President Trump told reporters that French leader Emmanuel Macron’s refusal to back the proposed “Board of Peace” for the Gaza Strip could result in a 200% tariff on French champagne and wine. Trump mocked Macron’s political future and suggested the tariff threat would force France to join.

Earlier, a reporter asked President Trump about Macron’s refusal to back the proposed Board of Peace.

Trump responded:

Oh, did he say that? Well, nobody wants him because he’s going to be out of office very soon. So you know, that’s alright. What I’ll do is if they feel hostile, I’ll put a 200% tariff on his wines and champagnes and he’ll join. But he doesn’t have to join. If he said that, you’re probably giving it to me a little bit differently. But if he actually did say that, but as you know, he’s gonna be out of office in a few months.

🇺🇸🇫🇷TRUMP: IF FRANCE WON’T JOIN BOARD OF PEACE, I’LL PUT A 200% TARIFF ON THEIR WINE

“Well, nobody wants him because he’s going to be out of office very soon.

That’s all right.

What I’ll do is if they feel hostile, I’ll put a 200% tariff on his wines and champagnes and he’ll… pic.twitter.com/07wQZoeoNs

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 20, 2026

Details about the proposed Board of Peace surfaced over the weekend, with a Bloomberg report describing it as a concept that U.S. allies and regional partners have already been briefed on as part of broader diplomatic efforts to influence and reshape Gaza’s future after the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Trump’s comments about Macron came as he heads to the World Economic Forum in Davos to discuss Greenland.

Trump posted what appears to be a private message from Macron on Truth Social, in which the French president wrote, “We are totally in line on Syria. We can do great things on Iran. I do not understand what you are doing on Greenland.”

Europeans talk a big game but will likely bend the knee in the Trump era, as the U.S. is highly motivated to secure the Western Hemisphere, and in doing so, will acquire Greenland.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Schleswig‑Holstein’s Minister‑President Daniel Günther has, in what felt like a genteel salon, pulled back the curtain on the true censorship ambitions of politics. In the safe biotope of public broadcasting, he simply babbled and hit the spotlight on the repressive tendencies within the party system. We now find ourselves in a critical defensive struggle against the enemies of liberty.

Some achieve notoriety and fame by chance. Fortune may fall into one person’s lap, another may experience his ten minutes of public shine through a fluke rhetorical spark. In the case of the Minister‑President of Schleswig‑Holstein in Germany, however, this is a dubious honor.

In his appearance on Markus Lanz’s show on Germany’s state TV “ZDF”, CDU politician Daniel Günther slid into that revealing tone of small talk to which people are prone precisely when they believe themselves in a supposedly safe social environment – a place where no criticism is expected, no matter what leaves their lips.

What emerged during his guest spot on Lanz was a condemnable attitude toward the principle of free speech and toward critical media: the threat of censorship up to and including the blocking of individual platforms, including the portal Nius, reveals a profound ethical collapse. A growing, subtly operating apparatus of repression is now reaching us – a warning we should take seriously.

It was almost comical how Lanz, styled by public‑broadcasting elites as a star moderator, in tandem with the state‑aligned media sector repeatedly sought in the aftermath to rhetorically downplay Günther’s clearly articulated desire for censorship. Decontextualize, diffuse, and smother the real scandal with new waves of outrage like the Greenland debate – that’s how the media repair operation works.

Imposing Order in the Digital Sphere

What is forming before our eyes is unmistakable. A surveillance apparatus coordinated by the EU Commission in Brussels is emerging, built on the Digital Services Act and extending like a kraken over national intelligence agencies such as the Federal Intelligence Service (BND).

In an echo chamber, Daniel Günther now operates in the mode of a censor‑in‑waiting, confident that he is secured by the party apparatus. As early as June of last year, the CDU of Schleswig‑Holstein unveiled a policy paper titled “Protecting Democracy – Effectively Combating Disinformation as Well as Hate and Incitement Online.” In fifteen pages, its authors sketched a concrete strategy to regulate content on platforms such as Telegram, Meta, and X. Totalitarian thinking and the prospect of fulfilling a secretly cherished control fetish seem to exert a peculiar fascination even on the second tier of party functionaries.

Followed over the past months — culminating in a real dispute with the U.S. government — one thing becomes clear: Europe’s political leadership seems to fear nothing more than losing its dominance over the public discourse.

Yet that is the very nature of social media: it allows individual opinions to float freely, to form clusters and to be cast loudly into the public sphere. That is their explosive power — and apparently the genuine problem from the perspective of those who would rather order, canalize, and control discourse. Günther is not alone in his crusade against a defiant opposition that raises its voice now against COVID lockdowns, now against overheated climate apocalypticism, and otherwise positions itself as broadly skeptical of the state.

German Roots

Strategically, the politics of initially gentle censorship followed a seemingly intelligent, media‑political path. Two strands define the rhetorical front:

On the one hand, so‑called youth protection is invoked whenever politicians attempt to justify instruments of surveillance into private communication. On the other, the fuzzy concept of combating “hate and incitement” online is used as a vector against our privacy. The state proclaims itself a moral warrior against evil, leaves definitions of what may be said in political discourse largely open, and operates alongside a network of so‑called Trusted Flaggers — digital informants who diligently report rhetorical borderline cases to public institutions. Then things can get tricky: house visits by the state or account suspensions have emerged as effective tools in the fight against dissent. State and banks — here, too, they pull in the same direction.

Such an apparatus creates a space of silent threat in which unspoken prejudgments loom. Participants in public debates — commentators, podcasters, and media makers — already apply the mental censorship scissors in advance, reducing the critical sound against government institutions, parties, and political personalities.

