By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

China continues to nearly single-handedly prop up global coal consumption and new coal-fired power generation, despite being also the world’s leading investor in renewables and battery storage. 

China is set to commission as many as 85 coal-fired power generating units this year, out of a total global of 104 coal projects slated for start-up in 2026, according to data by non-profit Global Energy Monitor (GEM) cited by the Financial Times.

Of all the 63 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power generation expected to begin commercial operations globally this year, 55 GW will be in China, the GEM data showed. 

Last year, China accounted for a massive 78% of all global coal power capacity that began operating. The world’s top coal consumer and importer also makes up a whopping 86% of the total global capacity under construction and expected to be commissioned this year, according to the data analyzed by GEM. 

Apart from China, other Asian economies such as India, Indonesia, and Vietnam continue to add coal-fired capacity. 

GEM data shows India has 24 GW of coal power capacity under construction. India is investing huge sums in renewables and hit its renewable installation target earlier than planned, but it continues to bet on coal. 

Coal-fired power generation and capacity installations in India continue to rise and coal remains a key pillar of India’s electricity mix with about 60% share of total power output. Despite booming renewable capacity additions, India continues to rely on coal to meet most of its power demand as authorities also look to avoid blackouts in cases of severe heat waves.

Globally, China is the leader – by far – in renewable energy investments and capacity installations, but it is also a leader in coal-fired power and continues to be the key driver of record-high global coal demand. 

So, any meaningful reduction of global coal-related energy emissions depends on how China approaches its energy security and affordability dilemma in the coming years.

A 2025 Intelligence Assessment by the government of Denmark highlights the long term Russian and Chinese ‘threat’ in Arctic waters, at a moment Greenland officials have rejected the US assertion that the large resource-rich island and its waters are being gradually influenced and taken over by the Russia/China ‘menace’.

Trump has recently stated, “We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.”

Greenlanders meanwhile are by and large rejecting this, though perhaps Trump was using hyperbole in a “see Alaska from my house” Sarah Palin moment.

While Trump has already proven he often first sets his interventionist policy and agenda, and then goes looking for a justification in a post hoc fallacy kind of way (a longstanding tradition among pretty much all American presidents, sadly), the Danish intelligence report does seem to add general weight to Trump’s arguments.

For a sampling of official quotes from the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) – Intelligence Outlook 2025, complied by Conservative pundit Nick Solheim:

“In recent years, the United States has significantly increased its security policy focus on the Arctic, while Russia continues its military build-up, and China continues to develop its capacity to operate both submarines and surface vessels in the region.” (p. 30)

“Russia remains the strongest military power in the Arctic but sees itself as being challenged by the West. As a result, Russia will increasingly assert its interests through a more confrontational approach, both politically and militarily.” (p. 30)

“Most of Russia’s nuclear-armed submarines are stationed in the Arctic. They form a key component of Russia’s plan to deter the United States from attacking, providing Russia with the capability to launch a potential retaliatory nuclear strike.” (p. 31)

“The United States’ assessment of the scale and nature of future Chinese military activity in the Arctic is a key factor shaping its engagement in the region. Any Chinese military activity in the Arctic – particularly in proximity to US territory – would be regarded as a serious concern.” (p. 31)

“China aims to develop the capacity for independent military operations in the Arctic. Chinese activities are primarily concentrated in the waters north of the Bering Strait, extending towards the North Pole.” (p. 35)

“China’s long-term goal is to deploy missile submarines beneath the ice, thereby attaining the same nuclear second-strike capability as Russia and the United States.” (p. 36)

“Although Chinese companies have shown interest in investing in Greenland, this has so far not produced tangible results. Nevertheless, China’s long-term Arctic interests include Greenland, and it is expected to continue pursuing cooperation with Greenland, particularly in research but also in commercial ventures.” (p. 36)

“Despite the considerable geographical distance, Russia periodically deploys submarines, surface vessels and aircraft near both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, as well as throughout the waters between them.” (p. 38)

“In addition, Russia employs civilian vessels operating in the area to carry out tasks such as surveillance on behalf of the Russian state.” (p. 38)

“For Russia, the waters between Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom – the so-called GIUK Gap – form the main maritime gateway to and from the Arctic. Thus, the GIUK Gap is vital for Russia in the event of an armed conflict with NATO.” (p. 35)

“In such a conflict, Russia would seek to disrupt the supply lines between the United States and Europe by deploying attack submarines capable of transiting the GIUK Gap undetected.” (p. 35)

But it should be clear there’s also a convenient invoke the Moscow/Beijing bogeyman for when it suits your purpose kind of thing at play here…

Deterrence as usual- this is less a threat asessment than a review of the militarily un-alarming by commercially ominous status quo. You might as wll have quoted FA & The Economist.

— Russell Seitz (@RussellSeitz) January 13, 2026

BREAKING: The odds of the U.S. acquiring Greenland hit 25%, as the Trump admin floats offer valuing Greenland at over $10 million per resident. pic.twitter.com/EGgRQqrFww

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) January 14, 2026

The ‘fact checkers’ have been quick to push back, for example in this fresh Associated Press article: “Experts have repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s claims of Chinese and Russian military forces lurking off Greenland’s coastline. Experts say Russia instead operates in the Barents Sea, off the Scandinavian coast, and both China and Russia have a presence in the Bering Sea south of Alaska.”

