Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Presidential peace envoy Steve Witkoff, on Jan. 14, announced the start of the second phase of President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan.

In an X post on Wednesday, Witkoff said the second phase will move Gaza from an initial cease-fire into a period that will see the demilitarization of Hamas and the establishment of a technocratic governance model.

He said the second phase will also see the start of reconstruction for the war-torn territory.

Today, on behalf of President Trump, we are announcing the launch of Phase Two of the President’s 20-Point Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.

Phase Two establishes a transitional technocratic…

— Special Envoy Steve Witkoff (@SEPeaceMissions) January 14, 2026

The Gaza peace plan began in October, and the overall strategy is supposed to proceed in three phases and achieve the 20-point plan Trump laid out in September.

“Phase Two establishes a transitional technocratic Palestinian administration in Gaza, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), and begins the full demilitarization and reconstruction of Gaza, primarily the disarmament of all unauthorized personnel,” Witkoff wrote.

It remains unclear who will comprise Gaza’s interim government. Trump has repeatedly described this government as the Gaza “Board of Peace” and said he will chair the body.

Trump’s 20-point plan includes an offer of amnesty for Hamas members who willingly lay down their arms, as well as an offer of safe passage for Hamas members seeking to leave the territory.

The scope of Gaza’s reconstruction is also unclear.

In October, a representative for the United Nations’ Development Programme shared an estimate that Gaza had sustained around $70 billion in damages over the course of more than two years of conflict.

The first phase of the deal was supposed to include the release of all Israeli hostages, living and dead, held by Hamas.

Thus far, Hamas has returned the remains of 27 out of 28 deceased hostages.

Witkoff warned that Hamas must return the remains of the last person.

“The United States expects Hamas to comply fully with its obligations, including the immediate return of the final deceased hostage. Failure to do so will bring serious consequences,” Witkoff wrote.

Israel and Hamas have traded accusations of other cease-fire violations since October.

On Oct.19, the Israeli military accused Hamas of firing on and carrying out an explosive attack on Israeli troops operating in the Rafah area of the Gaza Strip, killing two of their soldiers. Hamas’s armed wing denied knowledge of the attack and said it had lost contact with its forces in Rafah.

On Dec. 13, Israeli forces carried out a lethal airstrike targeting a Hamas commander they said was involved in continuing efforts to procure weapons and undermine the cease-fire. Hamas said civilians were killed in a strike that day, and argued Israeli military’s operations were undermining cease-fire efforts.

This is a developing story and will be updated with additional details.

The killing of the left-wing activist (legal observer) by an ICE agent in Minneapolis has become the catalyst that Democratic Party-aligned dark-money-funded NGOs and militant far-left groups have been waiting for to spark street chaos, hoping to shift public sentiment toward defunding ICE. This is an informational war that Democrats are seeking to win, and in doing so, they need riots – think of it as “George Floyd 2.0″ …  

Overnight, social unrest emerged in the seemingly lawless sanctuary city of Minneapolis when street protests by left-wing groups quickly accelerated into riots and looting of at least one federal vehicle that had a long rifle and ammunition inside.

🚨 BREAKING: Minneapolis rioters successfully BROKE OPEN a weapons locker in a federal vehicle and STOLE A RIFLE and ammunition before fleeing

I captured the thief’s face and license plate on the getaway vehicle.

PLEASE SHARE and HELP IDENTIFY this POS.

I have forwarded this… pic.twitter.com/7rwfIsN7v6

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 15, 2026

🚨 BREAKING: MULTIPLE ICE and FBI vehicles have been DESTROYED and LOOTED by rioters in Minneapolis after federal agents were forced to abandon them

Agents gear, laptops, and personal information now LITTERS the street

THIS IS ABSOLUTE ANARCHY

INSURRECTION ACT NOW! pic.twitter.com/MZV9Y2J4M1

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 15, 2026

WATCH: Rioters are trying to open locked chests from the trunks of law enforcement vehicles pic.twitter.com/46DO7ciXbS

— Human Events (@HumanEvents) January 15, 2026

More footage:

🚨 🇺🇸 ANTIFA TAGS ICE VEHICLE: “ONLY GOOD AGENT IS A DEAD ONE”

Yes… that’s what someone spray-painted on an ICE car in Minneapolis last night.