As the politics of gentle censorship increasingly proves ineffective, sharper swords are drawn. The atmosphere on digital platforms is growing harsher. Even memes, sharp comments, or legally unproblematic insults become casus belli for the surveillance apparatus — a fine but increasingly overt network that perceptibly constricts the free field of opinion.

History will not look kindly upon our country. Germany was, in a way, the starting point — the sick root — of this system. In 2017, with the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), the first institutionalized attack on freedom of speech occurred, and Germany was its impetus. This censorship contraption was championed by SPD politician and then‑Justice Minister Heiko Maas. He seized the opportunity to indulge his resentment toward the civic sphere of freedom. He was backed by his coalition partner, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière of the CDU, who appears equally devoted to the spirit of unfreedom. A fateful duo, carrying this grim work forward in an ethically sclerotic coalition.

It is striking how this push, born of German intent, first took tangible form in the Digital Services Act in Brussels, how eagerly the Brussels apparatus adopted this initiative, and how it later took hold in the political programs of German parties. Everything now follows a hierarchical command cascade. The CDU Schleswig‑Holstein’s digital control guidelines fit seamlessly into the prescribed strategy.

There is unanimity within the party apparatus; dissent comes only from the much‑maligned AfD, which staunchly opposes citizen surveillance in the digital space. In front of the firewall, it is getting uncomfortable.

The progress achieved in building the EU’s censorship apparatus, and the frantic national efforts to bring it into practical operation, show unmistakably how poorly our freedom is faring. Just as grim is the future of civilizational fundamental values — personal liberty before the repressive apparatus as well as freedom of expression itself.

What we are witnessing now is an anti‑civilizational blow, a form of cultural degeneration presented in the guise of a climate‑socialist restructuring of our society. The rhetoric is morally charged, the scope sweeping, the consequences deeply authoritarian. Where are the voices of elite representatives in this land who would speak out against the growing apparatus of repression? They have fallen silent and thereby been discredited.

The Price of Crisis

It is foreseeable what we must expect. The more severe the economic crisis becomes, impacting the prosperity of the broad masses, the more relentlessly the constructed apparatus will hunt dissidents and free media. Repression follows crisis like a shadow follows the body, ever deeper into the desert of totalitarianism.

And who knows — perhaps one day we will thank Daniel Günther for his naive, short‑sighted honesty. Perhaps he was the one who inadvertently stimulated our society’s immune system, sharpening the awareness of many for the real underlying problem of our time.

If so, Günther would have succeeded — albeit as antagonist and accidentally, yet ultimately in the service of freedom, seizing his moment of fame. He would have done a good deed by helping to save our society from drifting into the swamp of socialist planned economy — a system that always produces a repressive, presumptuous, and stupefying control apparatus.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

UBS analyst Joseph Spak asked clients on Sunday: Will there be Chinese cars in the US?

Spak pointed to comments from President Trump last week at the Detroit Economic Club, in which he said, “If they want to come in and build a plant and hire you and hire your friends and your neighbors, that’s great. I love that. Let China come in, let Japan come in. They are. And they’ll be building plants, but they’re using our labor.”

Trump’s comments come after Chinese automaker Geely stated at CES in Las Vegas that it could make a major announcement about a U.S. expansion within the next 24 to 36 months.

“The big question for us is when and where we will go to the U.S.A.,” Ash Sutcliffe, Geely’s global communications chief, said in an interview last week at the Autoline Network at CES.

This also follows Canada’s decision last week to allow up to 49,000 Chinese EVs per year at a low tariff rate. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the decision is “problematic for Canada.”

“There’s a reason why we don’t sell a lot of Chinese cars in the ‌United States. It’s because we have tariffs ‌to protect American auto workers and Americans from those vehicles,” Greer told CNBC on Friday.

But Trump’s comments suggest that if Geely or BYD Motors were to announce new manufacturing plants in the US, their products would avoid tariffs and be competitively priced with domestic car brands.

UBS analyst Spak offered his team’s thoughts on Chinese EVs in the US market:

• Currently, there is a 100% tariff on Chinese EV imports. But of course, this wouldn’t be an issue if vehicles are built here. The bigger issue, in our view, is that the US bans Chinese software in vehicles starting in 2027, and then hardware in 2029. We believe that even for Chinese vehicles built in the US, they would want to leverage their software and hardware development.

• Investors point to the recent rapid rise of Chinese vehicles in Europe, with their December share hitting 18% in the UK and 12% in Spain. For the year, Chinese share in the UK was up to 9.7% (aided by China owned MG brand which has UK heritage) from 4.8% in 2024, Italy 8.1% from 4.7%, Germany remains lower at 2.5%. But of course, this large inflection was aided by imports. And China exports grew meaningfully in 2025, to >1mm units, as they looked for global growth especially as domestic demand slowed and amid high domestic competition. In the US, the Chinese don’t have the ability to test the waters or see early gains given exports to the US are tougher.

• Building factories, supplier parks, dealerships, distribution networks, and service would take some time (though many dealers we have spoken to have indicated they would welcome selling them). Rental/fleet seems like a way the Chinese OEMs could first start to get a foothold in the US and test out the market.

• So, as has been our belief for a while (we wrote this in 2023), it is likely only a matter of time before the Chinese automakers are in the US, a sentiment others such as Ford CEO Jim Farley have echoed. From Ford’s 2Q25 earnings call: “We really see not the global OEMs as a competitive set for our next generation of EVs. We see the Chinese, companies like Geely and BYD.”

• However, because of policy, the US OEMs likely still have a protected window for a number of years. Moreover, in our view, if/when the Chinese come, they are less likely to compete with the D3 bread and butter (and major profit driver) of large pickup trucks and SUVs. These segments have very brand loyal customers and also, for now, are less likely to be electric. Thus, smaller cars and small/midsize CUVs are more likely at risk. These are already competitive segments but also areas where Japanese/Korean brands tend to be more successful as F/GM have pulled out of many of these areas. Chinese autos in the US would also be a headwind for TSLA, RIVN. Further, China seems to be a topic US voters are more aligned on than not, so we wouldn’t expect the administration to move much on China auto investment before the mid-term elections.

