, according to Reuters, have stopped transporting Russian oil in recent weeks in order to avoid U.S. sanctions being imposed on some shipping firms carrying Russian oil.

Greek shippers Minerva Marine, Thenamaris and TMS Tankers have stopped transporting Russia oil in recent weeks, the Reuters sources said. All three firms were active shippers of Russian oil and fuels up until September-October when they started scaling down their involvement.

The development could be a blow to Russia, which according to analysts has been in breach of the OPEC+ quota, pumping more oil than permitted, as it narrows the number of shipping firms that are ready to transport Russian oil to consumers in Asia, Turkey, the Middle East, Africa and South America – although traders said Moscow still had enough shipping firms for now.

In October, Washington imposed the first sanctions on owners of tankers in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates carrying Russian oil above the G7’s price cap of $60 a barrel. Last week, it imposed sanctions on three more ships.

Whereas the G7 countries introduced a price cap on Russian oil in late 2022, but had not previously enforced it out of fears that an embargo that was too effective would send global oil prices soaring as a result of the millions of barrels taken out of the market. The price cap allows Western firms to provide shipping and insurance services for Russian crude as long as the oil is sold below $60 per barrel. The cap is designed to limit Russian export revenues.

Russia’s main export grade, Urals, has been trading above the $60 per barrel cap since mid-July amid production cuts by the OPEC+ group of oil producing countries, prompting many market watchers to say the price cap wasn’t working.

Russia’s Pacific ESPO Blend crude oil grade has also traded above the cap, according to U.S. Treasury data.

The three Greek firms had been shipping Russian oil for decades and continued to do so when most other Western companies quit running the routes to avoid rising sanction risks and the imposition of the price cap.

Naturally, the routes have been lucrative, and even more so when many other shippers stopped serving Moscow. Indeed, Russian oil trade has brought record revenues over the past year to the shippers who took the risk and stayed in the business, just as Zoltan Pozsar predicted nearly two years ago.

Freight rates for Russian oil transportation jumped to as high as $15 million per tanker voyage from Baltic ports to India last winter as shippers charged high rates because of the risk. That was several times more expensive than shipments of non-sanctioned crude.

The three Greek companies operate more than 100 oil tankers capable of handling almost all the oil exports from Russia’s European ports of Primorsk, Ust-Luga and Novorossiisk of roughly 10 million tonnes a month or 2.4 million barrels per day.

They also operate a fleet of smaller tankers that transport fuel.

“The dark fleet might not be enough to transport all of Russian oil,” one of the traders involved in Russian oil shipping said, referring to the emergence of the so-called “dark fleet” of shippers that move oil from sanctions-hit Russia and Iran and are not covered by Western insurance.

He cited as the main reason the fact that the Russian oil was now travelling 8-10 weeks to reach customers in Asia as opposed to two weeks before sanctions, when oil was sold in Europe. That means more tankers are required for the trade. However, for now Russia appears to be coping as other shipping companies stepped in, traders said.

Russia is now relying on its shipping company Sovcomflot and many little-known shipping firms registered in the UAE, India, Hong Kong, Seychelles, Ghana and other locations, according to traders and shipping data.

Despite the Greek tanker firms’ exiting the Russian oil transit market, so far all of Moscow’s oil meant for export is reaching its targets, even if with a several week delay. However, should the US tighten the noose even more and impose further limits on how many tankers Russia can access, there will come a point where the oil market enters a structural deficit as available Russian oil can no longer reach buyers, at which point oil prices will surge making even less Russian oil eligible for exports and leading to the next commodity crisis.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.com,

An eco-mentalist staged a stunt vomiting green goo at a European Union “clean energy” conference and accused the globalist officials there of not implementing climate crackdown hysteria hard enough.

The woman, who claimed that Brussels elites are operating climate scams on “occupied lands” yelled “I’m sick of your lies of the true environmental and social cost,” as they blathered on about how amazing ‘Hydrogen Week’ is.

She accused the EU of ‘greenwashing’, essentially virtue signalling using pointless environmental carbon schemes and the like to play up their green credentials.

Fair point, but you still come across as utterly mental.

“This conference is sickening. Europe can meet its energy needs without exploiting colonized lands,” another loon screamed.

As disturbed looking security contractors dragged them out, they bellowed “Stop fossil fertilisers! Stop fossil fertilisers.”

And replace them with… hydrogen maybe?

Essentially it’s more crazy trust fund babies throwing tantrums and crying to be governed harder.

They wanted attention, and we’re giving it to them because it’s hilariously cringe.