Say what you want about ICE, but straight-up calling for agents to be killed? That’s full-blown unhinged.

And of course, not a peep… pic.twitter.com/22Kul5TqjC

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 15, 2026

BREAKING:

Riots erupts in Minneapolis with crowds attacking ICE agents after an ICE agent shot an illegal migrant from Venezuela in the leg.

The illegal migrant and two other men attacked the ICE officer while he was trying to detain the Venezuelan. pic.twitter.com/lq3rzysFFz

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) January 15, 2026

🚨 BREAKING:

Another ICE shooting JUST happened.

ICE murdered an American civilian during an anti-ICE protest. They opened fire on him as he was running away into his home and KILLED him.

A pregnant woman and kids were in the home.

A full-on RIOT is happening in Minneapolis. pic.twitter.com/lPOxKVQpGx

— Jvnior (@Jvnior) January 15, 2026

Instead of demanding that criminal illegal aliens leave, Democrats who run the metro area have posted on the city’s official X account, demanding that ICE agents leave the town.

In a separate incident, Homeland Security said an ICE agent shot an illegal in the leg after the “subject began to resist and violently assault the officer.” Then the agency said the officer was “ambushed and attacked by two individuals, the original subject got loose and began striking the officer with a shovel or broom stick… “

At 6:50 PM CT, federal law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted traffic stop in Minneapolis of an illegal alien from Venezuela who was released into the country by Joe Biden in 2022.

In an attempt to evade arrest, the subject fled the scene in his vehicle and crashed…

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) January 15, 2026

The origin of the chaos is mostly manufactured and began hours after the legal observer was shot and killed last Wednesday:

• Minneapolis ICE Shooting Shows Left Wing’s Protest Industrial Complex Wants Another ‘George Floyd’-Type Riot

• Tim Walz Activates Emergency Operations Center, Alerts National Guard After ICE-Involved Shooting Sparks Protest Threat

Democrats are using the manufactured chaos, think of it as George Floyd 2.0, in an attempt to sway public opinion polls about Trump’s deportation policies. As Trump strips power from Democrats and the party’s unhinged left watches its illegal alien voter bloc get deported, those with their backs against the wall increasingly see violence as the only remaining option. Just wait until spring.

Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A former U.S. Navy sailor who had been found guilty of providing the Chinese communist regime with sensitive U.S. military information in exchange for money was sentenced to 200 months in prison, the Justice Department said on Monday.

Wei Jinchao, also known as Patrick Wei, was arrested on espionage charges in August 2023 after reporting for duty aboard the USS Essex, an amphibious assault ship based in San Diego.

Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted by a federal jury in San Diego of espionage and five other criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit espionage, and unlawful export of, and conspiracy to export, technical data related to defense articles in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, after a five-day trial in August 2025.

Prosecutors had asked the court to sentence Wei to 21 years and 10 months in prison, arguing that his actions jeopardized U.S. national security and betrayed the country that granted him citizenship.

“Defendant compromised the U.S. Navy’s entire fleet of amphibious assault ships by sending the Chinese Government thousands of pages of technical information about the fleet’s complex ship systems and how the U.S. Navy operates and maintains those systems,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Parmley wrote in a government sentencing memorandum filed earlier this month.

“It is a betrayal of America and its people, and it often puts real lives at risk. It also can cost the Government huge amounts of money when it must adjust its military planning, operations, and tactics to account for compromises in informational security.”

In a letter submitted to the court before sentencing, his mother, Wei Mingli, appealed for leniency, recounting the hardships her son faced growing up. She said that he was raised without a father and left home around age 10 to attend boarding school because she had to care for her ailing mother at the time. She portrayed her son as a “devoted Christian” and a kind person who continued to help others, even while in custody.

Patrick Wei’s attorney had sought a much lighter sentence of two years and six months. Wei also wrote a letter to the court expressing remorse for sharing information with an individual he said he once considered a friend.

Now 25 years old, Wei apologized for “wasting taxpayers’ money and eroding people’s trust” in him, and pleaded for “love and mercy” in determining the sentence.