It remains that the “Arctic” is a big, big place – and pretty much every great power with significant maritime capability patrols it as international waters. Whether Greenland is truly under threat or not from Russia and China is another matter.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

It might be a negotiating tactic to pressure Russia into concessions on its maximalist goals in the conflict as a quid pro quo for not reprioritizing Russia’s containment over China’s by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and thus reducing the odds that they’ll actually deploy there.

France and the UK recently committed to deploying troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire as part of their latest proposed security guarantees to that country, the principle of which was praised for the first time ever by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the US’ Special Envoys for talks with Russia. The Paris Declaration that France and the UK signed also pledged their support for “Participation in a proposed US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism”. All of this certainly raises concern in Russia.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared last February during his speech at NATO HQ that his country won’t consider member states’ troops in Ukraine to be covered by Article 5 and won’t deploy any of its own there either as part of any security guarantee. In light of the Paris Declaration, however, some in Russia might wonder whether the US is soon planning to reverse both policies to protect its NATO allies’ troops in Ukraine upon their deployment and deploy its own there too for monitoring a ceasefire.

Putin himself warned as recently as last September that Russia would deem Western troops in Ukraine “legitimate targets for destruction.” It’s therefore easy to see how their deployment en masse, unlike the minor unofficial French and UK troop presence in Odessa that Russian spies confirmed later that same month, could spiral out of control into World War III if Russia targets their forces. That might not happen, though, if the US’ support for the latest security guarantees is just a negotiating tactic (at least for now).

To explain, Trump 2.0 could have continued pumping Ukraine with weapons for free and never initiated talks with Russia if it wasn’t sincere about ending the conflict, all while gradually ramping up escalations against Russia as part of a “boiling the frog” approach for normalizing the path to World War III.

Abstaining from those courses of action only to suddenly engage in the unprecedented escalation of extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and even sending its own is possible but unlikely.

The “Trump Doctrine”, which readers can learn more about here, relegates Russia as a junior partner in a US-led world order. All that the US wants is to deny China access to more of Russia’s resources, which it requires for maintaining its growth and thus its superpower trajectory, by massively investing in some deposits as an incentive for compromising on its security-related goals in Ukraine and then outbidding China for access to others in the future. This quid pro quo, however, remains unacceptable to Putin.

Even if his position doesn’t change and the conflict continues, achieving the above goal vis-à-vis Russia might become increasingly less important for the US if it soon obtains control over Iran’s, Nigeria’s, and other major BRI countries’ resources after its astounding success in Venezuela. In that event, it’s difficult to imagine Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, whose “Strategy of Denial” is at the center of the “Trump Doctrine”, prioritizing the Russian front of the New Cold War over the Chinese one.

After all, the aforesaid complementary policies include radically ramped-up multilateral military pressure upon China in parallel with denying it access to the resources (and markets) that it requires, which doubling down on the Ukrainian Conflict would detract from. If the non-military aspects of Colby’s “Strategy of Denial” are advanced in major BRI countries and among US partners in the Indo-Pacific, the EU, and the Gulf, then the cost of stubbornly trying to advance this with Russia wouldn’t be justified.

Accordingly, the US would be less likely to extend Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and naturally wouldn’t deploy its own there either in that scenario, instead possibly suggesting a compromise whereby its allies would concentrate their troops in Poland and Romania instead while the US might monitor a ceasefire via remote means like satellites and drones. This proposed compromise would be necessitated by circumstances, but the context likely wouldn’t be told to the Russians.

Rather, it could be presented as a pragmatic compromise for Russia scaling back its goals, particularly those related to demilitarization and territory. Putin is reluctant to do that, however, but he also might not want to risk upsetting the current arrangement within the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) whereby containing China now takes priority over containing Russia like could happen if he rejects a compromise and/or presses forward after Donbass.

Given the US’ eagerness to outsource Russia’s containment in Europe to the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” in partnership with Germany after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, which would enable the US to fully prioritize China’s containment, Russia’s post-conflict security situation might relatively improve (albeit not to the extent envisaged when the special operation began) so long as it agrees to a compromise. This opportunity of sorts could be lost if Russia continues pursuing its maximalist goals.

Five questions therefore arise whose answers will determine what might come next:

1. How serious is the US about extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and possibly deploying its own there too even at the expense of derailing plans to more muscularly contain China?

2. Does Putin believe that it’s serious or does he think that it’s bluffing? How might he react based on each assessment and what factors could change how he views its intentions?

3. What’s the likelihood of the US’ “deep state” dynamics reverting from prioritizing China’s containment to Russia’s if Putin rejects a compromise and/or presses forward after Donbass?

4. How might the US’ success or lack thereof in denying China access to other states’ resources (and markets) just like it did Venezuela’s affect the above as well as its flexibility in compromising with Russia?

5. To what extent might Putin compromise on his maximalist goals? Could he be persuaded to accept NATO troops in Ukraine after the conflict ends if the US doesn’t extend Article 5 to them?

There are more or less two ways for Putin to look at everything:

1. The US’ plans to more muscularly contain China will remain its priority, especially if it succeeds in denying China access to more energy and markets, so Russia can safely reject a compromise in favor of retaining its maximalist goals and pressing forward after Donbass without worrying that the US will redouble its military support for Ukraine and/or provoke a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine who might then unilaterally deploy there alongside its own.

2. The US’ “deep state” dynamics remain fluid so it’s possible that rejecting a compromise and then pressing forward after Donbass could be manipulated by Russia’s enemies to persuade Trump to reprioritize its containment over China’s, which could greatly raise the chances of the US redoubling its military support for Ukraine and/or provoking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine who might then unilaterally deploy there alongside its own.