Watch:

An eco-mentalist screams to be governed harder and vomits green goo everywhere while EU globalists in Brussels blather on about Hydrogen Week or something. Just another day in m o d e r n i t y. pic.twitter.com/4abIIjZAAO

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) November 24, 2023

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch

On Thursday, a bidding error sparked chaos across the Finnish electricity market that sent power prices deeply negative.

Bloomberg reported that market participant Kinect Energy mistakenly sold half the country’s power consumption at an hourly auction for Friday, resulting in power prices crashing to -203.40 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh).

Kinect blamed the bad trade on an “internal system error” for the market chaos, forcing Finnish transmission system operator Fingrid to intervene to ensure stability. 

“Slightly simplified, you can say that they sold something they didn’t have, and buyers bought something that doesn’t exist,” said Pontus de Mare, head of power system operation at Svenska Kraftnat AB. He said power markets will remain messy but manageable. 

The crux of the problem is when Kinect Energy entered the wrong bid for Finland for Friday delivery, selling an average of 5,787 megawatts. This was revealed in a regulatory filing posted on Nord Pool’s website. 

Nord Pool’s website also said:

“Fingrid is planning to make Intraday purchases to ensure system security and balancing capacities concerning the non-matching situation in the Finland bidding zone.” 

Kinect Energy said in a filing, “We are working with other market parties to solve this extreme situation.” 

Fat-finger error?

By Erik-Jan van Harn, Macro Strategist at Rabobank

Summary

• The top court in Karlsruhe has now overruled the German government on relabelling EUR60bln in covid funds, which directly puts projects championed by the coalition at risk.

• There are risks to the survival of the ‘Traffic light’-coalition, but we expect them to survive.

• The ruling could call other funds, particularly the WSF, into question as well

• The court ruling could restart about discussion on the debt brake, although abolition is unlikely.

Creative accounting

The Germans have a rather strange relationship with their fiscal rules. On the one hand, there is the debt brake, which caps the annual fiscal deficit that the government can run at 0.35 percent of GDP. This is a strong form of self-control, which is deeply ingrained in German culture and which can only be suspended during times of extreme crisis. On the other hand, the German government has repeatedly used off-balance-sheet vehicles to avoid their self-imposed fiscal straightjacket, particularly on issues requiring vast sums of money, such as the energy transition or rebuilding the military.

This strategy now has potentially hit a brick wall. On November 15 Germany’s top court in Karlsruhe ruled that EUR 60bn in unspent covid-funds (that were approved under a temporary suspension of the debt brake) were unconstitutionally relocated to a climate action fund. This is a painful blow to the coalition led by Olaf Scholz as it came less than 24 hours before the Bundestag would finally approve a painfully negotiated budget. Moreover, it leaves a gaping hole in the budget for next year and forces the German government to immediately stop doling out subsidies from its Climate and Transition Fund (KTF), which will put many of the projects championed by the coalition at direct risk. Politicians from CDU/CSU have also threatened to file a similar suit against the legality of the Economy Stabilization Fund (WSF, about which more later).

But the worries are bigger than the financing of the government budget in the short term. It also raises the question whether the use of special funds is still advisable after the Karlsruhe ruling. And the sums of money involved are considerable. The Bundesrechnungshof (Federal Court of Auditors) published a list of 29 special funds in August that sum up to EUR869bln1, or over a fifth of GDP. Christian Duerr, parliamentary caucus leader of the co-governing FDP even went so far as to state that the number of off-balance sheet funds should be drastically reduced and that Germany’s federal budget was due for a complete overhaul in the medium term.

In this report we will try to answer three questions: i) What does the ruling imply for the survival of the coalition?; ii) What does it mean for off-balance sheet funds?; And iii) Will the debt brake be called into question again?

A lame duck or a new government?

Scholz’s “Traffic light” coalition was always a bit of a strange combination because the parties’ ambitions differ considerably. Finding compromises hasn’t worked out well for the coalition partners. In the polls, the liberals (FDP) are barely above the electoral threshold of 5%, while the SPD has lost more than a third of its voters since the elections in 2021. The Greens are still holding up quite well. Still, it would give coalition members every incentive not to call new elections, but the question is whether they can work it out together.

After the news broke, Germany’s cabinet promptly vowed that they would find a way to fill the funding gap left by the Karlsruhe ruling. But, unfortunately, there are no simple solutions. The government is constrained by the debt brake (more on that later), which means the gap would have to be filled by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. Luckily, the amount of EUR60bn was to be spent over several years, but the court ruled that any money that is already committed must be “compensated for through other means”. Estimates are that the Finance Minister Christian Lindner would still have to find EUR 37bn (1% of GDP) in a revised 2023 federal budget.