• And of course, there are still the political considerations as China remains a hot button topic. For instance, in response to a WSJ article which said Ford could buy batteries from BYD for hybrids for Ford factories outside the US, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro posted on X, “So @ford wants to simultaneously prop up a Chinese competitor’s supply chain and make it more vulnerable…?” Recall, Waymo recently changed the branding of their Zeekr based robo-taxi to Ojai (“ohhi”).

• What about the US “back doors”? Canada just struck a deal with China to allow up to 49k Chinese EVs at a 6.1% tariff (had been a 100% tariff), and Canadian PM Carney indicated he expected the agreement would drive considerable Chinese investment into Canada’s auto sector. This is likely to draw scrutiny from the US as they review/renegotiate USMCA, where rhetoric has become more adversarial. During President Trump’s recent visit to Detroit, he called USMCA “irrelevant” and that Canada wants it but the US doesn’t need it. However, given the complexity of current supply chains, this would cause challenges for the US auto industry. We also believe that as part of the US discussions with Mexico, the US is seeking ways to limit Chinese auto investment in Mexico. That said, we believe this administration may be thinking one way to close the back doors is to eventually open the front door.

• Also, we found this article that the first “dark” factory could open by 2030 (our understanding is that the Xiaomi factory is already very highly automated) interesting, since if the Chinese do come to the US, it may also be a headwind to President Trump’s stance that they will use “our labor” (though we believe US OEMs are also highly likely to continue to automate their facilities).

• Key to the future of GM and F is what they do with strong profits during this period. We highlight F is still investing in their UEV platform, and GM CEO Mary Barra recently said EVs are still the end game.

• Finally for suppliers, while they may claim this is an opportunity for new business, at a steady state, we believe this is at best case a neutral outcome (win with Chinese OEM replaces win with existing customer) with risk skewed to the downside as it could be a share loss, the win with the Chinese OEM could be lower content, and Chinese suppliers could also invest in the US (again political issues, but we are assuming a case where the Chinese OEMs come). That said, they may also have more time if we are right that initial Chinese vehicles in the US take share from Asian OEMs where the NA supply base tends to have less exposure.

To sum up, with Chinese EVs rapidly gaining market share in Europe and beginning to appear on roads in Canada and Mexico, it is likely only a matter of time before they reach the US. Trump suggested that building factories in the US could be their pathway to US consumers, a development that would pressure Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, and other domestic EV companies. It is likely Elon Musk would talk with Trump if there were any threat of a flood of Chinese EV imports.

Russia has throughout nearly four years of its ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine been largely successful in weathering constantly expanding US and EU sanctions. While isolated, its economy has stayed afloat, but it has been forced into desperate measures as sanctions take a toll on some key sectors.

Russian newspaper Izvestia reports that Russia’s commercial airline industry is having to call back aging, decommissioned planes in an effort to sustain passenger traffic. Soviet-made planes which are several decades old are being restored to service.

“The plan involves nine Tupolev Tu-204/214 jets, one Antonov An-148 and two Ilyushin Il-96 widebody planes delivered to carriers including Red Wings,” The Moscow Times says of the Russian media reports.

“Ten of the 12 aircraft, which are reportedly up to 30 years old, have already been returned to service, Rostec told Izvestia,” the report continues.

Out of a national fleet of over 1,100 airliners, nearly 70% are foreign-made aircraft. In 2022 soon after the Ukraine war kicked off, authorities launched a program to begin replacing foreign planes with domestically produced models.

But regional media says that the plan has failed over the past years in meeting its ambitious goals, which called for over 120 aircraft of different types to be produced between 2023 and 2025. Instead a little over a dozen have been produced.

Western sanctions have not only impacted the ability to replace parts and keep maintenance up to date, but entire factories and machines have had to retool and be revived to make up for the lack in foreign parts.

But the industry is about to find itself under even more pressure and strain, as Moscow takes drastic action in the face of isolation from the West:

In 2026, Moscow plans to slash federal aircraft and helicopter production spending by 1.6 times, from 139.6 billion rubles ($1.7 billion) to 85.7 billion rubles ($1 billion), according to Russian media citing the draft federal budget for 2026-28.

Subsidies for airlines to renew their domestic fleets will be eliminated entirely, down from 1.3 billion rubles ($16 million) in 2025. Support for aircraft maintenance is set to drop from 6.1 billion rubles ($75 million) to 3.6 billion ($44 million). Only the MC-21 medium-haul jet will see increased funding, with subsidies rising 25% in 2026.

In the meantime aviation accidents have been growing increasingly common in Russia, particularly in the recent years of the Ukraine war. While not every incident can necessarily be linked directly to sanctions, it is the case that these increasingly involve very old planes with subpar maintenance and mechanics upgrades.

Ukrainian officials have of late also pointed to cross-border drone attacks as successfully disrupting Russian oil and fuel…

⚡️⚡️⚡️BREAKING: 🇷🇺Russia’s largest private fuel supplier warns of a new aviation fuel CRISIS.
After Ukrainian drone strikes damaged over 20 oil refineries, Moscow relaxed fuel standards — allowing “winter diesel” to be made by mixing summer diesel with kerosene. That quick fix… pic.twitter.com/bm63W45a6A

— Kyrylo Shevchenko (@KShevchenkoReal) November 4, 2025

Like with most Western sanctions on ‘rogue’ states abroad, it is the common people who suffer most. 

The same trend has been seen in Iran, which over the last decade has witnessed horrific aviation accidents, including the loss of a sitting president when his military helicopter crashed near Azerbaijan. 