As for the US, it prefers a swift political end to the conflict so as to more muscularly contain China afterwards but not entirely on Russia’s terms, so it’ll likely apply more secondary sanctions upon Russia’s partners in pursuit of that if Putin rejects a compromise. If there’s a major Russian breakthrough, it might even threaten to extend Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine if Russia doesn’t stop and then order their deployment to partition Ukraine if it still doesn’t at the risk of World War III if they’re attacked.

This approach could backfire if China and Russia become more dependent on each other due to the US denying the first access to more resources and the second its access to more of the markets in which it sells its resources (like India if there’s more secondary sanctions pressure and India then replaces Russian oil with Venezuelan as part of a deal). China could then gain access to Russia’s entire resource base on the cheap while Russia would receive the financing required for indefinitely perpetuating the conflict.

Such unprecedented mutual dependence on one another could backfire on them too, however, if it breeds resentment among one and/or if the US abruptly makes one of them a much better offer than before on the condition that they dump the other and thus indirectly help the US strategically defeat them. To be clear, Putin and Xi have repeatedly reaffirmed how deeply they trust one another so this dark scenario is unlikely, but it shouldn’t be casually dismissed either since the possibility still exists.

Circling back to the subject of the US supporting European security guarantees to Ukraine for the first time ever, this is arguably just a negotiating tactic at this stage, but it also signals (whether sincerely or not) that the US’ “deep state” isn’t solidly behind prioritizing China’s containment and could thus revert to prioritizing Russia’s if Putin rejects a compromise and/or presses forward after Donbass.

That’s all that can be assessed for now given the complexity of the global systemic transition at its latest stage.

French President Emmanuel Macron while addressing French military personnel at the Istres airbase in the south of the country on Thursday said that Europe needs its own answer to Russia’s cutting edge hypersonic arsenal.

In the remarks he specifically invoked Russia’s hypersonic ‘Oreshnik’ missile, which has been launched on Ukraine at least two known times – one just a week ago – and is capable of reaching speeds exceeding Mach 10.

Macron made clear that France needs its own type of Oreshnik missile: “We must also acquire such weapons, capable of changing the situation in the short term,” the president said in a speech broadcast on the Elysee Palace’s page on X.

Macron said this is crucial while acknowledging that “France is within the range of the ‘Oreshnik'”. He explained:

“We’ve witnessed the second launch of the Russian long-range missile Oreshnik. We Europeans must acquire these new weapons, capable of changing the balance of power, if we want to remain credible.”

Russian state media observed that Macron appeared “scared” of Russia’s hypersonic capabilities. 

And he vowed, “We will continue the work we began with the Europeans to develop ultra-long-range weapons. This is an initiative we launched.”

The NY Times has called it a warning delivered to Europe at Mach 10: “The message came screaming through the skies at 8,000 miles per hour. Early Friday morning [Jan.9], for just the second time since its all-out invasion of Ukraine, Russia fired a nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile — a hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic weapon that until recently was banned under international treaty,” the publication wrote.

2025 was a big year for Moscow showcasing its military might and tech. As we reviewed earlier, in a matter of less than a year (after years prior in design and development), Russian scientific know-how came up with four bangers:

1. Oreshnik: hypersonic missile, already tested in the Ukraine battleground.

2. Burevestnik: Or “Stormbringer”, with that nice Deep Purple ring. Nuclear cruise missile with unlimited range.

3. Poseidon: nuclear-powered torpedo, capable of loitering underwater, undetected, for unlimited time; then, at a command, strikes enemy coasts with a nuclear payload, provoking a radioactive tsunami. Largely exceeds the destructive power of the Sarmat, Russia’s largest ICBM.

4. Khabarovsk: nuclear sub. Call him The Messenger of Doom: capable of delivering at least 6 Doomsday-enabling Poseidons.

Oreshnik is such a nothingburger that Macron says France needs an equivalent ASAP while looking like this. https://t.co/DZxj3YN3KY

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) January 15, 2026

Earlier this month and into last, Russia made clear it would be stationing Oreshnik missiles inside the territory of the ‘Union State’ of Belarus, and this was seen as a reaction to several trends: increased long-range drone attacks on Russia out of Ukraine, and the US increasingly moving against Russia-linked tankers on the high seas.

Authored by Rick Fisher via The Epoch Times,

While President Donald Trump’s ambition to control Denmark’s massive territory of Greenland has many strategic merits, it is also politically problematic and risks wasting scarce political capital that could be directed toward a far greater prize.

A far more decisive use of the administration’s three years of limited political capital would be to assemble a Greenland-to-Patagonia defense axis of cooperation that secures the Western Hemisphere from Russian and Chinese missile attack for generations to come.

The military-strategic value of Greenland to the defense of the United States—especially to the future of Trump’s “Golden Dome” national and allied missile defense program, as well as preventing Russia–China control of the Arctic—is undeniable.

When viewed from a Polar perspective of the Earth, Greenland offers an ideal location for long-range ground-based radar and ground-based missile interceptors to shoot down Russian and even some Chinese nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) before they cross the North Pole and enter Canadian and U.S. territory.

So far, both Denmark and the government of Greenland are not willing to sell their territory to the United States, while a 1951 U.S.–Denmark defense agreement grants the United States broad rights for defense-related construction.