Consequently, the German government decided to temporarily suspend the debt brake to plug the hole in the budget. This is particularly painful for the finance minister’s fiscally conservative pro-business party (FDP), which was proud to reinstate the debt brake earlier this year.

The outlook is less certain for the remainder of the 60 billion euros (roughly equal to 3% of the annual budget) as the debt brake is not suspended for 2024. Given that the coalition is already divided, reaching an agreement will be difficult. Significant tax increases are likely to be vetoed by the finance minister’s liberal pro-business party (FDP), while Scholz’ SPD and the Greens are unlikely to accept significant cuts in spending on social welfare or climate projects within the budget. Failing to find a solution to this problem would put the coalition at risk, however. Relabelling the EUR60bln in unspent covid funds as climate funds was the silver bullet to sway the Greens, whilst simultaneously reassuring the liberals’ fiscally conservative voters the no additional debt would be issued.

Consequently, there is some speculation with respect to the survival of the coalition. There is even the rumour that Scholz’ SPD might ditch the Greens and Liberals to form a new coalition with the CDU/CSU. This would allow the SPD to continue to govern and hopefully end their term on a positive note, whilst it would give CDU/CSU leader Friedrich Merz an opportunity to gain experience in a ministerial role before heading into the elections. Given the lead of the CDU/CSU in the polls we don’t think this is a likely outcome, however, as CDU/CSU has more to gain from a new round of elections.

The most likely outcome is that the current coalition will survive, perhaps by stretching up the rules of the debt brake (by tinkering with the cyclical component for example) albeit with their hands tied. A solution likely entails a combination of lower government spending, as well as sacrificing any room for unplanned fiscal initiatives, which isn’t exactly a great place to be in now that the economy is slowing down and given the many challenges ahead.

Will the ruling threaten the use of special funds?

The use of special funds by German governments dates back to a bill passed in 1924 that allowed the Reichsbahn (railway) and Reichspost (mail service) to issue their own bonds. Since then, there have been numerous special funds established to accommodate investments for long-term projects, such as rebuilding the economy after WWII or the reunification in the 1990s. These special funds are distinct entities that exist solely to carry out a specific task and are managed separately from other federal assets. They are also an exception to the constitutional principle of fiscal unity, so the debt brake has no effect on them. Only transfers to or withdrawals from special funds have to be included in the federal budget.

The Bundesrechnungshof, in collaboration with the Bundestag and Bundesrat (lower and upper houses), is in charge of overseeing the special funds. The former has recently expressed some serious misgivings about the use of those funds. In a report published in August they argued that the use of special funds should be reduced because it conceals the federal government’s true net borrowing. According to the Bundesrechnungshof, only one-tenth of funds are actually directly co-financed by the government, with the rest being loan-financed by the entity itself (with the implicit backing of the government). This means that the funds effectively act as outsourced debt with the potential for new debt dwarfing the federal budget.

The part of the report that most startled policymakers was the assertion by the Bundesrechnungshof that existing funds should be evaluated on a regular basis and their continuation must be well justified. This could be a major issue, particularly for the Economy Stabilization Fund (WSF). The EUR 200 billion fund was established in 2020 to assist households and businesses in dealing with the pandemic and was later expanded to provide support for higher energy prices. The Bundesrechnungshof now argues that the WSF’s credit authorization was only valid in 2022, but that the Ministry of Finance used financial trickery to fully exhaust the borrowing capacities of the fund without any actual borrowing, so that it can spend the money in 2023-2024. Given the fact that only EUR 30bn has been spent so far, there’s still a lot of firepower left in the fund (4.5% of GDP). Since the debt brake was reinstated earlier this year, this was at direct odds with constitution (although the debt brake has just been temporarily suspended again).

Given the fact that one of the supervisors of special funds has already laid the groundwork for a suit and the fact that the CDU/CSU already communicated that they intend to act on it, we see it as a probable risk that the coalition will have to face another major budget setback. We don’t expect the coalition to survive another setback, however.

Will the debt brake come into question again?

The debt brake has been a source of contention since its implementation in 2009. The debt brake’s supporters argue that, given Germany’s demographic outlook, it would be unwise to burden future generations with too much debt and that abolishing it would undermine Germany’s position as a fiscal role model in Europe. Critics (including the author of this report) argue that the debt brake places an unnecessary constraint on government finances, that has resulted in structural underinvestment in public goods such as (digital) infrastructure during an era of ultra-low interest rates (also see this report from 2019).