Submitted By Thomas Kolbe

Party politics today is essentially a mélange of media strategy, personality cult, and the constant struggle to expand one’s own sphere of power. At the Willy Brandt House, the Social Democrats’ command center, a two-track media strategy appears to have been agreed upon for this year: taking and giving.

From the wealthy, the party intends to take—by expanding inheritance taxes on corporate assets—what, according to the Social Democrats’ moral code, never truly belonged to them. To the citizen, meanwhile, they want to give a basket of cheap groceries. After years of steadily rising food prices, SPD strategists believe they have discovered the perfect marketing instrument—and behold: suddenly it’s about the purchasing power of “ordinary people.”

Of “Ordinary People” and the Emotionally Unstable

Yes, you heard that correctly. The ordinary man—that obscene phrase of left-wing salon arrogance, barely concealing its deep-seated contempt for real lives—is once again being invoked in a fight for survival. Lars Klingbeil and the self-appointed champions of social justice signal a return to their roots. After years spent cultivating the woke, emotionally unstable segment of society, attention now shifts back to the core voter: the worker.

Have the Social Democrats finally struck bedrock in their deep search for a solution to inflation and the impoverishment of the lower classes? Their idea: persuade major discount chains and food retailers, on a “voluntary” basis, to include a predefined basket of basic groceries at low and stable prices. It sounds childish—and it is.

Adding patriotic undertones to this piece of neo-feudal arrogance only makes the “Germany Basket” smell unmistakably like a product pulled straight from the SPD marketing kitchen.

Imagine its creation in practice: Lars Klingbeil, himself no stranger to calorie-dense cuisine, sits one weekend with his working group—“Germany Basket: The Ordinary Man Eats Healthy”—in front of the party’s position paper. With a mid-range Chianti and a juicy Pizza Tricolore (three-pack, Mediterranean Week) from the premium section of a well-stocked discounter, young socialists, union officials, and party grandees work their way, bite by bite, toward defining the basic provisions of the archetypal precarious household.

They are informed. They listen to the people. They are always close to the pulse of the times. Why not also at the breakfast table? Didn’t Germany’s minister of the heart, Robert Habeck, run his last campaign exactly this way—approachable, in a hemp sweater, sipping mate tea at kitchen tables across the republic? Perhaps the finance minister senses that elections are won as long as the pan is hot, the pizza is in the oven, and a cold beer doesn’t cut too deeply into the weekly budget.

One kilo of floury potatoes, gluten-free pasta for allergy sufferers, of course a non-alcoholic beer—sugary drinks excluded—a bit of greenery on top, maybe some long-life milk, plain yogurt, and a nostalgic nod to good old junk food, naturally soy-based. Thus it may soon take shape: the socially just, functionary-approved food basket, complete with the finance minister’s seal of approval.

Attention to Detail Required

Fine-tuning the Germany Basket forces the working group into excursions—reenacting life at the front lines of daily economic struggle, venturing into that terra incognita of the ordinary consumer’s harsh reality. They will advance to the places where elections are decided: the meat counters, the vegetable aisles with their astonishing variety, the endless freezer sections filled with goods from all corners of the world.

It would be instructive to attach to every product its pre-COVID price. Such an existential shock might spoil the soup for one or two party officials.

Everyone can participate in the Germany Basket—from the finance minister and the labor minister to union secretaries and representatives of food NGOs. After years of disagreement, a common denominator is quickly found—and lies just a few steps away, possibly already in the freezer of the SPD canteen.

Inflation and the World of Fables

How bewildering rising prices must seem in these circles, where inflation is imagined to be nothing more than the result of entrepreneurial greed and excessive profit-seeking.

That inflation might stem from an ever-growing state apparatus financing itself to a significant extent through the printing press would never occur to them. And that Germany’s energy crisis—the ban on importing cheap Russian gas, the nuclear phase-out, and the entire climate-regulation catalogue—might negatively affect agriculture and generate immense price pressure is likewise relegated to the realm of fairy tales.

Yet the surge in prices has been massive. Since before the lockdowns, food prices in Germany have risen by nearly 40 percent. Few households have been able to offset this increase through income gains. The problems cut deeply into household budgets. At the same time, open-border policies clog the housing market while regulation and rent controls systematically prevent new construction—creating an economic situation from which fewer and fewer households can escape.

In economics, one principle is well known: the cure for high prices is high prices. They signal investors to deploy capital and eliminate scarcity. That this does not happen is also the work of these culinary-minded Social Democrats. They cling desperately to price controls like rent caps and to the regulatory machinery of the climate complex. In the bureaucracy thus created—in a dictated framework that now extends even to the refrigerator—they find their power base.

Within SPD circles, they believe they have discovered yet another trump card in the attention economy. The Germany Basket is merely another media-political low point: tasteless, undignified, ineffective. The SPD is finished.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

China has filed requests to reserve orbital slots for almost 200,000 satellites, prompting concerns it may be positioning itself to control large swathes of near-Earth space, according to the Daily Mail.

The applications, submitted on December 29 by the newly formed Institute of Radio Spectrum Utilisation and Technological Innovation, outline two constellations—CTC-1 and CTC-2—each with 96,714 satellites spread across thousands of orbits. If built, the system would dwarf SpaceX’s Starlink plans and could restrict access for rival operators.

Officials have offered little detail about the satellites’ role, fuelling speculation about military or security uses. According to China in Space, Nanjing University of Aeronautics says the network would support “Low-altitude electromagnetic space security, integrated security defence systems, electromagnetic space security assessment of airspace, and low-altitude airspace safety supervision services.” Analysts say this closely resembles SpaceX’s military-focused Starshield system.

