UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is under pressure to reinvent his ailing Labour government with a leftwards pivot after the Green Party captured one of its House of Commons seats via a special election.

The result underscores the recent fragmentation of UK politics and the disruption of long-held electoral certainties.

It has “torn the roof off” British politics, said Green Party Leader Zack Polanski.

Spencer’s win marks the first-ever by-election victory for the Greens, as well as their first seat in northern England, highlighting the increasing reach of the left-wing party in a context where Labour voters are abandoning it in both directions.

Spencer’s margin of victory was much more comfortable than commentators had expected, with polls consistently understating the Greens’ appeal.

The swing from Labour was 26% in Gorton and Denton, and the Greens now have five MPs in Parliament.

Andrea Egan, general secretary at workers’ union Unison, said Labour should be “taking the fight” to Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage “rather than letting him set the agenda.”

As Tom Jones reports below for TheCritic.co.uk, the election has grim implications.

The Gorton and Denton by-election, by virtue of having been won by the Greens, marks a more momentous shift for the left than the right. Ava Santina has written about this for us, and a recent Critic Show episode is devoted entirely to the fracturing of the left. 

But like the overweight kid trying to avoid getting near the ball in PE, just because you don’t win, that doesn’t mean there aren’t lessons to be learned. 

The first is that Reform may need to start thinking about expectation management. As an insurgent party, they were happy to talk up their chances of winning in order to build the narrative that the two main parties are finished. But this made the race seem closer than the result ended up being: 4,000 votes behind the Greens and  just over 1,000 votes ahead of Labour therefore will be made to seem like an underperformance by the media. 

It was not. In terms of the size of the swing needed from the 2024 General Election, Gorton and Denton was 413th on Reform’s target list. Even with their polling shoring up at around 30 per cent, as it is in national polls, turning the sixth Labour seat over was a stretch too far. On the upside, a national campaign against the Greens will be a much more favourable proposition for Reform, coming as it does against a weaker campaigning machine than Labour — and increased scrutiny on the Green Party, which it will fail.

A lesson may also be on the need to find local candidates. I hate that local candidates boost election performances, I hate that Hannah Spencer claimed she had never seen Matt Goodwin in the local Asda “doing his big shop”, but most of all I hate that it works. A local candidate would not have swung Gorton and Denton their way, but there will be a significant number of seats where it will. It’s yet another problem for Reform’s candidate selection team to deal with. 

As for the other right-wing parties, the question is, “why bother?” 

The Conservatives took just 706 votes. 1.9 per cent of the vote. That is their lowest ever vote share in a by-election. They lose their deposit for the first time at an English by election for nearly 40 years.

We have heard much about the need for a Reform-Conservative pact. It has come, overwhelmingly, from establishment media figures whose professional relevance depends on preserving their access to the Conservative Party — and who can see that access, and therefore their own influence, draining away. Such a pact would necessitate the Conservatives to stand aside in hundreds of seats like this. It is so ingrained in the Conservative psyche to stand candidates everywhere that it is part of the party’s constitution. Farage has been burned before with a Conservative pact — it is incumbent on the Conservatives to make any such a deal happen.

The Conservative statement after the result spoke much about this result rendering Starmer a lame duck, but nothing about their failure to play any role in this result being delivered. 

Meanwhile Advance UK, the Ben Habib vehicle, took 154 votes — less than the Monster Raving Loony Party. A vision of Restore Britain’s future? Perhaps. There is a question here. If things are really as bad as the leaders of these parties claim, then how can they justify siphoning off votes from adjacent right-wing parties over ever-finer points of right-wing doctrine? When the house is on fire, it is a strange moment to insist on arguing about the exact brand of extinguisher.

Perhaps parties formed with the sole aim of giving histrionic social media addicts something to do will not be Britain’s salvation. Who knew.

Finally, the lesson that all parties of the right should take is in the dangers of sectarian voting.

For a long time the conventional parties have been happy with sectarian voting, so long as it delivered conventional parties.

The salience of the Muslim vote in this election — coupled with the Green Party’s campaign videos in Urdu and Bangla — has reinforced a narrative that has been gathering force since the rise of the so-called “Gaza independents”: that Britain has a sectarian voting problem that can no longer be ignored. 

It is fast becoming an ingrained part of our political culture: Sky’s coverage of the result included Sam Coates examining and speaking about the proportion of the seat that is ethnic minority.

There is a risk here.

A political class steeped in American news and habits of thought may interpret this development as merely the British version of familiar US-style demographic politics, where politics is more attuned to minute changes amongst identity and interest groups.

It is not. American immigrants, and therefore their voting patterns, are markedly different to those in Britain. We are not getting “suburban moms”.

The Electoral Commission grants Democracy Volunteers access to polling stations during elections, and the group has reported seeing “concerningly high levels” of family voting (an illegal practice in which two voters occupy a single polling booth, often with one directing the other’s vote) in the by-election. 

John Ault, director of Democracy Volunteers, said: “Today we have seen concerningly high levels of family voting in Gorton and Denton. Based on our assessment of today’s observations, we have seen the highest levels of family voting at any election in our 10 year history of observing elections in the UK.”

He added: “We rarely issue a report on the night of an election, but the data we have collected today on family voting, when compared to other recent by-elections, is extremely high. In the other recent Westminster parliamentary by-election in Runcorn and Helsby we saw family voting in 12 per cent of polling stations, affecting 1 per cent of voters. In Gorton and Denton, we observed family voting in 68 per cent of polling stations, affecting 12 per cent of those voters observed.”

Manchester City Council have hit back, arguing that “No such issues have been reported today”, and blaming Democracy Volunteers for not reporting these issues at the time. This issue is too obvious to ignore (although some will try), and at least some parties will find it politically expedient to oppose it. These voting patterns have been documented for a long time. Perhaps, after the next election, we will finally have the chance to deal with them. Small mercies, but mercies nonetheless. 

Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister who is bookmakers’ favorite to succeed Starmer, said the result was “a wake-up call.”

Cocoa prices have collapsed 75% from their 2024 peaks, and Goldman’s latest note points out that the worst of the cocoa shock for chocolate makers may finally be passing after being squeezed by soaring bean costs through 2023, 2024, and into the first half of 2025. This only suggests that lower chocolate bar prices at the supermarket could materialize later this year. Against that backdrop, Goldman reiterated Buy ratings on two confectionery stocks.

Analysts led by Sam Darbyshire said the global chocolate production costs should drop by as much as 10% in 2026 and 2027. She pointed out that weather patterns in West Africa – the mecca of global cocoa farming – have supported increased production for the upcoming harvest, leading to stabilization in global supplies.

Darbyshire pointed out that the cocoa futures curve is no longer backward-dated, with December 2027 delivery now 17% more expensive than March 2026 delivery. She said this would help top confectionery firms to commit to increased volumes.

“Double-digit raw material deflation in chocolate over the next two years is likely to drive an increasingly competitive operating environment as manufacturers strive to return to volume growth,” she wrote in the report.

Darbyshire noted that, with elevated chocolate prices, current Nielsen data show that consumer demand for chocolate remained soft in January, with elasticities worsening in Europe (consistent with Mondelez commentary). She said that private players are being more competitive on pricing, with Mars and Ferrero pricing below market.

“With weak underlying volumes and easing raw material inflation, we expect promotional activity to intensify throughout the year,” the analyst said.

Darbyshire said this new cocoa pricing regime has generated a “Buy” in Barry Callebaut and Nestle, but “Sell” in Lindt.

Why this matters is that the chocolate industry is about to transition from a period of price hikes to one of greater discounting and tougher competition.

In a separate note, Bonnie Herzog, managing director and senior consumer analyst at Goldman, highlighted in December that sliding cocoa prices could produce “tailwinds” for candy and junk food companies. Read that note here.

Professional subscribers can read the full note on the inflection point the chocolate industry is entering this year, along with many more charts via Goldman, on our new MarketDesk.ai portal. As noted above, attractive setups are emerging in several beaten-down candy stocks.

Authored by Lipton Matthews via The Mises Institute,

I recently attended an event at the Prosperity Institute in the United Kingdom, and, as a foreigner listening to the discussion unfold, I found it both unsettling and clarifying.

The panel addressed the grooming gang scandal, a subject that remains profoundly uncomfortable for Britain’s political and cultural establishment. What distinguished this event was its refusal to soften the reality of what occurred or to retreat into evasive language. The discussion did not merely revisit past failures; it exposed a deeper pattern in how British institutions exercise power.

At the center of the panel was Fiona Goddard—a victim of grooming who spoke with calm precision.

She described how the police betrayed her trust after she came forward with her story, only to discover that information she had shared in confidence had been passed back to members of the grooming gang. That institutional betrayal placed her at renewed risk and compounded the original abuse. She also recounted something even more disturbing. The men who groomed her told her explicitly that they targeted her because she was white and that their aim was to destroy white girls. The starkness of her testimony stripped away any remaining illusions about the ideological framing that has often surrounded these crimes.

Listening to Fiona, what struck me was not only the brutality of what she endured, but the nature of the state’s response. Fiona explained that her claims were subjected to extraordinary scrutiny. She was examined by ten attorneys, her credibility tested repeatedly before her story was taken seriously. This stood in sharp contrast to the cultural climate of the #MeToo era, when allegations of harassment were often treated as self-validating. Men whose names appeared on the “Shitty Media Men” list were publicly ruined without due process or serious examination of the accusers. The disparity raises uncomfortable questions about which victims are believed, which are doubted, and how ideology governs the distribution of moral concern.

The wider panel discussion was notable for its candor. Panelists criticized diversity and multiculturalism not as benign aspirations, but as governing ideologies that discourage honesty and enforce selective silence. It was repeatedly noted that in many cases connected to the grooming gang scandal, the individuals who faced punishment were not the professionals who ignored, enabled, or concealed abuse, but whistleblowers who attempted to raise concerns. Those who spoke out were disciplined, sidelined, or removed, while senior officials who presided over failure often escaped consequences altogether.

Several speakers sharply criticized politicians and senior security officials for ignoring, minimizing, or suppressing the scandal over many years. This pattern reflected not incompetence but fear, fear of reputational damage and fear of challenging ideological orthodoxy. Enforcement did not fail because institutions were incapable, but because they were unwilling.

One panelist in particular, Leila Cunningham—a prosecutor and Reform politician—was especially forthright.

Cunningham identified herself as Muslim and criticized what she described as police cowardice, arguing that law enforcement repeatedly failed to act decisively out of fear of being accused of racism. In her assessment, the grooming gang scandal amounted to a systemic cover-up by legal and political authorities.

Cunningham stated that local councils were aware of what was happening for years and yet chose inaction. This was not ignorance or bureaucratic delay, but deliberate suppression. The failure of councils, police forces, and senior officials to intervene represented a national shame, one that discredited Britain’s claims to moral seriousness and institutional competence.

She also argued that British institutions apply justice unevenly. When perpetrators are white, she claimed, the system acts swiftly and punitively. When offenders fall outside that category, it becomes hesitant and evasive. This asymmetry is not justice but ideology masquerading as principle. She further emphasized the class dimension of the scandal, pointing out that the victims were overwhelmingly working-class girls whose lack of social power made them easy to ignore.