Whatever side you are on, it is a fact that it will limit the government’s ability to plug a potential budget hole. This especially holds given the sheer size of these funds (the WSF still had 4.5% of GDP in funds left for 2023-2024). Furthermore, if the court’s ruling is extended to cover more off-balance-sheet funds set up over the years, it could severely constrain the German government, as all investments would have to be paid for from the current budget. As a result, this limitation may reignite the debate over the debt brake.

Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) kicked off the debate by saying the debt brake is “inflexible” and that the ruling will have “massive implications” for Germany’s transition to a renewable economy. However, we doubt that a permanent abolition of the debt brake is on the table. Since it is enshrined in the constitution, a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat is required. That is a number of seats that the coalition lacks, even if the FDP were to back such a proposal (which is unlikely). Furthermore, support from non-governing parties, such as the CDU/CSU, appears unlikely, given that they filed the complaint at the Karlsruhe court in the first place and the fact that they are fierce supporters of the debt brake.

However, much remains unknown in the medium to long term. If, as the FDP’s Christian Duerr pointed out, the German budget is due for a complete overhaul, it is critical that it include a mechanism for financing capital-intensive multiyear projects. Especially now, when German companies are struggling to compete on a global scale due to high energy prices and are less likely to make the required investments themselves.

Conclusion

While the ruling is a clear setback for the ‘Traffic Light’-coalition’s agenda, we expect them to survive for the time being. It is likely to require painful concessions from the ruling parties and significantly reduce the government’s flexibility, but the alternative (elections) is simply too painful for the coalition. It will be a test nonetheless, and we doubt whether the coalition could survive another budgetary setback.

More structurally, the ruling puts a bomb under the German fiscal framework. With so many challenges ahead (energy transition, geopolitical tensions, digitalization just to name a few) this poses a serious risk to Germany’s ability to solve them in a coherent manner.

Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis cop convicted of murdering George Floyd in 2020 by kneeling on his neck for more than nine minutes while bystanders objected and said “you’re killing him,” has been stabbed in a federal prison.

Chauvin was assaulted on Friday afternoon at Federal Correctional Institution, Tucson, Associated Press reported, citing an anonymous “person familiar with the matter.” While not naming names, the Federal Bureau of Prisons did confirm that a prisoner was attacked at the 380-prisoner facility at approximately 12:30 pm local time. Prison workers performed “life-saving measures” on that prisoner, who was then transported to a hospital. No details on his condition have been released. 

Chauvin is simultaneously serving two sentences: a 22-and-a-half year Minnesota sentence for second degree murder and a 21-year federal sentence for violating Floyd’s civil rights. His lawyer had previously asked that he be kept from the general prison population for his own protection. Former cops are often targeted, and, by virtue of the details of his case and the worldwide uprisings that ensued, Chauvin presents a target of extraordinary notoriety. He spent most of his Minnesota jail time in solitary confinement. 

The commissary of the inmate that stabbed Derek Chauvin pic.twitter.com/YPI3xB1SPI

— vids that go hard (@vidsthatgohard) November 25, 2023

The Bureau of Prisons isn’t exactly doing a great job of safeguarding high-profile prisoners. To name just a couple more lapses, there’s the 2019 alleged suicide of wealthy financier, serial pedophile and likely honey-pot mastermind Jeffrey Epstein, and the July 2023 stabbing of sex-abusing sports doctor Larry Nasser. 

“It is also the second major incident at the Tucson federal prison in a little over a year. In November 2022, an inmate at the facility’s low-security prison camp pulled out a gun and attempted to shoot a visitor in the head.” – AP  

It had already been a terrible week for the 47-year-old Chauvin: On Monday, the US Supreme Court rejected his appeal of the state conviction. His lawyers argued that Chauvin failed to receive a free trial — owing to pretrial publicity, and widespread anticipation that a not guilty verdict would cause a new wave of deadly, destructive protests. An appeal of the federal conviction is still working its way through the courts. 

In the wacky world of social justice warriors, Floyd has curiously been elevated to hero status. Floyd didn’t die taking a seat at the front of a bus or marching for the right to vote, but rather as he was being arrested for allegedly trying to buy cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill. A postmortem toxicology report found fentanyl, norfentanyl and methamphetamine in his blood. 

Whatever your take on how exactly Floyd died and the extent of Chauvin’s culpability, one truth is universal: Perpetrators of a wrongful death may be villains, but that doesn’t make their victims virtuous. 

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

For the first time in a millennium, Europe no longer plays a critical role in promoting Western civilization nor in world history at large.