The Daily Mail writes that the filings were made with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which allocates orbital spectrum. Once registered, other companies must prove their satellites will not interfere. While the spacecraft could have civilian uses, the move comes amid intensifying US-China competition in space.

Satellites now underpin modern warfare, forming part of the so-called “kill mesh.” The war in Ukraine has shown how vital satellite communications and jamming capabilities can be, and US officials have raised alarms about unusual manoeuvres by some Chinese satellites in geostationary orbit. One senior officer warned they are “sliding” across the GEO belt, behavior seen as inconsistent with normal communications missions.

China openly treats space as a strategic domain. President Xi Jinping has called it an “important strategic asset for the country that must be well managed and utilized and, more importantly, protected.” China’s satellite count has risen from about 40 in 2010 to roughly 1,000 today.

Despite the scale of the proposal, many experts doubt it will be realised. China would need to launch around 500 satellites every week for seven years—far beyond its current manufacturing and launch capacity. This has led analysts to suspect the move is an orbital “land grab,” reserving space for future use rather than signalling an imminent build-out.

As Victoria Samson of the Secure World Foundation put it, “It is possible they’re just trying to create some space for later on.” Even Chinese industry figures have played down the feasibility, with Spacety executive Yang Feng warning that “Leading in terms of filing applications does not mean surpassing in final execution,” citing major technical and capacity hurdles.

The move is notable given China’s recent criticism of SpaceX at the UN, where it argued that the unchecked spread of commercial satellite constellations “has given rise to pronounced safety and security challenges.”

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The defiant reaction of Germany’s business and political elite to Donald Trump’s tariff measures in the Greenland conflict reveals a remarkable denial of reality. It is increasingly clear that Brussels and Berlin are more willing to accept significant collateral damage in a dispute with the United States than to pursue rational solutions. It is high time to acknowledge their own weaknesses.

In the end, the dispute over Greenland’s strategic future unfolded as expected. In response to the deployment of a tiny contingent of European troops to the Danish-administered island, Washington wielded a substantial lever: trade tariffs. This now well-established tool is aimed at the eight nations participating in the action – including Germany, which contributed a mere 13 soldiers to this peculiar measure.

Starting February 1, an additional 10 percent tariff will take effect. If the situation remains unchanged, it will rise to 25 percent on June 1. Should the Greenland dispute escalate into a trade casus belli, it will directly impact the overall economy. Export-heavy economies like Germany could see up to 0.3 percent of their GDP wiped out.

Shipping Routes and Resources

What is this conflict really about? Donald Trump’s interest in Greenland’s strategic control is twofold. On one hand, Greenland’s rich natural resources – particularly rare earths – are crucial. On the other, it’s about controlling key Arctic shipping routes. Washington’s focus is on dominating the Northeast Passage along Russia and the Northwest Passage along Canada. These routes linking Europe, Asia, and North America could become strategically vital in the future. The Davis Strait between Greenland and Canada also plays a key role in the U.S. power game, providing access to significant resource zones. The North Atlantic region is generally considered essential for the U.S. government’s military security.

In recent days, Trump repeatedly emphasized that neither NATO nor the European Union had taken substantive political action in response to China’s and Russia’s growing influence in the region.

This raises the inevitable question: why is Europe suddenly so interested in Greenland? A clean resolution would undoubtedly be a referendum on the partially autonomous island. How this process will develop remains to be seen.

Defiance Instead of Strategy

Germany’s business and political responses indicate a willingness to escalate rhetorically. Representatives of German trade associations speak of a “U-turn” in U.S. policy. VDMA President Bertram Kawlath criticized the tariffs as politically motivated, calling the new demands absurd. Similarly, DIW President Marcel Fratzscher warned that Germany and Europe should no longer allow themselves to be extorted in the trade dispute with the U.S.

BGA President Dirk Jandura and VDA President Hildegard Müller labeled the announced tariffs grotesque. They would place an enormous burden on an already heavily affected European industry. Both called on Brussels to act decisively and strategically.

Notably, Fratzscher’s call for closer cooperation with China stands out. Yet only weeks ago, the rare earth supply dispute with Beijing nearly escalated – a player that enforces its interests just as ruthlessly using its resource leverage.

There is agreement that Brussels must now pick up the gauntlet thrown by the U.S. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced negotiations for a retaliatory tariff package, which could hit U.S. businesses in Europe with up to €93 billion. The signs point to a storm, but it remains unclear whether the U.S. administration will be impressed.

From a European perspective, two main options emerge: first, the long-discussed model of heavily taxing American tech companies – the so-called digital tax – could finally be implemented. Second, EU-proposed counter-tariffs could be used to apply pressure in upcoming negotiations with the U.S. administration.

The crucial question: how far can the EU play this power game before the economic costs become unbearable? Brussels has shown a tendency in conflicts like the Ukraine war to stick to maximalist demands while accepting significant collateral damage. The same dynamic now threatens in the trade dispute with the U.S.: European rhetoric is strong, but economic substance is vulnerable.

Much like in its standoff with Russia, the EU faces a visible power asymmetry against the U.S. economy, which grew at an annualized 5.5 percent in the last quarter while unemployment fell to 4.4 percent. Growth is driven primarily by private investment and a massive gain in productivity – the true measure of sustainable economic success.

By contrast, the EU – and Germany’s industrial heartlands in particular – are bleeding. Despite massive borrowing and extensive government stimulus programs, private investment and productivity gains remain elusive.

Power Asymmetry

Over the slowly escalating trade conflict hangs the Damocles sword of the Ukraine conflict and Germany’s associated energy crisis. The missed opportunity months ago to resolve a Gordian knot with U.S. mediation now exacts its toll. Step by step, the United States could adjust its security guarantees for Europe, exposing the EU’s economic and military vulnerabilities.