“Yes, I screwed up,” he wrote. “If you could find in yourself to be able to show me some love and mercy in your Honorable conclusion, I would, without fear of contradiction, pay it forward and help others for the rest of my life.”

Details

According to the indictment, Wei was recruited through social media by a Chinese intelligence officer posing as a naval enthusiast affiliated with China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, a state-owned giant shipbuilder, in February 2022.

About a week later, Wei confided in a friend in the U.S. Navy that the Chinese officer had offered him $500 for daily information on which ships were docked at the San Diego base. Wei told his friend that he was “no idiot” and that what he was being asked to do was commit espionage.

At the time, Wei was a petty officer and worked as a machinist’s mate, which gave him access to sensitive national defense information, including data on U.S. Navy ships and their weapons, according to court documents.

Prosecutors said that, starting in March 2022, Wei sent the Chinese intelligence officer multiple photos and videos of the Essex, along with information about the ship’s defensive weapon systems.

In May 2022, the Chinese officer sent him money and congratulated him on becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.

In June 2022, Wei provided 30 technical and mechanical manuals containing export-control warnings and details of various operational systems aboard the Essex and similar U.S. Navy vessels, including power, steering, aircraft, and deck elevators, as well as damage and casualty control.

In return for transmitting these documents, Wei received $5,000. The Chinese officer informed Wei that 10 of the manuals he provided had not been seen before and were “proved useful,” according to his indictment.

During that same month, the Chinese officer specifically requested that Wei provide information about the number and training of U.S. Marines participating in an international maritime warfare exercise, as well as photographs of military equipment. Wei complied by sending several images of military hardware.

In August 2022, Wei received $1,200 from the Chinese intelligence officer after passing along another 26 documents detailing the power structures and operations of the Essex and similar vessels, which contained data subject to export controls and information classified as “critical technology” by the U.S. Navy.

Wei continued to transmit other sensitive data to the officer throughout 2023, including information about the layout and location of weapons systems, repairs to the Essex, and mechanical vulnerabilities of similar vessels. The officer instructed Wei to keep their relationship discreet and to destroy any evidence that could reveal their activities.

In the press release announcing the sentence against Wei, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Eisenberg said: “Wei swore loyalty to the United States when he joined the Navy and reaffirmed that oath when he became a citizen. He then accepted the solemn responsibility of protecting this Nation’s secrets when the United States entrusted him with sensitive Navy information.

“He made a mockery of these commitments when he chose to endanger our Nation and our servicemembers by selling U.S. military secrets to a Chinese intelligence officer for personal profit. Today’s sentence reflects our commitment to ensuring those who sell our Nation’s secrets pay a very high price for their betrayal.”

Roman Rozhavsky, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, said the sentencing served as “a reminder that those who choose to put personal gain above their oath and the safety of our nation will be brought to justice.”

FBI Director Kash Patel also pledged to collaborate with other agencies to defend the United States against foreign intelligence threats.

“If you betray the United States, endanger our warfighters, and put personal profit over your oath, you will be found, you will be exposed, and you will pay a heavy price,” Patel wrote on X.

On the same day Wei was arrested, another U.S. Navy sailor, Zhao Wenheng, who was based out of Naval Base Ventura County in California, was also taken into custody. Zhao, also found guilty of selling military secrets to China, was sentenced to 27 months in prison in January 2024.

Frank Fang and Eva Fu contributed to this report. 

Eleven US senators wrote to Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Tuesday seeking to ban Chinese nationals from US national labs – contending that their access undermines the United States’ position in the artificial intelligence (AI) race. 

The DOE notably oversees 17 national laboratories and funds research to advance various technologies, including energy, environmental, nuclear, and others. In November, President Donald Trump ordered the DOE to launch ‘Genesis Mission,’ with a goal of coordinating a national effort to accelerate AI innovation “comparable in urgency and ambition to the Manhattan Project.”

In their letter, the Senators expressed concern over the thousands of Chinese nationals who have access to these national lab sites, which contain sensitive information and technology. In FY2024, around 3,200 Chinese nationals were approved for such access, which the lawmakers noted does not include lawful permanent residents of the United States, “which means there are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands, more individual Chinese citizens working in our labs,” they wrote.