Ostensibly it should. Some 750 million people live on the European subcontinent.

Europe still remains the most popular tourist spot on earth. Its hallowed architecture, art, infrastructure, and natural beauty still remind millions of visitors of the world’s once most dynamic and grandiose civilization.

Even now, European nations, in and out of the Europe Union, still produce a combined gross domestic product of $24 trillion, second only to the United States.

Europe’s exports are among the world’s most coveted cars, sophisticated technology, and valued industrial goods.

Yet since World War II, Europe has played an increasingly reduced role in world affairs, despite its membership in the NATO alliance and the growth of the European Union.

Why?

The twentieth-century traumas of World War I and II—in which some 70 million Europeans were killed—saw Europe commit near collective suicide. The ensuing Cold War hinged on protecting a relatively unarmed Europe from an aggressive nuclear Soviet empire on Europe’s borders.

But as World War II and the Cold War faded into memory, Europe did not snap back and assume its centuries-old role as a world leader and beacon of Western Civilization.

Instead, a weary Europe outsourced its security to the United States. It redefined itself as a postmodern, pacifist, socialist utopian project—most recently predicated on redistributionist entitlements, open borders, and radical green policies that have all inevitably ensured European decline.

Europeans grew louder and whinier the less relevant they became.

Although Europe has large sources of untapped hydroelectrical, nuclear, coal, and natural gas power, its green religion has all but shut down new nuclear and fossil fuel generation and closed existing plants. The result is that the cost of European energy is prohibitive for both the public and industry.

Recent economic growth was essentially zero throughout the Eurozone. The European cradle-to-grave social net, and its hyper government regulations and restrictions on economic activity increasingly are unsustainable.

Few European nations spend even a mere two-percent of their GDP on defense. And the result is that both Europe at large and its NATO members cannot defend their continent without the assistance of the United States.

Nor can Europe project power beyond its shores to preempt dangerous threats on its own horizon or to its allies.

Europe is also shrinking and aging. Its collective fertility rate of 1.5 is far below the rate of replacement. Most young people in Europe—the ancient home of Christendom—express neither belief in God nor any faith in organized religions.

In many European countries, foreign-born emigrants comprise twenty percent of the population. Most of them have arrived poor, without education, in mass, illegally, with little desire to fully integrate, from inimical countries, and holding political and religious views hostile to Europe.

The other half of the West is in little better condition.

The United States is reeling under $33 in national debt.

After embracing various bankrupt academic critical legal “theories,” major American cities are unsafe, unhealthy, and unsightly. The American southern border is wide open. Eight million illegal aliens have poured in just since January 2021, many of them hostile to the United States.

America is increasingly politically, racially, and tribally divided. It has mysteriously determined not to fully utilize its vast natural resources, especially gas, oil, and rare earth metals.

In this vacuum, the enemies of the West see only opportunity.

Russia invaded European Ukraine. Its ongoing aggression still terrifies frontline NATO nations.

China threatens periodically to storm Taiwan, as it bullies it neighbors, buzzes U.S. ships and planes, and manipulates currency, markets, and trade.

Iran has armed to the teeth anti-Western terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Iran’s “Shiite Crescent” from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut to Palestine threatens both pro-Western Arab regimes and Israel.

Iran brags that its surrogates can destroy Israel and will soon be nuclear with a global reach to both the United States and Europe.

Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, presumably on the assumption that current generations of Westerners in Israel, the U.S., and Europe would not react too strongly to its precivilization barbarity if it entailed a subsequent messy war.

In sum, the world is safe only when a strong America, along side its European partner, secure their borders, protect the world’s sea- and air spaces, support constitutional and pro-Western nations, and deter thuggish belligerents.

Perhaps as war clouds gather and enemies multiply, Europe will rediscover its heritage and reawaken to its historical role.

Increasingly, a lonely U.S.—and the world at large—need the return of a sane and powerful European co-partner, one that emerges from its self-induced slumber, and resumes its ancient role in preserving civilization from its multiplying enemies.

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

The US and its allies will continue backing Israel’s war on Gaza after a brief truce. But as the case for ‘genocide’ grows stronger, the new multipolar powers will have to confront the old hegemons and their Rules-Based Chaos.

While the world cries “Israeli genocide,” the Biden White House is gushing over the upcoming Gaza truce it helped broker, as though it’s actually “on the verge” of its “biggest diplomatic victory.” 

Behind the self-congratulatory narratives, the US administration is not remotely “wary about Netanyahu’s endgame,” it fully endorses it – genocide included – as agreed at the White House less than three weeks before Al-Aqsa Flood, in a 20 September meeting between Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and Joe “The Mummy” Biden’s handlers.