Washington’s new security strategy, released in December, makes it clear that the EU is no longer regarded as a strategic ally. Instead, the U.S. is prepared to pursue its own interests with an iron hand if necessary.

There is no denying it: under the current administration, realpolitik is back in the EU-U.S. relationship. Europe must recognize these new realities and approach them with a realistic assessment of its own position. And the current economic situation is anything but rosy.

Moral posturing over the supposed “Wild West methods” of the Americans is hypocritical. Was it not the EU Commission that, over many years, forced trade partners – most recently the Mercosur countries – under its climate-protectionist regime? Is it not at least equally problematic to drive one’s own population into economic hardship to enforce climate-socialist power fantasies and expand political control?

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Saggezza Eterna, 

In the lexicon of polite political discourse, we are told that “kleptocracy” is a phenomenon reserved for the decaying regimes of the third world—banana republics where dictators in gold-braided epaulets stuff suitcases with cash while their people starve. This is a comforting fiction. It allows the American mind to believe that corruption is something that happens over there, in places without marble capitols or Ivy League economists.

But this definition is archaic. It fails to capture the sophistication of the modern predator state. A true kleptocracy in the twenty-first century does not require a dictator with a Swiss bank account; it requires a bureaucracy with a grant-making authority. It does not steal with a gun; it steals with a regulation.

The modern Democrat Party is not merely a political coalition; it is a syndicalist engine of wealth extraction. It has evolved beyond the crude graft of Tammany Hall, where votes were bought with turkeys and beer, into a highly complex “NGO-industrial complex” that launders public treasury funds into private political power. They are not governing. They are looting. And they have built a moral fortress around their theft so that to question the robbery is to be branded a heretic.

“The modern kleptocrat does not break the law; he writes the law to make his theft mandatory.”

‘

To understand this, we must strip away the veneer of “public service” and look at the mechanics of the machine. We must observe how the Managerial Elite has perfected a system where the decline of the American middle class is not an accident of history, but the direct, mathematical result of their enrichment.

Part I: The Laundromat – The Non-Profit Industrial Complex

The genius of the Democrat kleptocracy lies in its ability to make the taxpayer fund their own political subjugation. In a traditional bribery scheme, a corporation gives money to a politician for a favor. This is illegal and risky. The modern Democrat machine has professionalized this by inserting a middleman: the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO).

Consider the flow of money. The federal government, under Democrat stewardship, allocates billions in grants to “community organizations,” “activist groups,” and “non-profits” ostensibly for public welfare—voter education, green initiatives, or social justice programs. These entities are staffed almost exclusively by partisan operatives. The funds, stripped of their “public” designation, are then used to build voter rolls, organize protests, and push radical policy agendas that benefit the party that wrote the check.

It is a closed loop of money laundering. You pay taxes. The bureaucrats you did not elect send that money to an activist group you do not support. That activist group uses your money to campaign for the bureaucrat’s boss.

“They have not just seized the means of production; they have seized the means of distribution, turning the U.S. Treasury into a campaign war chest.”

This is why the Left fiercely defends the bloated administrative state. It is not because they love efficiency; it is because the bureaucracy is their bank. Every new agency created is a new revenue stream for their client class. The teachers’ unions are the archetype of this model. They compel dues from members, funnel those dues almost exclusively to Democrat campaigns, and in return, the party ensures the unions maintain a monopoly on education, free from the competition of school choice. It is a protection racket disguised as a labor movement.

The “Foreign Aid” grift operates on the same frequency. When billions are sent overseas to nebulous “democracy building” initiatives, we must ask: who are the contractors? Who are the consultants? Who sits on the boards of the NGOs administering this aid? Invariably, we find the children, siblings, and donors of the party elite. They are not exporting democracy; they are importing kickbacks.

Part II: The Regulatory Shakedown – Corporatism Disguised as Progress

If Part I is about stealing tax money, Part II is about stealing market share. The classic definition of fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. The modern Democrat party has achieved this synthesis under the banner of “saving the planet” and “equity.”

The primary weapon here is the regulatory squeeze. When the government mandates “Green Energy” transitions or “ESG” (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores, they are not saving the polar bears. They are destroying small and medium-sized competitors who cannot afford compliance, while subsidizing the massive conglomerates that can.

“Regulation is the tax that time pays to power. It is the moat the elite dig to protect their castles from the competition of the peasantry.”

Look at the “Green New Deal” infrastructure. It is a mechanism to transfer wealth from the productive energy sector (oil, gas, nuclear—industries that actually power civilization) to the speculative “green” sector—industries that exist only because of government subsidies. Who owns the solar startups and the wind farms? The same donor class that dines in Martha’s Vineyard. They use the power of the state to crush cheap, reliable energy, forcing the working class to pay higher prices, which effectively funnels wealth from the poor (who pay for energy) to the rich (who collect the subsidies).

This is why they despise the free market. The free market is unpredictable. A kleptocrat hates unpredictability. They want guaranteed returns. By using the regulatory agencies to pick winners and losers, they ensure that their portfolios outperform the S&P 500 by margins that would make a hedge fund manager blush. When a Speaker of the House can trade stocks in industries she regulates and beat the market with supernatural consistency, we are not looking at “public service.” We are looking at insider trading legalized by the very people committing it.

The concept of “Stakeholder Capitalism” is the final nail in the coffin of free enterprise. It posits that corporations are not responsible to shareholders, but to “stakeholders”—a nebulous term that effectively means “political activists.” It allows the party to extort corporations: adopt our cultural agenda, hire our consultants, donate to our causes, or face the wrath of the regulatory state. It is a shakedown, pure and simple.

Part III: The Cultural Smokescreen – Identity Politics as Camouflage

The most cunning trick of the modern kleptocrat is the use of “Woke” ideology as a distraction. While they are looting the treasury and rigging the economy, they need a smokescreen to keep the populace fighting each other rather than looking at the bank vault.