In one of the evening’s most controversial moments, Cunningham argued that elements within Pakistani immigrant communities had encouraged what she described as “rape tourism” and that Britain’s immigration and visa regime had failed to respond. She called for strict visa bans and enforcement measures against countries that refuse to take back convicted offenders, naming Pakistan explicitly. Whether one agreed with her conclusions or not, the bluntness of her language stood in stark contrast to decades of official euphemism.

These criticisms of multicultural orthodoxy were reinforced by Labour peer Lord Maurice Glassman, who criticized multiculturalism as an ideology that deters solidarity. By fragmenting society into competing identity groups, he argued, multiculturalism had weakened shared moral obligations and eroded the foundations of working-class politics.

Despite the severity of the subject, the atmosphere in the room was introspective rather than confrontational. The audience was largely composed of elite professionals, yet there was a palpable sense of unease. During the question-and-answer session, a man of Pakistani descent criticized the media for its longstanding refusal to speak honestly about the ethnicity of the groomers. He accused journalists of deliberately suppressing factual description and of turning truth-telling itself into a punishable offence. The reflex, he argued, was not to investigate wrongdoing, but to manage narratives.

It was only after hearing these accounts and observing the broader patterns of selective enforcement that the evening’s discussion began to coalesce into a sharper insight, one that echoes the warnings of the late political theorist Sam Francis. What unfolded before us was a clear case of anarcho-tyranny—a system in which the state withdraws from enforcing basic law and order where it is most needed, while simultaneously expanding its authority over thought, speech, and symbolic behavior. Police and councils proved incapable or unwilling to protect vulnerable girls, yet the same institutions have shown remarkable zeal in punishing those who defy approved narratives.

Across Europe, governments increasingly appear more interested in prosecuting thought crimes than confronting serious harm. In Britain, Sam Melia sits in prison for posting stickers reading, “It’s OK to be white,” while blogger Pete North was reportedly arrested for sharing an anti-Hamas meme. In Germany, a woman was given a harsher sentence for insulting her attacker, calling him a “disgraceful rapist pig,” than the rapist himself received for the crime.

Words are treated as dangerous, while actions are often tolerated or excused.

By the end of the evening, it was difficult to ignore the sense that something was shifting. The event suggested a broader ideological change, even within elite environments long aligned with liberal orthodoxies. There was a growing willingness to question the dogmas of diversity and multiculturalism, and an emerging resistance to what several speakers openly described as liberal, anti-white politics. More fundamentally, there was a dawning recognition that a state which punishes speech while tolerating predation is not compassionate or progressive, but decadent. Whether this shift will endure remains uncertain, but the discussion itself felt like a decisive break from years of silence, deflection, and managed anarchy.

UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has unveiled a critical minerals agreement with Kazakhstan on Thursday as Western governments move to shift supply chains away from China, moving ahead on London’s plans to diversify its critical mineral sourcing.

This after the British government in its Critical Mineral Strategy published last year identified Kazakhstan as producing 22 of the 36 minerals identified in the report as vital and needed by Britain.

Britain’s top diplomat is hosting foreign ministers from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan at Lancaster House in London – and Beijing officials are no doubt watching closely from afar.

“Central Asia is an important region with huge potential to boost economic growth,” Cooper said in a statement to Politico. “These agreements deliver for British businesses, strengthen economic security and are a clear demonstration of U.K. support for the independence of the Central Asian states.”

A memorandum of understanding has been signed by Kazakhstan’s Deputy Industry Minister Olzhas Saparbekov and UK Trade Minister Chris Bryant, amid the summit.

Kazakhstan supplies more than 40% of the world’s uranium and ranks among the top producers of titanium. It is also a top-ten exporter of copper and zinc.

Needless to say, this makes the central Asian country a top competitor to China – and thus ‘alternative’ source for the West – given it has huge rare Earth deposits that could power the next tech boom.

“Unlike in the West, Central Asian governments are enthusiastic about the prospect of turning their vast deposits of [rare earth minerals and rare metals] into a new source of revenue for the local economies,” a prior report in The Interpreter stated.

“The U.K. set out a Critical Minerals Strategy last November to ensure that by 2035 no more than 60 percent of Britain’s supply of any one critical mineral comes from a single country.” —Politico

Chinese firms have have also recently invested heavily in Kazakh copper, aluminum, and rare earth projects – driven by President Xi’s long-running and ambitious Belt and Road Initiative.

“The shortages center on rare earths such as yttrium and scandium, niche members of the family of 17 elements, which play tiny but vital roles in defence technology, aerospace and semiconductors and are almost entirely produced in China.” https://t.co/SRJffJXj1c

— Shehzad Qazi (@shehzadhqazi) February 26, 2026

As we’ve highlighted previously – and something the UK, US, and Europe are belatedly becoming fully aware of – Beijing has been eagerly acquiring rare earth reserves and contracts in emerging markets across the world for years now, resulting in what is currently an effective chokehold on global supply chains.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

McDonald’s latest marketing stunt in Germany syncs billboards to show empty packaging by day and full meals only after sunset, drawing backlash for prioritizing a minority’s religious observance over the broader customer base.

As Ramadan unfolds, McDonald’s Germany has rolled out a campaign that effectively erases tempting food visuals from digital billboards during fasting hours, a move seen by critics as yet another concession to cultural shifts driven by mass immigration.

The fast food chain’s digital out-of-home posters display empty fries containers and burger boxes throughout the day, filling them with food images precisely at sunset when Muslims break their fast. 

🇩🇪 In Germany, McDonald’s has removed food images from its billboards during daylight hours for Ramadan

McDonald’s Germany launched a new outdoor campaign in which digital billboards sync with the sun, revealing food only after dark throughout the month of Ramadan. pic.twitter.com/iG3lcXdafj

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 25, 2026

According to Newsweek, the ads carry the message “Happy Ramadan” and use sun-synced data tied to local prayer times to trigger the switch from empty to full.