Furthermore, the former Thule Air Base, now the U.S. Pituffik Space Base, on Greenland already provides critical warning of a Russian missile attack and helps enable U.S. superiority in space.

Pressing the issue risks a crisis.

Should it force the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to expel Washington, how long before Russia is tempted to escalate its aggression against Ukraine and then against Poland and the Baltic states?

Also possible would be an immediate Europe–Russia condominium that Russia and China would exploit by shifting significant Russian forces to support a Chinese attack on Taiwan, including the deployment of more Russian and Chinese forces to threaten key U.S. bases in Alaska, Seattle, and along the U.S. West Coast.

A far more productive use of U.S. political capital would be to enlist key NATO members, starting with Denmark and the UK, to expand the scope of the Golden Dome national missile defense by making Greenland part of a hemispheric defense network and engaging the major democracies of Patagonia—Argentina and Chile—to build early-warning and missile-interceptor bases on their territories to defend against Chinese missiles with South Polar trajectories.

In May 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released a rare future estimate of Chinese and Russian nuclear missile threats against the United States, underscoring the need for Trump’s Golden Dome initiative.

DIA predicted that by 2035, China would have 60 Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems (FOBS) or nuclear missiles that achieve orbital altitude to exploit flight trajectories over the South Pole, in the expectation that southern approaches to U.S. targets will be less defended.

But there is a more profound future Chinese missile threat that would justify investment in a hemispheric missile defense capability, especially one that would justify the radar and missile reach attainable from Patagonian bases.

This is the quickly looming threat of weaponized Chinese reusable space launch vehicles (SLVs), now under development by about 15 Chinese state-owned and “commercial” SLV companies.

What these companies build and what they do is ultimately controlled by the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The commission controls the People’s Liberation Army’s Aerospace Force, which, in turn, controls all Chinese space activities.

A Long March-2F carrier rocket, carrying the Shenzhou-20 spacecraft and a crew of three astronauts, lifts off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in the Gobi desert, in northwest China, on April 24, 2025. Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images

In December 2025, two Chinese SLV companies—LandSpace (commercial) and the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (state-owned)—tested their first reusable first-stage SLVs; both failed to recover for reuse, but further tests are expected this year.

In 2026, Chinese sources indicate that up to eight additional “commercial” Chinese SLV companies may begin testing reusable SLVs.

In addition, the PLA could order these Chinese SLV companies to develop SLV second stages capable of carrying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) nuclear warheads over Antarctica and into Latin America to attack the United States.

At least two Chinese SLV companies intend to develop first-stage reusable SLVs nearly as large as the U.S. SpaceX Corporation’s Starship—that could put payloads as large as 100 tons into Low Earth Orbit, or potentially very large space combat satellites armed with lasers or equipped to drop warheads.

Another threat is that the PLA will have access to enough reusable SLVs to conduct massive intercontinental strikes with non-nuclear missile warheads and Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) against the United States, NATO member countries, and other U.S. allies—a destabilizing prospect because China would be more tempted to use these weapons with a lower risk of nuclear retaliation.

It is in the interest of the defense of the United States and Europe that China not be able to exploit South Pole trajectory nuclear attack routes, just as it is in the interest of all Latin American states that Chinese nuclear or non-nuclear attack payloads not fly over or near their territories.

This highlights the need to engage Chile and Argentina to consider cooperation in building powerful long-range early warning radar and, if possible, missile defense bases on their territories that provide maximum coverage of potential Chinese missile routes over the east and west sides of Latin America.

It would also be advantageous to engage the UK on the construction of early warning systems and, if possible, missile defense sites in the Falkland Islands, which would provide coverage over a larger area of the South Atlantic and even Southern Africa.

On Jan. 9, China, Russia, and Iran began a third joint naval exercise with South Africa, an activity likely funded by China. Iran, in the midst of a serious economic and political crisis, was still able to send its largest warship.

The CCP has ambitions to expand its space cooperation in Africa, potentially building bases for Chinese reusable SLV companies that would have to obey military orders from the CCP and the PLA.

Initially, it is possible to conceive of the United States building large missile defense ships that could, with agreement, be stationed in Chilean, Argentine, and Falkland Islands ports, avoiding the requirement to build bases on their territories.

But even a minimal presence approach should also consider how to include participation from the military forces of at least Chile, Argentina, and the UK to jointly staff prospective missile defense facilities.

This, in turn, could open new opportunities for defense and space cooperation—all three are already signatories to the Artemis Accords, which promote transparent and peaceful behavior on the moon.

The prospect of greater “Patagonian” defense cooperation also offers the UK and Argentina opportunities to build greater confidence, which can facilitate economic cooperation across the greater Falklands area.

There is also greater hemispheric and U.S. interest in promoting a Falklands resolution process, inasmuch as China spent most of the last 15 years trying to sell leftist Peronist regimes in Argentina the weapons they would need to start a second Falklands War.

Promoting a hemispheric defense against current and future Chinese missile threats—and denying China trouble-making opportunities such as promoting a second Falklands War—can go far in dissuading Latin American states from granting the CCP and PLA any further access detrimental to hemispheric security.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

Since the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the U.S. dollar has dominated global finance as the chief reserve currency. It’s used in international trade, sovereign lending, and central bank reserves.

This dominance allows the United States to borrow cheaply and wield great financial leverage globally.

Recent actions by the Trump administration, sometimes labeled a neo-Monroe Doctrine for its assertive posture toward perceived rivals, can be understood through the lens of preserving dollar supremacy against challenges from rising powers like China and Russia.