The US/Qatar-brokered “truce,” which is supposed to go into effect this week, is not a ceasefire. It is a PR move to soften Israel’s genocide and boost its morale by securing the release of a few dozen captives. Moreover, the record shows that Israel never respects ceasefires.

Predictably, what really worries the US administration is the “unintended consequence” of the truce, which will “allow journalists broader access to Gaza and the opportunity to further illuminate the devastation there and turn public opinion on Israel.”

Real journalists have been working in Gaza 24/7 since October 7 – dozens of whom have been killed by the Israeli military machine in what Reporters Sans Frontieres calls “one of the deadliest tolls in a century.” 

These journalists have spared no effort to go all the way to “illuminate the devastation,” a euphemism for the ongoing genocide, shown in all its gruesome detail for the entire world to see.

Even the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), itself relentlessly attacked by Israel, revealed – somewhat meekly – that this has been “the largest displacement since 1948,” an “exodus” of the Palestinian population, with the younger generation “forced to live through traumas of ancestors or parents.” 

As for public opinion all across the Global South/Global Majority, it “turned” long ago on Zionist extremism. But now the Global Minority – populations of the collective west – are watching raptly, horrified, and bitter that in just six weeks, social media has exposed them to what mainstream media hid for decades. There will be no turning back now that this penny has dropped.

A former Apartheid state leads the way

The South African government has paved the path, globally, for the proper reaction to an unfolding genocide: parliament voted to shutter the Israeli embassy, expel the Israeli ambassador, and cut diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv. South Africans do know a thing or two about apartheid. 

They, like other critics of Israel, better be extra wary moving forward. Anything can be expected: an outbreak of foreign intel-conducted “terra terra terra” false flags, artificially induced weather calamities, fake “human rights abuse” charges, the collapse of the national currency, the rand, instances of lawfare, assorted Atlanticist apoplexy, sabotage of energy infrastructure. And more.  

Several nations should have by now invoked the Genocide Convention – given that Israeli politicians and officials have been bragging, on the record, about razing Gaza and besieging, starving, killing, and mass-transferring its Palestinian population. No geopolitical actor has dared thus far. 

South Africa, for its part, had the courage to go where few Muslim and Arab states have ventured. As matters stand, when it comes to much of the Arab world – particularly the US client states – they are still in Rhetorical Swamp territory. 

The Qatar-brokered “truce” came at precisely the right time for Washington. It stole the spotlight from the delegation of  Islamic/Arab foreign ministers touring selected capitals to promote their plan for a complete Gaza ceasefire in Gaza – plus negotiations for an independent Palestinian state. 

This Gaza Contact Group, uniting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Palestine, made their first stop in Beijing, meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and then on to Moscow, meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. That was definitely an instance of BRICS 11 already in action – even before they started business on January 1st, 2024, under the Russian presidency.  

The meeting with Lavrov in Moscow was held simultaneously with an extraordinary online BRICS session on Palestine, called by the current South African presidency. Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi, whose country leads the region’s Axis of Resistance and refuses any relations with Israel, supported the South African initiatives and called for BRICS member states to use every political and economic tool available to pressure Tel Aviv. 

It was also important to hear from Chinese President Xi Jinping himself that “there can be no security in the Middle East without a just solution to the question of Palestine.” 

Xi stressed once again the need for “a two-state solution,” the “restoration of the legitimate national rights of Palestine,” and “the establishment of an independent state of Palestine.” This should all start via an international conference.

None of this is enough at this stage – not this temporary truce, not the promise of a future negotiation. The US administration, itself struggling with an unexpected global backlash, at best, arm-wrestled Tel Aviv to enact a short “pause” in the genocide. This means the carnage continues after a few days. 

Had this truce been an actual “ceasefire,” in which all hostilities came to a halt and Israel’s war machine disengaged from the Gaza Strip entirely, the next-day options would still be pretty dismal. Realpolitik practitioner John Mearsheimer already cut to the chase: a negotiated solution for Israel-Palestine is impossible. 

It takes a cursory glance at the current map to graphically demonstrate how the two-state solution – advocated by everyone from China-Russia to much of the Arab world – is dead. A collection of isolated Bantustans can never coalesce as a state.  

Let’s grab all their gas

There has been thundering noise all across the spectrum that with the advent of the petroyuan getting closer and closer, the Americans badly need Eastern Mediterranean energy bought and sold in US dollars – including the vast gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. 