McDonald’s Duitsland heeft een gimmick bedacht om moslims te pleasen tijdens de Ramadan.

Van zonsopgang tot zonsondergang is er geen eten te zien in de reclames van de vunzige hamburgerboer dat dan weer terugkomt wanneer het iftartijd is geworden.#Ramadan @McDonalds #Ramadan pic.twitter.com/c68aplm5Ev

— widtvoet (@widtvoet) February 26, 2026

The post sparked sharp reactions online. One user remarked: “What a great way to ignore the majority of your customers ????”

Another called it: “This is a sign that your country has been conquered without a shot fired.”

A third questioned: “Great idea if you are in the Middle East. What about the non-Muslims? Or do we not count any more?”

This campaign echoes recent events underscoring tensions around cultural accommodation in the West. 

Just days ago, videos of thousands of Muslims gathering for Ramadan prayers in New York City’s Times Square went viral, with observers labeling it a “disturbing display” amid chants of “Allahu Akbar.” Professor Gad Saad quipped sarcastically: “What’s the big deal!? Just a bunch of pious men praying to Allah. I’m sure that it will all work out.”

That incident is tied to broader controversies, including Rep. Randy Fine’s response to activist Nerdeen Kiswani’s claim that dogs are “unclean.” 

Fine announced the “Protecting Puppies from Sharia Act,” aimed at withholding federal funds from areas banning dogs as pets, highlighting concerns over cultural shifts in regions with expanding Muslim communities.

Across the Atlantic, a similar dynamic played out in London, where a Metropolitan Police officer defended a Christian preacher’s right to free speech against an angry crowd in Whitechapel, declaring: “In this country, we have freedom of speech.” 

She added: “I understand that you guys don’t want to hear it, so I would just recommend that you walk away and don’t listen to him. He’s not in your home.”

The episode raised questions about inconsistent policing, contrasting with past arrests of preachers like Pastor John Sherwood for expressing biblical views on family.

These developments paint a picture of Western institutions—from corporations to law enforcement—yielding ground to avoid offense, often at the expense of longstanding traditions and majority norms. 

In Germany, home to millions of Muslim residents following waves of migration, such gestures risk alienating the wider public while fueling debates over integration.

As globalism pushes for unchecked diversity, moves like McDonald’s billboard tweak serve as reminders that true coexistence demands mutual respect, not one-sided surrender. Defending core Western values remains essential to preserve the freedoms that built these societie

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

China has removed nine military lawmakers from its national parliament, escalating President Xi Jinping’s purge of senior defense officials, which has been a months-long trend, tracked closely by global headlines.

In this latest move, first reported internationally by Bloomberg Thursday, the country’s top legislative body stripped Ground Force Commander Li Qiaoming and Information Support Force Political Commissar Li Wei of their seats, along with seven other officers.

The dismissals were handed down this week, with state-run Xinhua reporting from the 14th National People’s Congress that those targeted include Ground Force’s chief Ding Laifu; Central Military Commission officials Bian Ruifeng and Wang Donghai; Navy officers Shen Jinlong and Qin Shengxiang; Air Force’s Yu Zhongfu; and Rocket Force’s Yang Guang. 

State media has not immediately issued details for the dismissals, or specifics on investigations. Back in late January, when Xi’s own right-hand military man, Gen. Zhang Youxia – at the time vice chairman of the Central Military Commission – was abruptly removed, the charge was simply “grave violations of discipline and the law.”

Such language is often presented in such crackdowns as a euphemism for corruption, which President Xi has in the recent past described as “the biggest threat”. But critics as well as Western observers say this has served as a convenient and public PR mechanism for sidelining political rivals, and strengthening Xi’s power and hold on the levers of power.

Such is likely also the case with the new firings of these nine military officials. In this fresh case, Beijing has only offered that the officials are suspected of “serious discipline and law violations” – again, just like with the ambiguous Zhang Youxia case.

Xi sent a campaign to eliminate corruption in the armed forces into overdrive around mid-2023, months after securing a precedent-defying third term. Since then, authorities have ousted two vice chairmen of the military commission, three CMC members, a former defense minister, and at least a dozen senior generals who commanded major military units, and possibly many dozens – or perhaps even hundreds – of other officers.

A former CIA analyst who follows Chinese elite politics, Christopher K. Johnson, recently told the NY Times of the ongoing purge trend, “This move is unprecedented in the history of the Chinese military and represents the total annihilation of the high command.”

The PLA has seen significant internal turmoil, especially since the Communist Party’s 20th Congress in late 2022. Several top military figures – including Defense Ministers Li Shangfu and Wei Fenghe, and CMC Political Work Department head Miao Hua – have disappeared or been removed, and many more followed. 

How Xi’s military purges could hamper China’s ability to fight

Two new studies document the crackdown and raise questions about the People’s Liberation Army’s ability to carry out large-scale operations, such as a potential assault on Taiwan.https://t.co/NlKJO7iebT

— Taiwan News 247 (@TaiwanNews247) February 26, 2026

In China, the military is controlled by the Communist Party, not the state, and survival at the top depends on absolute loyalty. Even the most senior and trusted officers are not safe in today’s political climate.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Russia’s control over it, whether through Ukraine’s withdrawal or forcible expulsion, is considered to be the basis of the US’ peace plan that the Brits and French are dangerously trying to subvert.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) reported on the four-year anniversary of the special operation that the Brits and French are plotting to help Ukraine go nuclear. The alleged plan is to provide it with relevant European components and equipment that would then be misrepresented to the world as proof of a domestically developed nuclear program. They’ll also give it at least one actual warhead and/or materials for a dirty bomb.

The purpose is to give Ukraine an edge over Russia in the negotiations.