Identity politics is that smokescreen.

By obsessively focusing on race, gender, and sexuality, the Democrat elite creates a permanent state of cultural warfare. This serves two strategic purposes. First, it fragments the working class, preventing a unified coalition that might challenge their economic dominance. If the white mechanic and the black truck driver are at each other’s throats over “privilege,” they will not notice that the private equity firm has bought their houses and the government has devalued their wages. 

“Wokeism is not a moral awakening; it is the HR department of the kleptocracy. It is the shield they use to deflect scrutiny of their plunder.”

Second, it provides a moral shield for their corruption. When you accuse them of theft, they accuse you of bigotry. When you point out that their policies have decimated the inner city, they call you a racist. They wrap their greed in the language of compassion. They are not destroying the energy grid to enrich their donors; they are doing it to “save the climate.” They are not censoring the internet to protect their narratives; they are doing it to “stop hate speech.”

This moral blackmail is the hallmark of the Machiavellian ruler. They claim the mantle of the oppressed while living like kings. They lecture the populace on “privilege” from inside gated communities funded by the very systems of inequality they claim to fight.

The result is a hollowed-out nation. The infrastructure crumbles while billions are spent on “consultants.” The borders are erased to import a dependent underclass that reinforces their political hegemony. The currency is debased to pay for their patronage networks.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

We are witnessing the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” in its final, terminal phase. The Democrat party is no longer a party of the people; it is a party of the managers, the academics, the bureaucrats, and the subsidized corporate elite. They have constructed a system where they can be wrong about everything—the economy, foreign policy, crime, the border—and yet never lose power, and never lose money.

To call them “kleptocrats” is not an insult; it is a precise taxonomic classification. They have privatized the state for their own benefit. They have turned the concept of “public good” into a private revenue stream.

The first step in dismantling this machine is to see it for what it is. Do not listen to their moralizing. Watch their hands. Watch where the money goes. And realize that the chaos, the decline, and the division we see around us are not accidents. They are the overhead costs of their business model.

*   *   *

Book Promo:

Saggezza Eterna and the material I write on this page, specifically about politics and power dynamics, is inspired by a book written in the 15th century called “The Prince” by a Florentine Philosopher named Niccolò Machiavelli.

Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince” was banned by the Vatican in 1559 because its unflinching portrayal of pragmatic and often ruthless political strategies held a mirror to the hypocrisy of rulers, including Church leaders, exposing how power was truly wielded in contrast to professed ideals.

I highly recommend that anyone wishing to understand the true nature of politics and power dynamics read the book cover to cover. If you want to completely and utterly destroy any argument and increase your political savviness, “The Prince” will not disappoint. The attached link presents a translation from Italian into English that preserves the integrity of the book as it was originally written.

Check out the Hardcover by clicking here.

In the latest geopolitical escalation – because let’s face it, all that’s left now for the global geopolitical chaos to be complete is for Beijing to finally launch its much anticipated invasion of Taiwan – China sent a military drone into Taiwanese airspace for the first time, underscoring Beijing’s efforts to test the island’s defenses.

The Chinese reconnaissance drone flew in the airspace of Pratas Island for about four minutes early Saturday, Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said in a statement. The islet is near the southern end of the strait, about 400 kilometers (250 miles) from Taiwan’s main island.

The unmanned aerial vehicle was a WZ-7 known as ‘Soaring Dragon’ according to a Taiwanese national security official. It flew at an “altitude outside the range of our air defence weapons and left following warnings Taipei broadcast via international radio channels”, Taiwan’s defence ministry said in a statement.

The ministry added that the drone flew above the range of air defense weapons, adding that it left after warnings were broadcast over international radio frequencies. In 2022, Taiwan downed a Chinese civilian drone that flew near another one of its offshore outposts, Kinmen.

China’s military said on social media the aircraft conducted “legitimate and lawful” training.

According to the FT, analysts said the move highlighted Taiwan’s difficulties in countering China’s high-end drone capabilities and allowed Beijing to further undermine the country’s sovereignty.

“China has found another soft spot,” said Kitsch Liao, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. “They can repeat this to demonstrate that they can enter Taiwan airspace with impunity. And what do you do if they start flying lower and lower? If you decide to shoot the drone down when it comes into range, China can blame Taiwan because it didn’t do anything before.”

Increasingly often China also harasses Taiwan’s outlying islands with its coastguard and maritime militia — armed fishing vessels that carry out paramilitary missions. Pratas has become a preferred target for those operations over the past year. On Wednesday, Taiwan’s coastguard published footage of two Chinese coastguard ships approaching the atoll. It is located about 420km from southern Taiwan, in waters both US and Chinese submarines would have to pass through in a potential future conflict.

The latest drone incident highlights China’s efforts to militarily intimidate Taiwan. Taipei rejects Beijing’s claims to its territory, and under President Lai Ching-te has stepped up efforts to bolster its defenses to deter any attack.

Last month, the People’s Liberation Army held live-fire drills around Taiwan after the US announced an $11 billion arms package for Taipei, one of the biggest ever. The PLA has in recent years held large-scale military exercises with the declared goal of intimidating Taiwan. It has also launched increasingly frequent naval and air patrols which are growing in scale and gradually moving closer to Taiwan. 

US and Taiwanese government officials believe that, while the US might help defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese attack, it would not intervene over Pratas, which is part of Tapei’s disputed claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea as a legacy of the Republic of China.

Under US domestic law, Washington is required to provide Taiwan with the weapons needed to defend itself and to maintain the capacity of the US to resist any force or coercion that would jeopardise Taiwan’s security.

“China could severely weaken Taiwan’s morale and confidence in defending itself if it got away with seizing Pratas,” said a foreign military official in Asia.