Enter the US administration’s energy security advisor, deployed to Israel to “discuss potential economic revitalization plans for Gaza centered around undeveloped offshore natural gas fields:” what a lovely euphemism. 

But while Gaza’s gas is indeed a crucial vector, Gaza, the territory, is a nuisance. What really matters for Tel Aviv is to confiscate all Palestinian gas reserves and allot them to future preferential clients: the EU. 

Enter the India-Middle East Corridor(IMEC) – actually the EU-Israel-Saudi Arabia-Emirates-India Corridor – conceived by Washington as the perfect vehicle for Israel to become an energy crossroads power. It fancifully imagines a US-Israel energy partnership trading in US dollars – simultaneously replacing Russian energy to the EU and halting a possible export increase of Iran’s energy to Europe.  

We return to the 21st century’s main chessboard here: the Hegemon vs. BRICS.

Beijing has had steady relations with Tel Aviv so far, with lavish investment in Israeli high-tech industries and infrastructure. But Israel’s pounding of Gaza may change that picture: no real Sovereign can hedge when it comes to real genocide.  

In parallel, whatever the Hegemon may come up with in its various hybrid and hot war scenarios against the BRICS, China, and its multi-trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), that will not alter Beijing’s rational and strategically formulated trajectory.   

This analysis by Eric Li is all one needs to know about what lies ahead. Beijing has mapped out all relevant tech roads to follow in successive five-year plans, all the way to 2035. Under this framework, BRI should be considered a sort of geoeconomics UN without the G7. If you’re outside of BRI – and that concerns, to a large extent, old comprador systems and elites – you’re self-isolating from the Global South/Global Majority. 

So what remains of this “pause” in Gaza? By next week, the western-backed cowards will restart their genocide against women and children, and they will not stop for a good long while. The Palestinian resistance and the 800,000 Palestinian civilians still living in northern Gaza – now surrounded on all sides by Israeli troops and armored vehicles – are proving that they are willing and able to bear the burden of fighting the Israeli oppressor, not only for Palestine but for everyone, everywhere, with a conscience. 

Despite such a terrible price to be paid in blood, there will eventually be a reward: the slow but sure evisceration of the imperial construct in West Asia. 

No mainstream media narrative, no PR move to soften the genocide, no containment of “public opinion turning on Israel” can ever cover the serial war crimes perpetrated by Israel and its allies in Gaza. Perhaps this is just what the Doctor – metaphysical and otherwise – ordered for mankind: an imperative global tragedy, to be witnessed by all, that will also transform us all. 

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has become an attractive destination for Russian business after the invasion of Ukraine, has increased checks and enforced stricter banking rules on Russian companies amid rising U.S. pressure on the UAE to help clamp down on sanctions evasion.

Russian companies, which initially enjoyed easy money transfers and business dealings in the UAE, especially in Dubai, are now facing tougher rules and the need for more documents and proofs, entrepreneurs and consultants have recently told Bloomberg.  

The UAE is looking to come off the so-called ‘grey list’ for financial crimes of the Financial Act Task Force (FATF). Therefore, the Gulf state is unwilling to be linked with risks related to sanctions, including the Western sanctions on Russian businesses, money transfers, and the energy industry.  

The banking for Russian firms in the UAE has become more difficult, and the number of rejections from UAE banks have increased, according to Bloomberg’s sources.

The clampdown on Russian firms in the UAE comes as the West is considering toughening up the sanction enforcement on evaders of the price cap on Russian oil, almost none of which now trades below the ceiling of $60 per barrel.

Last month, the United States took a tougher stance on the sanctions against Russia and sanctioned two vessels for violating the price cap.

Just last week, the U.S. imposed sanctions on three maritime companies based in the UAE and three vessels owned by the companies for shipping Russian oil sold above the price cap.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The former military members are seeking backpay, damages, and other compensation.

Nicholas Bassen, an Army sergeant who was discharged in 2022 for not getting a vaccine, wants compensation of at least $120,000.

The suits, filed in recent months, argue that when Congress compelled the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to rescind its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, lawmakers carefully chose their wording.

“Congress expressly chose the term ‘rescind’, rather than more customary language such as ‘repeal’, ‘amend’, or ‘clarify’, to direct the DoD and the courts that the rescission should be applied retroactively,” one states.

To support their argument, lawyers pointed to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s Jan. 10 memorandum, in which the retired general rescinded the mandate and ordered military leaders to remove adverse actions pertaining to vaccine refusal from the records of members still serving.

Mr. Austin also said that former members could lodge petitions to request corrections to their records.