The Rise of De-dollarization

Though the dollar remains dominant, its grip has been weakening over decades. According to IMF and central bank data, the dollar’s share of global foreign-exchange reserves has fallen from over 70 percent in 2000 to under 60 percent in recent years; this reflects broader moves by countries to diversify away from U.S. currency dependence. At the same time, China’s share has increased substantially.

Meanwhile, states are increasingly engaging in de-dollarization, which means reducing the use of the dollar in international trade and reserves. This trend is driven in part by a desire to decrease exposure to U.S. monetary policy and sanctions, including increased tariffs and unilateral economic measures against trading partners and adversaries.

BRICS: Geopolitics, Gold, and a Potential Currency Challenge

The group of emerging economies known as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) has been the focal point of rivalry to dollar hegemony. At various summits, the idea of a BRICS currency or common alternative currency, which have included the notion of backing it with gold as a means of anchoring value and appealing to nations wary of fiat currencies that, by definition, have no gold backing their value, but rather, convention, oil trade flows, and the global economic and military dominance of the United States.

While Kremlin officials have denied any imminent creation of a unified currency to dethrone the dollar, proposals for trade in non-dollar currencies and discussion of alternative settlement systems persist. The historical context of the gold standard and its connection to confidence in currencies is a big part of these discussions.

Trump’s Neo-Monroe Doctrine: Tariffs as Dollar Defense

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has made defense of the dollar a central part his foreign-economic policy. He has threatened 100 percent tariffs on BRICS nations or any country that backs a currency to replace the dollar in international trade. Clearly, the administration views dollar dominance as non-negotiable.

By linking trade access to acceptance of the dollar’s role, the administration is attempting to reinforce global reliance on U.S. currency for trade settlement and reserves. This strategy also links his broader tariffs and industrial policy agendas to maintaining dollar dominance in the world.

Dollar Supremacy, Oil, and US Strategic Power

The dollar’s special status has been reinforced historically by its role in oil markets known as the so-called petrodollar system. Because oil has been priced and traded primarily in dollars, global demand for U.S. currency has been supported by energy trade flows. The Trump administration’s recent strategic moves in oil-rich regions such as Venezuela have been interpreted by some analysts as efforts to bolster the petrodollar system and keep key energy resources within dollar-centric markets.

This makes sense from a currency preservation perspective. Although the United States has become a major producer and exporter of oil in its own right, efforts to maintain dollar pricing in energy markets remain crucial to preserving demand for the currency.

Trade, Savings, Innovation, and the Dollar’s Role

The dollar’s dominance provides huge benefits for the world as well as the United States. It reduces transaction costs for U.S. exporters and importers and reinforces the U.S. role in global value chains, but it also simplifies trade invoicing and settlement between other nations with less stable currencies. Its status as the primary reserve currency also underpins the liquidity and depth of U.S. capital markets, enabling inexpensive borrowing that fuels investment in technology and innovation. The dollar in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds has also been a safe haven for long term investing and savings for much of the world.

Dollar dominance also helps with American leadership in AI, computing, and finance, since dollar-denominated trade and financial infrastructure allow those to scale globally. A shift away from the dollar could fragment global capital flows and weaken the financing mechanisms that have historically supported U.S. technological leadership.

Military Power and Financial Leverage

Finally, the dollar’s status facilitates U.S. military power by making it easier to finance defense spending and sustain global force projection. If the dollar’s dominance erodes, financing a global military footprint becomes more expensive and complex, diminishing America’s strategic reach, to say the least. Analysts argue that preserving the dollar is therefore as much a defense priority as a financial one.

Without it, competing nations or groups of nations would rush in to fill the vacuum, leading to global instability.

Dollar and US Supremacy at Core of Neo-Monroe Doctrine

Viewed in this light, what some describe as Trump’s neo-Monroe Doctrine reflects not merely an ideological reassertion of hemispheric influence, but a strategic effort to defend U.S. dollar supremacy. With BRICS nations exploring alternatives, including proposals for a gold-linked settlement unit, and de-dollarization pressures growing, Washington faces mounting economic and geopolitical challenges. These factors help explain the administration’s aggressive stance on tariffs, trade, and strategic energy markets.

The survival of dollar dominance is not just about finance; it’s about maintaining a structural position that enables U.S. influence in global affairs—trade, sanctions, capital markets, and defense alike. As long as potential alternatives loom, U.S. policy will likely continue to frame the dollar as not just an economic asset, but a linchpin of national security and global leadership.

That is why the Venezuela operation is fundamentally about preserving a financial architecture that underpins U.S. economic and military power.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Back in August, when the American population was just waking up to the dire consequences the exponentially growing army of data centers spawned across the country was having on residential electricity bills, we said that the chart of US CPI would soon become the most popular (not in a good way) chart in the financial realm.

In one year, this will be the most popular chart on this site pic.twitter.com/h93gWXMoNL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 11, 2025

One month later we added that it was only a matter of time before Trump, realizing that soaring electricity costs would almost certainly cost Republicans the midterms, would enforce price caps.

100% wrong. Trump is about to put a cap on power price and will crush utilities. https://t.co/WjiZe8MEnM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 29, 2025

Turns out we were right.

And while Trump obviously can not pull a communist rabbit out of his hat, and centrally plan the entire US power grid, what he can do is precisely what he is about to announce. 