“Continuing to give access to the cutting-edge work performed at these laboratories to Chinese nationals who will turn everything they know over to the [Chinese Communist Party] directly undermines the purpose of Genesis Mission,” reads the letter, which was co-signed by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Risch (R-Idaho), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), and Ted Budd (R-N.C.).

The Senators recommend that the department implement a policy to prohibit access by Chinese nationals to national laboratory sites, information, and technology. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, underpinning the espionage concern is the fact that Beijing has passed laws to require all Chinese citizens to assist in the state’s intelligence efforts, as well as the regime’s practice of transnational repression.

Human rights organization Freedom House ranks the Chinese regime among the worst transnational repressors, using tactics such as threatening family members residing in China in order to coerce overseas Chinese to participate in state operations.

The lawmakers cite such coercion as one reason that even proper vetting of these scientists is “not a sufficient safeguard.”

Additionally, the volume of individuals outpaces the department’s capacity to vet them, and China has made efforts to obfuscate links to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the lawmakers said.

“The best way to protect Genesis Mission, and the rest of the important work done throughout the labs, is to put an end to Chinese national scientists and researchers working at them,” the letter reads.

The request comes on the heels of a December House report that found the Energy Department funded research in AI, quantum, and other advanced technologies with defense applications, conducted in partnership with Chinese researchers and institutes, citing more than 4,000 research papers published between June 2023 and June 2025.

The report found that 2,000 Chinese nationals worked at national laboratories as of 2025. The lawmakers behind the report said they had interviewed department executives and found their rationale “naive.”

“Multiple DOE executives … defended [the Chinese nationals’] continued presence … by claiming, in effect, that we want them in our labs so they can see how advanced we are—and go back to China telling their colleagues, thus giving up on beating the United States,” the report reads.

The House Select Committee on the CCP has also published reports that show funding for Chinese defense research through grants from other government agencies, including the Pentagon.

The Department of Energy did not respond to an inquiry from The Epoch Times by the time of publication.

Authored by Lars Møller via American Thinker,

History is replete with revolutionary figures who transformed society through “vision”, “vanity”, and “violence” – a vicious triad covering the strategy of being ideologically uncompromising, outmaneuvering rivals, and eliminating political opposition, respectively.

Maximilien Robespierre and Vladimir Lenin stand out as architects of radical political transformation. Bridging the cultural divide, their leadership styles and psychological profiles show striking similarities. Both men were pedantic ideologues driven by an unshakable belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority.

A comprehensive personality profiling of Robespierre and Lenin requires an analytical framework that transcends ideological taxonomy and historical contingency. While both men operated under conditions of revolutionary crisis, their responses to this strain were neither inevitable nor merely situational. Rather, the extremes of savagery that they authorized, rationalized, and sustained reflect enduring psychological structures that shaped their political conduct. Revolutionary atrocity, in this sense, is best understood, not as an accidental excess of upheaval but as an expressive manifestation of personality under pressure.

At the center of both profiles lies a distinctive form of narcissism, albeit one that diverges from popular caricature. Neither Robespierre nor Lenin cultivated flamboyance or sensual excess. Instead, they embodied a restrained and severe narcissism, grounded in ascetic discipline and intellectual or moral exclusivity. This “austere narcissism” is particularly insidious, as it disguises grandiosity beneath the rhetoric of sacrifice and historical necessity. Both men perceived themselves as uniquely attuned to the demands of history, endowed with a clarity unavailable to others. This conviction constituted the psychological foundation of their authority and simultaneously foreclosed the possibility of self-doubt.

Robespierre’s personality was organized primarily around moral absolutism. His self-conception as l’Incorruptible was not a mere political posture but a deeply internalized identity. Personal frugality, emotional restraint, and rhetorical solemnity served as symbolic reinforcements of moral superiority. From a psychological standpoint, this configuration suggests a rigid superego structure in which ethical norms were internalized as categorical imperatives rather than negotiable principles. Moral conflict could not be accommodated; it had to be eradicated.