“Secretary Austin acknowledged the Congressional directive to apply the Rescission retroactively by, among other things, committing to correct all of the paperwork and adverse personnel actions resulting from non-compliance with the now voided mandate and orders issued pursuant to it,” one of the suits states.

“We think there’s some pretty strong precedent in in our favor, because when Congress repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ they use the word ‘repeal’. When they did this, they use the word ‘rescind’,” Dale Saran, one of the attorneys representing the former members, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Everybody should be made whole again,” Mr. Saran added later. “They should be right back in the position they were before.”

Mr. Saran estimated that, if the suits are successful, then billions of dollars would go to former members.

He noted that the money was already appropriated by Congress for pay and other compensation before the military discharged more than 8,000 personnel for refusing to receive a vaccine.

Tens of thousands of National Guard personnel, meanwhile, were denied pay for being deemed out of compliance with the mandate.

All three class-action suits were filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Former members interested in joining the suits can go to militarybackpay.com.

Government Responds

Military leaders have resisted calls to award backpay to people affected by the mandate, and in court filings the government urged judges to dismiss the suits.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2023, which featured the language on rescinding the mandate, does not mandate money being awarded to affected members and former members, government lawyers told the courts.

In a section of the act, Congress said that “the secretary of defense shall rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19.”

“Nothing in the language of section 525 can be interpreted as mandating compensation retroactively for service members affected by the vaccination requirement retrospectively or prospectively,” the lawyers said in one filing. “Indeed, the language does not contemplate, much less mandate, any compensatory rights for service members.”

Even if plaintiffs were correct, Congress did not intend to award backpay, the lawyers said, referencing how a proposed amendment that would have clearly awarded compensation to discharged members was voted down.

“Such an amendment would have been unnecessary if the word ‘rescind’ already required the military to provide the monetary relief the plaintiffs seek,” they said.

Judges in the cases will rule in the future on the government’s motions to dismiss. If successful, appeals could be lodged. If judges rule against the government, then the cases will advance.

In a reply to the government, lawyers for the former members said that the defense act was a “money mandating” law, pointing to court decisions finding provisions such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were money-mandating provisions.

Lawyers for the former members also want the military ordered to restore retirement benefits and points, which are earned during duty.

Efforts to take money from members, such as the recoupment of enlistment bonuses, should also stop, the lawyers said.

“We’ve got clients who are getting debt collectors coming after them,” Mr. Saran said. “For example, say you are a guy who did a four-year hitch, and you got a signing bonus to reenlist, and you’re two-and-a-half years in when the mandate comes down. Then they kick you out and they go, ‘oh, you owe us that $25,000 signing bonus, too.’ So we got guys in collections.”

Mr. Bassen, for example, has been asked by the military to repay his signing bonus while a plaintiff in another one of the suits, Georgia Army Guard Sgt. First Class Brian Taylor, was forced to pay health insurance premiums after being barred from drilling and denied compensation.

Mr. Taylor, lawyers said, “seeks a return of the money illegally extracted from him by the U.S. government in [insurance] premiums, for the indebtedness the government created by its own unconstitutional acts and orders.”

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Critics who rail against the hypocrisy of wealthy global elites jet-setting on carbon-spewing private planes while pontificating about the need for the rest of us to cut our climate footprints just got a boost from a new study.

It turns out that the world’s richest 1 percent emit about the same amount of carbon as the world’s poorest two-thirds, according to an analysis from the nonprofit Oxfam International.

This means that a small sliver of global elites, or 77 million people, have produced as much carbon as the 5 billion people that make up the bottom 66 percent by wealth, per the study.

The study also estimates that it would take roughly 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 percent to produce as much carbon as the wealthiest billionaires do in just one year.

The study was based on research compiled by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and examined the emissions of various income groups up to 2019. In summary, it suggested that the private jet-setting class of global leaders and policymakers, who take private planes to lead summits addressing the assumed dangers of climate change, may warrant charges of hypocrisy.

The majority of these jets were attributed to private flights undertaken by participants for the WEF meeting.

Klara Maria Schenk, a transport campaigner for Greenpeace’s European mobility campaign, called the private jet use at Davos a “distasteful masterclass of hypocrisy,” given that the WEF claims to be committed to the Paris Climate Target of keeping climate warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“Davos has a perfectly adequate railway station, still these people can’t even be bothered to take the train for a trip as short as 21 [kilometers]. Do we really believe that these are the people to solve the problems the world faces?” Ms. Schenk said.

It was much the same story for the 2021 COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, where about 400 or so global leaders showed up on private jets, according to the Daily Mail.