According to Bloomberg, Trump and the governors of several US Northeastern states agreed to push for an emergency wholesale electricity auction that would compel technology companies to effectively fund new power plants, effectively putting a cap for residential power prices at the expense of hyperscalers and data centers. Which, come to think of it, we also proposed back in October.

The data centers and AI giants are making billions as they drain the power grid dry and get indirect consumer subsidies in the form of 100% bill increases. It’s time they allocate some of trillions in circle jerk funds to lowering electricity costs for everyone else

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 15, 2025

The unprecedented plan, set to be announced Friday morning, seeks to address growing tensions over how the nation can supply electricity to power-hungry data centers, critical to help win the global AI race against China, without simultaneously hiking utility bills for homes and businesses.

The Trump administration and some US governors plan to direct grid operator PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest regional power grid in the US serving 67 million customers primarily in the Northeast, to hold an auction for tech companies to bid on 15-year contracts for new electricity generation capacity.

If the auction proceeds as envisaged, tech giants would pay for power over the duration of the contracts, whether they use the electricity or not, providing secure revenues for years in a market notorious for price volatility and generator bankruptcies.

The auction would deliver contracts supporting the construction of some $15 billion worth of new power plants, said a White House official granted anonymity to detail the approach. 

Naturally, since this plan is being introduced under duress, representatives of PJM won’t be in attendance when the plan is laid out Friday according to Bloomberg. 

“We don’t have a lot to say on this,” PJM spokesman Jeffrey Shields said by email. “We were not invited to the event they are apparently having tomorrow and we will not be there.”

The push by the administration and the governors — which will come in the form of a non-binding “statement of principles” signed by Trump’s National Energy Dominance Council and the governors of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and other states — responds to growing concern about power demand far outpacing supply in the region managed by PJM.

PJM is already home to the world’s biggest concentration of data centers, in northern Virginia. It expects peak demand across its system to jump 17% by 2030 from this year’s high. Furthermore, as we noted two months ago, PJM is one of the 8 (out of 13) regional power markets that are already below critical spare capacity levels.

“eight out of the 13 US regional power markets are already at or below critical spare capacity levels.” – Goldman https://t.co/YYAGUukfwR pic.twitter.com/eU4XPFAMrp

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 23, 2025

Trump has repeatedly described power plants being built alongside data centers, and on Monday, he doubled down on the idea, insisting in a social media post that the big technology companies that construct data centers must “pay their own way.”

“I never want Americans to pay higher Electricity bills because of Data Centers,” Trump wrote in his post, and now he will try to make that a reality.

As we have warned repeatedly in the past year, cost-of-living concerns – especially when it comes to staples like electricity – are already weighing heavily on Republicans’ bid to maintain control of the House and Senate in this November’s congressional elections. While Trump has stressed the plummeting cost of oil and gasoline since he took office last January, electricity prices have climbed due to rising demand, and there’s a building backlash against data centers that are fueling the surge… which – you guessed it – we warned about too.

between exploding electricity bills and lack of jobs for grads, a new luddite revolution is coming – they will be burning down data centers within a year

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 25, 2025

The average US retail price for electricity gained 7.4% in September to a record 18.07 cents per kilowatt-hour, the biggest gain since December 2023. Residential prices have jumped even higher, rising by 10.5% between January and August 2025, marking one of the largest increases in more than a decade, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association.

Friday’s action is being cast as a one-time emergency intervention into the PJM market, necessary because of the rapid rise in electricity prices in the Mid-Atlantic region. The Trump administration and governors will urge the grid operator to return to market fundamentals after the acute problem is addressed, the White House official said.

The administration’s prescription for PJM is what’s known as a reliability backstop auction — something the grid operator already envisioned in the wake of repeated failed sales. But the administration and governors’ plan would mean holding the emergency auction right away after one clear failure – with unusual terms meant to foster a wave of rapid, new construction and the only bidders being data center owners and operators.

While PJM already holds auctions procuring electricity supplies, those are 12-month periods. In the auction encouraged by Trump and the governors for 15-year contracts, start-up times for the new power plants are likely to be staggered. The White House and governors are urging PJM to hold the special one-time auction by the end of September.

“It sounds like a significant improvement and a logical extension of bring-your-own new generation,” Joe Bowring, president of PJM’ s independent watchdog Monitoring Analytics LLC, said in a telephone interview. Almost as if the Trump admin read something else we wrote…

To prevent skyrocketing electric bills, every state has to follow the Texas example: each data center must have its own “behind the meter” onsite power generation.

“We believe data centers should pay for the full cost of their power,” Dominion Energy spokesperson Aaron Ruby… https://t.co/0u1owTeAs8 pic.twitter.com/8W421s3rzV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 23, 2025

“While a ‘statement of principles’ doesn’t appear to include a legal mandate for PJM to act, pressure from the Trump administration and a bipartisan coalition of PJM states is very likely to motivate a considerable response” from the grid operator, said Timothy Fox, an analyst with the research firm ClearView Energy Partners.

This plan also could fast track the development of natural gas generation and potentially nuclear plants by guaranteeing revenues – and profits – specifically to support data campuses needed to deploy artificial intelligence. The approach could benefit larger tech companies at the expense of smaller firms, as well as companies involved in advanced energy development such as Small and Modular Nuclear Reactors. 

Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. are less exposed to electricity price fluctuations since they can pass those costs on to customers, said Gil Luria, analyst at DA Davidson & Co. However, dozens of smaller companies, including Nebius and CoreWeave that offer artificial intelligence infrastructure to cloud-computing companies on multi-year contracts, could be more exposed to big price swings since they are on the hook to absorb higher electricity costs, he said.