Zelensky recently claimed that “Both the Americans and the Russians say that if you want the war to end tomorrow, get out of Donbas”, which he flat-out refuses to do, emboldened as he’s been by European support led first and foremost by the Brits and French.

The first are considered to be the masterminds behind various anti-Russian provocations, including false flag plots that Moscow warned about but which never materialized, while the second has been leading the charge to send NATO troops to Ukraine.

Russia has been tight-lipped about what compromises it might consider in exchange for Ukraine at the very least withdrawing from Donbass due to the confidential nature of the negotiations, but it’s possible that its compliance with this demand could lead to a ceasefire. Zelensky and his top two European backers don’t want that even though the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas claimed, regardless of whether one agrees with her, that “Moscow has failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives” so far.

Therefore, the Brits and French want Ukraine to go nuclear out of desperation to hold onto Donbass at minimum, the Kiev-controlled remainder of which consists of the country’s top military fortifications. They expect that Russia would then agree to a ceasefire along the frontlines if Ukraine obtains nuclear capabilities, even if only a dirty bomb, and threatens to use them if it doesn’t comply. At most, this could also hypothetically be leveraged to get it to withdraw from all the territory that Kiev claims as its own.

The reality is that Russia won’t accept a nuclear-armed Ukraine. Putin alluded to Zelensky’s speech at the 2022 Munich Security Conference in which he threatened to revoke Ukraine’s participation in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum under which it transferred Soviet nukes (that were always under Moscow’s control and never Kiev’s) to Russia in his address to the nation announcing the special operation. Most Russian-friendly observers accordingly expect Russia to not let this happen under any circumstances.

Head of the Duma’s Defense Committee Andrey Kartapolov debunked the scenario of Ukraine developing its own nuclear program in fall 2024 after Zelensky sensationally suggested going down this route if it’s kept out of NATO before walking his words back later that same day. With that in mind, Russia certainly knows that the only way for Ukraine to obtain nukes is from the Brits and/or French, and any attempt to do so would amount to them going behind Trump’s back to subvert his peace plan.

The gist is that Trump reportedly wants Putin to freeze the conflict if Ukraine withdraws from Donbass or is forcibly expelled from there, with the incentive to do so being a resource-centric strategic partnership between Russia and the US. Regardless of whether or not Putin would agree to this, the point is that the Brits and French’s efforts to help Ukraine go nuclear out of desperation to hold onto Donbass undermine the basis of Trump’s peace plan, so he should thus do everything to stop them if he truly wants peace.

Authored by Paul Crespo via RealClearWire,

As many focus on the world’s largest island, Greenland, and President Trump’s aggressive efforts to acquire it, another strategic Arctic island, nearby Svalbard, may be an even more likely future point of contention and conflict.

Not a conflict between the United States and Denmark, or the U.S. and NATO, but between Russia and Norway, and perhaps all of NATO.

Or maybe not with NATO. This is because Svalbard, is not just sovereign territory of Norway, but also has legally established Russian settlements dating back two centuries. And that makes Svalbard uniquely dangerous.

Svalbard, more properly an archipelago, about twice the size of Belgium, with total population of about 2,500, nominally belongs to Norway, but under the terms of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, certain countries, including the United States, Denmark, China, and Russia have rights of access.

While Norway claims sovereignty, Russia, which has the second largest population on the islands and two long-standing Soviet-era settlements, frequently contests Norway’s claim.

This long-standing presence is one of the main justifications for the Russians laying their own claim to being the second major arbiter of what happens on Svalbard, after Norway.

And China, since 2004, now has a polar research facility, Yellow River Station, with links to its military, on Svalbard, further complicating the strategic equation.

Strategically located just 429 miles east of Greenland at its closest, Svalbard is the northernmost populated land in the world. It lies 404 miles north of the Norwegian mainland and just 621 miles from the North Pole and enjoys ice-free anchorage in the south.

My Visit to Svalbard

I visited Svalbard in June and July of 2025 for almost a month, staying in the capital Longyearbyen as well as the two Russian settlements, Barentsburg and Pyramiden. Two years earlier, Tom Cruise filmed parts of his recent film, “Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning,” on Svalbard.

Just days prior to our visit, Norway’s 88-year-old King Harald and Queen Sonja—as well as Vladimir Putin’s trouble-making Russian Orthodox bishop Vladika Iakov, known for promoting Russian territorial claims in the Arctic—made competing visits to the island at the same time, albeit in different locations.

The Kremlin is using the Orthodox Church as a spiritual weapon to create a narrative that the Arctic belongs to Moscow. In the same vein, King Harald’s visit was also intended to demonstrate that Norway’s sovereignty of Svalbard remains solid.

Russian Presence

Today, the Russian presence is far smaller than during its Soviet-era heyday, when its two coal-mining towns, Barentsburg and Pyramiden, alone had a combined population of almost 2,500—or when Russians outnumbered Norwegians on Svalbard by nearly 2.5 to 1.

Now there are barely 500 Russians there, although their numbers are greatly outsized by their puffed-up presence.

Pyramiden is now a ghost town, boasting the world’s northernmost statue of Lenin, and a treasure trove of Soviet-era artifacts and buildings (with only a skeleton crew of caretakers, usually less than 10), while Barentsburg, still an active mining town (for now), hosts a few hundred Russians.

The Russian flag flies there, and occasionally nostalgic Soviet ones as well, and there is also a Russian Orthodox Church closely tied to Putin’s regime. There is also a heliport at Pyramiden for use by two Russian Mi-8 helicopters on Svalbard.

Barentsburg also hosts a heliport, and the Russian helicopters use the facilities at Longyearbyen Airport in the capital as well.

An unmarked black van driven by a chain-smoking Russian in a black leather mobster jacket quietly picked us up from our hotel in Svalbard’s capital on the way to Pyramiden.