Taiwan’s defense minister Wellington Koo told lawmakers in 2024 that the country’s armed forces would view the unauthorized entry of any Chinese military aircraft, ship or other asset into Taiwan’s territorial airspace or waters as a “first strike” against which Taiwan could order a counterstrike in self-defense. But according to Taiwan’s latest quadrennial defence review published last March, the military is still working on rules which would spell out under what circumstances frontline officers would be empowered to order such a move.

Two Taiwanese officials said Taipei would exercise “extreme caution” to avoid any incident at Pratas sparking a broader conflict. “We would consult with our ally,” one of the officials said, referring to the US.  

Also Saturday, the Chinese military said in a statement on social media that it tracked the USS John Finn, a guided-missile destroyer, and a US oceanographic survey vessel as they passed through the Taiwan Strait. The US usually sends warships through the busy shipping lane following major Chinese military maneuvers.

via The Cradle

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said Monday that Damascus has continued to attack its positions across northern Syria despite the US-backed ceasefire reached a day earlier, warning that attacks are targeting the vicinity of SDF-run prisons holding tens of thousands of jailed ISIS militants. 

This poses an “extremely dangerous” security threat, the SDF warned. “Since the early hours of this morning, Al-Shaddadi Prison, which holds thousands of detainees from the terrorist organization ISIS, has been subjected to repeated attacks carried out by factions affiliated with Damascus. Fighters of the SDF confronted these attacks and succeeded in repelling them several times, resulting in the martyrdom of dozens of our fighters and the injury of others, in an effort to prevent a serious security catastrophe,” it said. Unconfirmed reports and videos on social media say that Syrian troops are freeing prisoners from SDF-run detention centers holding ISIS militants.

“Taking up arms is a public duty. It is a national and moral responsibility to protect our people and safeguard the achievements of our revolution, as well as to strengthen the spirit of resistance. We support a political solution, but true peace cannot be achieved without self-defense. If war is imposed on us, or if the existence and rights of our people are targeted, we are fully prepared for legitimate defense,” the statement said. 

Government forces moved into Aleppo’s Tishreen Dam area on Monday as SDF fighters withdrew. The northeastern city of Hasakah remains under Kurdish control. 

A commander in the People’s Protection Units (YPG) – the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) that makes up a significant bulk of the SDF fighting force – has called on Washington to “forcefully intervene” on behalf of the Kurdish militia. 

“Our greatest hope is that there will be a tangible outcome, especially from the coalition and the United States, meaning that they will intervene more forcefully in the existing problems than what they are currently doing,” said YPG commander Sipan Hamo.

“In the current situation and the chaos we are living in, the only ones who can offer guarantees are the United States or the coalition. We believe that the responsibility for everything currently happening inside Syria lies with the western countries, and especially the US,”  he added.

Syrian Government troops tear down a Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) (Kurdish women forces) statue in the NE of #Syria.

This is the end of the autonomous Kurdish led region in Syria, which has existed for a decade. The US withdrew its support from the SDF and Kurds. pic.twitter.com/GvzFitQwp5

— Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) January 18, 2026

The Syrian army swept across north and east Syria on Sunday, seizing the country’s largest oil fields, which have been under SDF-US army control for years. Syrian troops also moved into the northern cities of Tabqa and Raqqa. The escalation followed recent battles between the two sides in Aleppo and its countryside. 

On Sunday, Syrian state media announced an immediate US-backed ceasefire deal, after Washington called on both sides to quickly resolve the conflict. 

Key points of the ceasefire agreement include the handover of Deir Ezzor and Raqqa governorates, as well as all border crossings, oil fields, and gas fields in the region to the Syrian government. 

It also reiterates demands for the complete integration of all SDF military and security personnel into the structures of the Syrian Ministries of Defense and Interior on an individual basis, rather than as Kurdish-commanded units. 

SDF chief Mazloum Abdi said on Sunday that he agreed to the deal and withdrew from Raqqa and Deir Ezzor to “stop bloodshed” and avoid a civil war. 

🚨🇸🇾 SYRIA’S KURDS JUST GOT SOLD OUT, AND THE U.S. WATCHED IT HAPPEN

The SDF signed a deal with Damascus that’s basically a surrender. Oil fields, dams, border crossings, ISIS prisons, their semi-autonomous region… all handed over.

Kurdish fighters don’t even integrate as… pic.twitter.com/XVAfC5EiBx

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 19, 2026

Over the weekend, the US called on Damascus to end its assault on Kurdish-held areas, despite also fully backing the Syrian demand for SDF integration. 

The Syrian government and the SDF signed an agreement in March aimed at integrating the Kurdish group into Damascus’s forces. Both sides have been in disagreement about the deal’s implementation – particularly the SDF’s wish to remain under Kurdish command and enter the army as a bloc rather than dissolve and conscript, as Damascus is demanding.

The Kurdish group has also insisted on a decentralized system that would allow it a degree of autonomy in north and east Syria, as has been the case in recent years. 

Reports of ISIS members in Syria now outside prison facilities and close to the Iraqi border, as per Iraqi sources.

🇸🇾🇮🇶 ISIS members in Syria are now outside prison facilities and close to the Iraqi border, as per Iraqi sources.

SDF Statement:

“For the past three days, our forces have been coordinating with the so-called International Coalition to transfer ISIS detainees held at al-Aqatan… pic.twitter.com/Yg3Koynltm

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) January 19, 2026

As a result, clashes have intermittently broken out between government forces and the SDF over the past several months, with both repeatedly accusing each other of obstructing the March agreement.

The SDF was formed by the US-led military coalition in Syria in 2015, and has since helped Washington oversee its occupation of Syrian oil fields. The latest tensions follow a significant reduction in the US military presence in Syria in recent months. Washington has left five of eight major bases in the country.