“If they have to pay more for electricity, their margins will get squeezed,” Luria said.

Trump’s initiative will deliver another benefit: the effort has the potential to help PJM tackle a significant roadblock: improving the accuracy of its forecasts for demand growth. With tech giants paying for the power plants they need, the approach could weed out speculative projects that have skewed demand growth projections, something we discussed earlier.

As Bloomberg notes, the involvement of Democratic governors – including Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro and Maryland’s Wes Moore – is seen by the Trump administration as helping to anchor the effort, since state policies have driven recent changes in the power mix, including the retirement of coal and gas plants. The initiative is also seen aiding hyperscalers by ensuring reliable power supply, and it could be a model for other parts of the country, the White House official said.

Governors are committing to implement and assign these costs to the data centers, ensuring the price of these new power plants doesn’t land on the average household, the White House official said.

PJM’s auctions have emerged as a political flashpoint in the national debate about affordability after prices reached record levels in 2024. Although Pennsylvania’s Shapiro struck a deal with PJM to cap prices in future auctions, costs hit new highs in two subsequent sales. In fact, had it not been for an implicit cap in the latest auction, residential prices would have been 60% higher (see “Inside The PJM Auction Report, Something Crazy: Without Price Controls, Electricity Bills Would Explode“.) 

The most recent auction, in December, also fell 6.6 gigawatts short of supplies, which PJM blamed on the frenzy to build massive data centers. PJM is now being asked to extend the price cap for auctions held through this year, the White House official said.

While the statement of principles being signed Friday isn’t a binding legal document, administration officials have discussed the plan with a host of stakeholders, from PJM executives and state officials, to utilities, power-plant developers, Wall Street and the hyperscalers building these data centers, the official said.

By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive

The PJM Interconnection scaled back its load growth forecast through 2032 compared to last year’s estimates, but the largest U.S. grid operator expects electric demand to surge past those expectations through the next decade, according to an annual report released Wednesday. PJM expects its summer peak load will grow by 3.6% a year to about 222 GW by 2036, up from its previous 3.1% forecast. The increase totals about 65.7 GW over the next 10 years.

In a change that affects PJM’s upcoming capacity auction, the grid cut its peak demand forecast for the summer of 2028 by 4.4 GW, or 2.6%. It also lowered its forecast for the summer of 2027 by about 4 GW, reducing a reserve margin shortfall for that capacity year to about 2.6 GW.

PJM’s reduced near-term load forecast was driven by updates to electric vehicle and economic forecasts and stricter vetting of planned data centers and large loads, according to the grid operator. 

Those changes reduced PJM’s peak load forecast for this summer by 0.7% from large loads, 0.5% from economic activity and 0.1% from EVs compared to the last long-term load forecast report, PJM said in a press release.

PJM uses its annual load forecast for transmission planning and to help determine how much capacity it should buy in its capacity auctions. PJM’s next base capacity auction, for the 2028/29 delivery year, is set to start June 30.

PJM’s downward revisions to its load forecast don’t indicate weakening demand for electricity, according to Jefferies equity analysts.

“We read the load revisions as reflective of pushouts/delays, NOT weakness in demand,” they said in a note Wednesday. “While we expect a 3-4 GW improvement in shortfall for [the] next two auctions, [the] market will still fall short — an accelerated backstop procurement is the way to go.”

Even if PJM secures an additional 10 GW in a procurement process, capacity prices will “comfortably clear” at the maximum price of about $530/MW-day in PJM’s next two capacity auctions, the analysts said.

Compared to last year’s forecast, PJM increased its 2031 summer peak load forecast for the Dayton Power and Light zone by 27%, or 1 GW, the Commonwealth Edison zone by 16.5%, or 3.7 GW, and the PECO Energy zone by 5.1%, or 0.5 GW.

In the same year, it cut its forecast for the American Electric Power zone by 10.4%, or 3.7 GW, the American Transmission Systems Inc. zone by 8.1%, or 1.2 GW, and the Pennsylvania Electric zone by 6.1%, or 0.2 GW.

The PJM zones with the strongest 10-year average annual summer peak growth forecasts are: PPL Electric at 6.4% (up from 5.9% last year); Dominion at 5.4% (down from 6.3%); AEP at 5.3% (down from 5.5%); DPL at 5.2% (up from 1.2%); and ComEd at 3.9% (up from 1.6%), according to PJM’s report.

After PJM stakeholders failed to agree last year on reforming the grid operator’s processes for adding large loads to its system, PJM’s board is expected to “outline its determination of a path forward on the [Critical Issue Fast Path] issues in the next few weeks,” PJM said in the news release.

Reforms may include changes to PJM’s process for considering large load forecasts.

In a move that will further inflame already rising tensions over Greenland, the first European troops have quietly begun arriving on the island following President Trump’s repeated provocative declarations on the need for Washington to take control of the territory, according to Germany’s Bild.

The newspaper reports that a Danish military transport aircraft landed overnight in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, carrying Danish soldiers alongside members of the French armed forces.

Soon on the first plane’s heels, another Danish Hercules aircraft touched down at Kangerlussuaq in western Greenland. Both planes reportedly flew with their transponders switched off – a detail unlikely to go unnoticed in an already tense Arctic standoff.

The initial German contingent of 13 soldiers arrived in Nuuk on Thursday morning. Additionally the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden are also set to participate in the deployment.