This psychic architecture is indispensable for understanding Robespierre’s embrace of terror during 1793–94. The Law of Suspects, enacted on September 17, 1793, dramatically expanded the definition of counter-revolutionary guilt to include vague categories such as “enemies of liberty” and those lacking “civic virtue”. In practice, this legislation enabled the arrest of tens of thousands on the basis of suspicion alone. The resulting mass incarcerations and executions were not only tactical responses to military threats but also expressions of Robespierre’s moralized worldview. Political ambiguity itself became criminal.

The Revolutionary Tribunal exemplified this moral reductionism. Legal safeguards were progressively dismantled, culminating in the Law of the Great Terror, enacted on June 10, 1794, which eliminated defense counsel and limited verdicts to acquittal or death. The acceleration of executions—over 1,300 in Paris alone within six weeks—reflected not panic but moral certainty. Violence functioned as ethical enforcement. The guillotine, with its mechanical regularity, transformed killing into procedure, allowing Robespierre to experience mass death as impersonal justice rather than cruelty. Psychologically, such depersonalization constitutes a dissociative defense: suffering is abstracted, responsibility displaced, and violence reclassified as virtue.

Robespierre’s increasing hostility towards former allies further reveals the fragility underlying his moral absolutism. The executions of Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins—longstanding revolutionaries accused of “indulgence”—illustrate how moral rigidity devolved into paranoid purification. Dissent was no longer external but internal. The purges thus served not only political consolidation but also psychic stabilization. Each execution reaffirmed Robespierre’s self-image as guardian of revolutionary purity against an ever-expanding field of corruption.

Lenin’s psychological profile, though equally absolutist, was structured along a different axis. His narcissism was intellectual rather than moral. Lenin did not portray himself as virtuous but as scientifically correct. Authority derived from his conviction that he alone grasped the objective laws of historical development. This intellectual narcissism produced profound disdain for spontaneity, pluralism, and moral hesitation.

Lenin’s approach to violence during and after the October Revolution exemplifies this orientation. The establishment of the Cheka in December 1917 marked the institutionalization of terror as a permanent instrument of governance. Unlike the revolutionary tribunals of 1793, the Cheka operated extrajudicially from the outset. Its remit included summary execution, hostage-taking, and mass repression. Lenin explicitly endorsed these measures. In correspondence from 1918, he called for “merciless mass terror” against class enemies, insisting that hesitation would doom the revolution.

The Red Terror of 1918–22 provides stark illustration. Following the attempted assassination of Lenin in August 1918, the regime launched widespread reprisals. Thousands were executed without trial, often selected, not for actions but for social origin. Former nobles, priests, merchants, and officers were targeted as categories rather than individuals. The mass shootings at Petrograd and Moscow, as well as the use of concentration camps—precursors to the Gulag system—demonstrate how violence was bureaucratized and de-personalized. Psychologically, this categorical annihilation reflects cognitive reductionism: human beings were reduced to structural obstacles to be removed. 

The suppression of the Tambov peasant uprising (1920–22) further illustrates Lenin’s instrumental rationality. When peasants resisted grain requisitioning, the Red Army deployed poison gas, mass deportations, and hostage executions. Lenin personally authorized these measures, framing them as necessary to break “kulak resistance”. The scale and severity of the repression—tens of thousands killed or interned—underscore his willingness to annihilate entire populations in pursuit of economic and ideological objectives. Emotional detachment was not incidental but functional: empathy would have impeded efficiency.

Similarly revealing was the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. The sailors, once celebrated as heroes of the revolution, demanded free elections and an end to Bolshevik repression. Lenin and Trotsky responded with overwhelming force. Thousands were executed or sent to labor camps. The psychological significance lies in the readiness to destroy former allies once they ceased to serve the ideological script. Dissent, regardless of origin, was pathologized as counter-revolution.

Despite stylistic differences, Robespierre and Lenin shared a fundamental incapacity to recognize others as autonomous moral agents. From a developmental psychology perspective, this suggests impaired “mentalization”. Opposition was interpreted, not as disagreement but as moral corruption or structural deviance. Consequently, violence acquired an air of inevitability.

Both leaders also exhibited marked emotional austerity and social withdrawal. Their reluctance to engage in ordinary social life reinforced authority but deepened isolation. Isolation intensified suspicion. Deprived of corrective feedback, both increasingly relied on internal narratives of betrayal. Terror became self-reinforcing: fear confirmed paranoia, paranoia justified repression, and repression entrenched power.