When we arrived at the Russian town of Pyramiden, the hotel staff quickly noted that they already knew who I was. So much for my visit remaining under the radar.

Later, after we visited the old Russian consulate in Barentsburg, painted a mint green, now a museum, the Russian “museum guide” briskly rushed to the new secure Russian consulate just behind the old one, to the left in brick color, likely to file her report on me.

Why Svalbard Matters

While largely unknown to the general public, Svalbard is critical to global communications as it also hosts the Svalbard Satellite Station (SvalSat), the world’s largest ground-based satellite communication and tracking installation, located on a flat mountain plateau just above the capital town of Longyearbyen.

The site comprises 170 massive radio domes, radomes, containing huge dish antennae to track and communicate with satellites for everything from weather observation, maritime surveillance, navigation, and search and rescue.

In 2021, Russia complained about Norway’s satellite infrastructure, claiming the SvalSat station violated the treaty because it is a “dual-use” facility with potential military uses.

While administered by Norway, Svalbard is a demilitarized territory, The 1920 treaty prohibits the use of the archipelago for “warlike purposes.”

Only a very small Norwegian police force is allowed on the island. It is fully integrated into the Norwegian police system but operates as a specialized district.

The Governor of Svalbard has the same authority as a chief of police on the Norwegian mainland.

Svalbard Is Demilitarized

Norwegian police jurisdiction includes the entire archipelago and its territorial sea focused on environmental crime, search and rescue (SAR), and keeping public order.

However, as of 2026, the police are monitoring increased Russian intelligence activity, espionage, and potential threats to infrastructure in the region.

Of note, when I landed in Svalbard in June, I quickly noticed several fit, Russian-speaking, military-aged men in civilian clothes at the airport, with military style packs and bags. They immediately began scouting around with binoculars.

One can only speculate if they were GRU, Russian military intelligence, or something just as sinister.

Following the letter of the law in the treaty, Norwegian coast guard ships patrol the fiords for months at a time, but don’t dock.

While there, I witnessed a modern Norwegian coast guard ship, the KV Jan Mayen (W310)—the lead ship of the new class of offshore patrol boats—cruising nearby during our entire visit.

Having a lawfully allowed Russian presence on the island and being required by treaty to remain demilitarized, makes Svalbard’s connection to NATO and ensuring it falls under Alliance protection, potentially problematic.

But, just as a look at a polar projection map shows how vital Greenland is to North America, a glance at the map reveals why Svalbard’s location matters to Russia. The Kola peninsula, key to Russia’s nuclear capabilities, is immediately to Svalbard’s southeast.

The Russian Threat

Russia’s growing northern fleet is also based north of Murmansk, and Franz Josef Land archipelago, annexed from Norway by the Soviets in 1926, hosts major Russian military assets, and lies about 250 miles to the east and partly to the north of Svalbard.

Russia constructed a new air base on Franz Josef Land in 2021, publicly justifying it to defend their nuclear weapons on the Kola Peninsula. It uses its base there to threaten the surrounding areas around it, including Svalbard.

As noted by Arctic Today in September 2025:

“Russia has significantly strengthened its military presence at the archipelago. The Nagurskoye base today includes a major building complex, an airfield and powerful arms, including the Bastion system, a Monolit-B coastal radar, as well as anti-drone equipment. In a bid to intimidate Norway and its NATO allies, the Russian war ministry emphasizes that the onyx missiles are ‘almost undetectable’ for modern air defense systems and capable of ‘destroying naval vessels of any size at distances of up to several hundred kilometers.’ …

“As part of Zapad-2025, Russia this week also conducted mock strikes with its Kinzhal missile over the Barents Sea. Also the coastal missile system Bal has been engaged, according to the Russian armed forces on Telegram.

“Launch of missile Uran from coastal missile complex Bal. Video by Russian armed forces. Large areas in the Barents Sea have been sealed off in connection with the training. Several of the areas are in the Norwegian exclusive economic zone. According to Northern Sentry, a Norwegian account on X with focus on the High North, one of the exercise scenarios of Zapad-2025 is an attack of Svalbard and subsequent occupation of the archipelago.”

Also, during the Zapad-2025 exercise, according to Arctic Today, a key target in the exercise was an imagined enemy flotilla in the Barents Sea.

The scenario included the landing of Russian troops, weapons and armored vehicles from the landing ship Aleksandr Otrakovsky, and the destruction of imagined enemy saboteurs that had infiltrated the archipelago.

Meanwhile, there have been growing tensions between Norway and Russia on Svalbard.

Growing Tensions

In January 2022, one of two key undersea fiber optic cables connecting mainland Norway to Svalbard was damaged in the Greenland Sea. The Svalbard Undersea Cable System is crucial for satellite data. Russian sabotage was suspected though never proven.

Later, in June 2022, a small crisis also highlighted how Russia could easily escalate a local incident into an excuse for military action.

Norway’s Foreign Ministry denied Russian state-owned coal mining company Arktikugol’s request to open a supply route to Barentsburg, citing sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. Russia responded quickly.

Norway’s actions, the Russians claimed, “violated the provisions” of the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, which grants citizens of all signatory nations, including Russia, equal access to the archipelago’s resources.

“Following Norway’s actions, the sovereignty of this country over Svalbard is a big question from now on,” Russian Senator Andrei Klishas said.

Norway’s Foreign Minister denied that Oslo had violated the Svalbard Treaty, saying the shipment “has been stopped on the basis of the sanctions that prohibit Russian road transport companies from transporting goods on Norwegian territory.”

The next month, Norway allowed the goods to be shipped to Barentsburg, relieving the immediate tension.

Still, Russia’s recent rhetoric suggests Svalbard may be a growing target in Moscow’s sights.