While all of these countries are NATO members, the operation is being coordinated directly from Copenhagen rather than through NATO channels, underscoring the political sensitivity of the move.

Here’s how Bild describes it, according to machine translation:

Officially, it is NATO countries from Europe that are expanding their presence in Greenland. However, according to information obtained by BILD, the operation is being coordinated from Copenhagen – and NOT through NATO structures.

The reason: The Nordic states in NATO – including Greenland – are under the command of NATO headquarters in Norfolk, USA. The operation is intended to proceed without US involvement. In Germany, the Ministry of Defense and, in a leading role, the Federal Chancellery are involved.

The newspaper notes that the first troops were dispatched only after talks between Danish and Greenlandic officials and the United States collapsed Wednesday at the White House, despite agreements to establish a joint ‘working group’.

Greenland remains an autonomous territory of Denmark, but the resource-rich island has long sat at the center of US strategic planning, and there are US Air Force and Space Forces bases and monitoring sites located there – some in very extreme climates.

Troops from Denmark and other European countries are arriving in Greenland to help boost the territory’s security after a meeting between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials ended without resolving “fundamental disagreements” over the strategically critical Arctic island. pic.twitter.com/briR9g0JYe

— DW News (@dwnews) January 15, 2026

One revealing line outside the White House Wednesday came from Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen who said it remains “clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland” – but that dialogue has not been totally abandoned.

* * *

The unraveling of NATO? French President Macron vows further “land, air & sea assets” in the coming days.

Denmark calls. Europe answers.

European troops have arrived in Greenland.
Not to escalate tensions — but to defend sovereignty, deter intimidation, and send a clear political message.

👉 Greenland is not for sale.
👉 Denmark is not alone.
👉 Europe stands together. pic.twitter.com/XFvEHYOCrF

— European Federalists (@federalists) January 15, 2026

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

A deputy inspector general revealed in a Jan. 14 Senate hearing that tens of thousands of Afghan refugees could not provide key identification when entering the United States through a Biden-era parole program.

Additionally, lawmakers revealed that more than 50 individuals in the United States with confirmed or suspected terrorist ties were allowed into the country under the same program. The joint hearing was held with the Senate Border Security and Immigration and Crime and Counterterrorism subcommittees, which spiraled into arguments between Republican and Democratic lawmakers over whether vetting or counterterrorism is to blame.

Under Operation Allies Welcome, a 2021 initiative under President Joe Biden to resettle Afghans in the wake of what was widely called a botched U.S. military withdrawal from the Middle Eastern country, roughly 76,000 evacuees were let into the United States. The operation was meant to help Afghan allies who helped American forces and faced a serious threat from the Taliban because of that employment.

“There was missing information from the [Operation Allies Welcome] population, including first, last names, and date of birth,” Deputy Inspector General Craig Adelman for the office of audits in Homeland Security said.

“There was about 11,000 to 12,000 that did not know their date of birth.”

Although Afghan refugees were asked to provide identification, Adelman testified that about 36,000 could not provide any form of it.

When asked if the Department of Homeland Security systematically interviewed or conducted mental health screenings of evacuees before they were allowed into the United States, Adelman simply replied “no” and “not that I’m aware of.”

The hearing was called “Biden’s Afghan Parolee Program – A Trojan Horse with Flawed Vetting and Deadly Consequences.”

Democrats said this title was misleading and demonized thousands of Afghan individuals.

Republicans said the hearing was appropriately named, and above all else, the safety of Americans should be prioritized over refugee programs. This wasn’t taken into consideration during Operation Allies Welcome, the GOP senators said.

“We have no idea of their potential terrorist connections, and in many cases, we now have no idea where they are or what they’re doing, who they’re connected with, or what they’re capable of,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said.

One report shows the total number of refugees reached a much higher amount at more than 200,000 Afghan nationals through the Biden administration’s policies, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

“Contrary to popular narratives, most Afghans admitted during and after the evacuation had nothing to do with the U.S. government or any of its contractors,” senior researcher Nayla Rush said in her report. “They were not U.S. ‘allies,’ nor were they ‘persecuted’ individuals in need of refugee resettlement.”

Another senior researcher with the Center for Immigration Studies, Simon Hankinson, testified Wednesday that he has no doubt there are hundreds of Afghan nationals who should be deported.

In December 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said at least 2,000 Afghan refugees in the United States have terrorism ties.

One of the Afghan men who entered the United States through Operation Allies Welcome is the suspect accused of the November 2025 shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, killing one and seriously injuring the other. The FBI called the attack an act of terrorism.

“How did this murderer come to be let in the United States in the first place?” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “How do we know that there are no other such Afghan nationals in the United States who might carry out another similar attack?”

Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday argued the Afghan refugees were in fact vetted multiple times, and the shooting of the National Guard members was due to a failure of counterterrorism, not because of a failure of vetting.

Sen. Alejandor Padilla (D-Calif.) pleaded in the hearing that “we not condemn the many for the inexcusable act of one person.”

Multiple witnesses at the hearing, including another deputy inspector general with the Defense Department and one with the State Department, testified that vetting did occur, but their offices found flaws and inadequate practices.

Republican lawmakers said Americans’ safety should still take precedent over letting thousands of Afghan refugees into the United States with insufficient vetting.

Cornyn put this question to the witnesses at the hearing, asking three of them if they disagree that an absolute non-negotiable requirement of any visa or parole program should be the safety and security of the American people. None of the witnesses spoke up.