In 2023 Russian officials ramped things up and skirted the letter of the law of the 1920 treaty by holding a military style parade down the main street in Barentsburg, including flying a helicopter overhead.

The blatantly militarized display created a lot of concern in Norway.

China Also Eyeing Svalbard

But Russia isn’t the only threat to Svalbard. China, now closely allied to Russia, has been showing increasing interest in Svalbard, and the High North in general, calling itself a “near-Arctic” power.

The Chosen recently reported how the Chinese, who have a had a polar research station on the island for 20 years, are aggressively trying to infiltrate Svalbard as well, and how Norway has responded:

“In July 2024, controversy arose when cruise tourists from Shanghai and Hong Kong took photos saluting in military uniforms while waving Chinese flags in front of a granite lion statue at a Chinese base within the Svalbard archipelago. Despite repeated orders from Norway, China has not removed the [two] statue[s].

“Norway has implemented control measures, including prohibiting foreign sales of private property in Svalbard and denying Chinese students permission to study at local universities on security grounds. It has also restricted voting rights previously allowed to foreign residents, permitting them only if they have resided in mainland Norway for over three years. State Secretary Eivind Vad Petersson stated, ‘No country grants voting rights to foreigners. The Svalbard Treaty guarantees ‘equal access’ but not ‘equal rights.’”

Meanwhile, members of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party believe the Chinese, who have access to a powerful radar system that monitors space weather and the atmosphere, are performing military research on Svalbard, which is not allowed under the treaty.

According to an online portal, at least three current research projects using data gathered from on Svalbard have been shared with the China Research Institute of Radiowave Propagation, a Chinese defense organization.

So, China is now also showing a growing, likely military, interest in Svalbard, making it part of the new Cold War occurring in the far north. And potentially the next crisis flashpoint in the Arctic.

The following has made for quite the headline, as a retired elite US Air Force pilot is in very hot water and faces US intelligence and military questioning: “A former US Air Force fighter pilot with more than two decades of experience with nuclear delivery systems and aircraft, including advanced F-35 stealth jets, has been arrested and charged with conspiring to help the Chinese military,” according to CNN.

65-year old Gerald Eddie Brown Jr. was arrested in Jeffersonville, Indiana, on Wednesday after one or more lengthy recent trips to China where it’s believed he not only briefed officials from China’s defense establishment, but provided training for Chinese PLA military pilots. 

US interrogators are said to be most alarmed at Brown’s vast experience with America’s most advanced stealth jet – the Lockheed Martin F-35, as well as nuclear delivery systems and tactics.

“Providing US military training to our adversaries represents a significant threat to national security,” Lee Russ, executive director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations Office of Special Project, said in an official statement after the retired Air Force pilot’s arrest. He’s specifically accused of violating the Arms Export Control Act 

Brown retired as a major all the way back in 1996, having served 24 years of active duty Air Force, but he has since been a top US Air Force adviser and trainer of US combat pilots. As Fox reviews:

During his career, he commanded units responsible for nuclear weapons delivery systems, led combat missions and worked as a fighter pilot and simulator instructor on aircraft including the F-4, F-15, F-16 and A-10. After leaving the military, Brown worked as a commercial cargo pilot and later as a contract simulator instructor training U.S. pilots to fly the A-10 and the F-35 Lightning II.

The US Attorney’s statement alleged that while in China “Brown answered questions for three hours about the U.S. Air Force on his first day in the PRC and then, on his second day, prepared and presented a brief about himself for the PLAAF,” the statement said. The rest of the time he trained Chinese pilots.”

FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge James Barnacle followed with: “Brown’s alleged betrayal exposed sensitive military tactics, threatening the security of our nation, our armed forces, and our allies.”

Apparently Brown wasn’t quiet at all about his activities in China, and which also comes at a moment of military tensions around Taiwan and in the South China Sea:

According to the complaint, Brown began negotiating a contract “in or around” August 2023 to train Chinese military pilots, working through a co-conspirator who dealt with Stephen Su Bin, a Chinese national previously convicted in the U.S. of conspiring to hack into the computer networks of major American defense contractors and steal sensitive military data.

Prosecutors say Brown made clear in those discussions that he intended to train Chinese pilots in combat aircraft operations. In a résumé, he listed his objective as “Instructor Fighter Pilot” and later wrote that, upon arriving in China, “Now…. I have the chance to fly and instruct fighter pilots again!”

A former American pilot has in recent years been prosecuted by the DOJ under similar circumstances related to instructing PLA pilots: “Former US Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan was charged in 2017 of violating the Arms Export Control Act, specifically for allegedly helping Chinese pilots learn aircraft carrier operations,” notes CNN.

It’s understandable that the US government gets extremely nervous about active or retired officials with nuclear secrets going abroad to rival nations, but there’s some lingering questions of consistency. For example, what about Blackwater founder Erik Prince, whose Chinese military ties are so well known as to be featured in his permanent Wikipedia page?

Prince co-founded a firm called Frontier Services Group and until April 13, 2021 he was also chairman. Frontier Services Group is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

Frontier Services Group is backed by China’s state-owned CITIC Group and Hong Kong-based investor Johnson Chun Shun Ko [zh], with the Chinese government listed as the largest investor. Prince advised and supported Chinese mining and construction firms in Africa.

In May 2017, FSG acquired a 25% stake in a Chinese private security training school called the International Security Defense College, located in Beijing. The college provides training in counterterrorism, high-risk operations, and overseas security for military, law enforcement, and private personnel. FSG has since overseen the school’s program of training “overseas security specialists”.

There’s a good chance that if Brown, on the other hand, was close personal friends with various Trump admin officials, the US government would be looking the other way.

Yet the Intel committee, of which you chair, didn’t ask Erik Prince a single question *when he was under oath* about his security company which is based in China and whose investment arm is his biggest shareholder. https://t.co/TfT9Mot4rD

— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) March 26, 2018

Also, the same scenario could have played out with a more ‘friendly’ country and the investigators probably would not have come knocking. But military tech secrets and China remains a hot, sensitive issue at this moment.

Late on Wednesday, we highlighted an aggressive options trade where a call spread buyer in Netflix options had bet $14 million that Paramount would end up buying Warner Brothers after Netflix walks, something which Polymarket had indicated very much since the start of this particular M&A saga…

Trader bets $14 million (via NFLX call spread) that Paramount will end up buying Warner. Polymarket agrees

cross-platform arbitrage? pic.twitter.com/lwxgAqPwz7

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 26, 2026

… and 24 hours that unknown trader is richer by about $40 million (and a guaranteed visit by the SEC), because late on Thursday,  Paramount emerged victorious in the fight to buy Warner Bros. Discovery after Netflix said it wouldn’t match the David Ellison-led company’s latest offer for the iconic Hollywood property. The news sent Netflix shares soaring 10% after hours, demonstrating what the market thought of the deal (not to mention $2.8 billion breakup fee). 

With the winds of political change shifting, and the DOJ making it very clear that it preferred Paramount to end up the winner in the contested race, Netflix – which would have had to move regulatory mountains to complete the deal – pulled the plug on its deal soon after the Warner board of directors said it determined Paramount’s $31-per-share offer for the entire company was superior to Netflix’s bid for Warner’s movie and television studios and HBO Max streaming service.

“We’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match,” Netflix Co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters said in a statement. “This transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the pair said. 

Assuming regulators approve, and they will, Paramount will own not only Warner Bros. and HBO, but also many popular cable networks including the nevertrump collective known as CNN, TNT, TBS and Food Network. The deal would represent a major ground shift for the entertainment industry, which is trying to adapt to seismic shifts in audience habits and technology.

“Once our Board votes to adopt the Paramount merger agreement, it will create tremendous value for our shareholders,” said Warner Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav. 

As the WSJ notes, the culmination of the months-long process marks a stunning come-from-behind win for Paramount, whose overtures had previously been rebuffed at every turn by Warner. After multiple unsolicited bids from Paramount last year, Warner opened a sale process that ended with Netflix as the winning suitor. Netflix in December signed a deal to buy Warner’s studios and HBO Max for $27.75 a share, or $72 billion. Of course, anyone who had been paying attention, and sensed which way the political winds blow, would have known the outcome as far back as December.

Polymarket is now in the merger arb business. And it’s not looking good for Netflix pic.twitter.com/KGVwJDw2Lz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 8, 2025

Shortly after, Paramount launched a hostile takeover effort, going directly to shareholders with a $30-per-share bid for the whole company, including the cable networks Netflix didn’t want.

When Ellison’s Skydance Media acquired control of Paramount last August, going after Warner became his top priority. Paramount was seen as too small to compete against deep-pocketed giants such as Disney, Netflix and Amazon.

Since announcing its deal with Warner, Wall Street has punished Netflix stock which lost over $170 billion in market value since last September, when Netflix was first seen – by those who don’t know how to read online betting markets – as a potential bidder for Warner, through this past week.

But then earlier this week, Paramount submitted its revised bid of $31 a share, or about $81 billion, just around the time Trump’s DOJ started sniffing around Netflix’s business model. The offer included an increased $7 billion termination fee that Paramount would pay if the transaction failed to close due to regulatory concerns. Paramount said it would foot the bill for the $2.8 billion breakup fee Warner would owe Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount accelerated the timing of its proposed “ticking fee” of 25 cents per share, which it would pay to Warner shareholders for each quarter its deal hasn’t closed, to start after Sept. 30 instead of in January.

Paramount’s latest bid came after Warner’s board of directors set a seven-day window for the companies to negotiate, which Netflix permitted.

In an amusing twist, wventually not only the DOJ – which was reviewing the deal – but lawmakers on Capitol Hill had also expressed concern about a combined Netflix-Warner having too much share in the streaming marketplace. As part of its investigation, the Justice Department was looking at whether Netflix has engaged in anticompetitive practices, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. Paramount’s deal would also face scrutiny from federal regulators. Paramount’s streaming business is smaller than Netflix’s, but the deal would also put two legacy movie and TV studios under one roof, along with multiple cable networks. Paramount has said it would target $6 billion in synergies (i.e. layoffs) from the deal.

Why was the twist amusing? Because while Democrats – both in the Hill and certainly in Hollywood, as actors were terrified they would face mass layoffs after a Netflix combination – hated the Netflix acquisition, they are about to hate Paramount, which is owned by Trump friend David Ellison, who also owns TikTok and, recently, CBS, even more. That’s because once the transaction closes, the company will add that unhinged far-left echo chamber known as CNN to a portfolio that already includes CBS News, effectively leaving the far left lunatic fringe with only MSNBC or whatever it’s called these days. 

Ellison has revamped CBS News since taking over Paramount. He installed Bari Weiss, the founder of the digital news and opinion outlet The Free Press, as editor in chief and has said he wants CBS News “to speak to that 70% of the audience that would really define themselves at center-left to center-right.” That particular transaction has so far been a disaster, with CBS losing countless viewers on both sides of the aisle as a result. 

In a memo to staff, CNN President Mark Thompson said “don’t jump to conclusions until we know more.”

Actually jump: “The idea that Paramount should be allowed to control CBS and CNN should be unthinkable,” said Craig Aaron, co-CEO of media advocacy group Free Press, adding that the new owner promised President Trump they would “make sweeping changes to CNN given the chance, and we know what that means.”

Yes we do: and to all the soon-to-be-fired CNN staffers we would suggest to “learn to code”, only that nowadays is an even more sure way of being unemployed than working at the CNN echo chamber.