This dynamic accords with established models of authoritarian personality, which emphasize the interplay between dominance and insecurity. Such leaders are not psychologically secure. Their need for absolute control compensates for internal fragility. Power functions as an external stabilizer, imposing order upon both society and the self. 

The handling of failure further illuminates these personalities. Neither Robespierre nor Lenin demonstrated genuine self-criticism. Military setbacks, economic collapse, or popular resistance were invariably attributed to insufficient repression. Violence thus substituted for reflection. Rather than revising assumptions, both escalated coercion. 

The persistence of terror beyond immediate necessity underscores its expressive function. Once institutionalized, violence became ritualized, reaffirming alignment with virtue or history. Each execution symbolized inevitability and correctness. Atrocity communicated omnipotence.

The contrast between Robespierre’s “moralized terror” and Lenin’s “instrumental terror” reflects divergent emotional economies within a shared absolutist framework. Robespierre’s violence was theatrical and ethical; Lenin’s procedural and technical. Yet both converged in their effect: the annihilation of individuality and the normalization of death as a political tool.

Ultimately, the personality profiling of Robespierre and Lenin demonstrates how revolutionary leadership magnifies latent psychological traits. Ideology supplied justification; crisis provided opportunity; personality determined execution. Their atrocities were not historical aberrations but behavioral culminations of rigid cognition, narcissistic self-identification, emotional detachment, and intolerance of uncertainty.

The broader implication is sobering. Extreme political violence need not arise from overt sadism. It often emerges from moral certainty, intellectual arrogance, and the refusal to acknowledge human complexity. Robespierre and Lenin exemplify how revolutionary ideals, when filtered through psychologically brittle leadership, can transmute aspirations of emancipation into systems of terror. Their legacies endure as warnings of what occurs when conviction eclipses conscience and abstraction supplants humanity. 

Without any mitigating self-irony, Robespierre and Lenin embodied an unlimited commitment to ideology, indifferent to the concerns of ordinary people, their lives and freedoms.

Already Ukraine’s power grid has long suffered, with rolling blackouts having been in effect across parts of the country for much of the past year, but this week things have gotten worse amid a harsh freeze.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has announced that the government is declaring a state of emergency in the energy sector after repeated Russian strikes damaged heating and power facilities during freezing winter conditions.

“A permanent coordination headquarters will be established to address the situation in the city of Kyiv. Overall, a state of emergency will be declared for Ukraine’s energy sector,” Zelensky confirmed after coming out of a crisis meeting.

He added that efforts were underway “to significantly increase the volume of electricity imports into Ukraine.” But no matter how fast repair teams work, or alternative imports enter, the energy grid is being degraded faster than parts can be found or replaced. 

Emergency repair teams are working nonstop to restore power across the capital region. For example, in Boryspil – a town of roughly 60,000 residents southeast of Kiev – engineers have been dismantling and reconstructing damaged electrical systems after strikes destroyed critical components.

Local energy officials say crews are operating in subzero conditions, even down to minus 15 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), from early morning until late at night.

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko has described the situation the most severe and prolonged power outage since Russia launched its full-scale invasion nearly four years ago, noting that some neighborhoods have been without electricity for several days in a row.

The European Union and NATO have been scrambling to come up with ways to both keep the lights on in Ukraine and defend its cities and vital infrastructure from being devastated by Russia.

All of this is part of Moscow’s attrition strategy, knowing it can outlast, out-gun, and out-manpower Ukraine. This is also about inflicting broader pain and suffering among the population, in hopes of destabilizing the Zelensky government enough to replace him.

Lights out in Ukrainian cities, with some residents having generators or alternative means…

Kyiv.
No electricity for 15 hours.
Maybe it’ll be back tomorrow morning (usually for no more than four hours).

I’ll save my phone battery.
Will write only if something critical happens (or when power returns). pic.twitter.com/UofzwAZiWD

— Yaroslava (@strategywoman) January 13, 2026

But Europe is equally scrambling to pull resources to prop up Zelensky as well as Ukraine’s civic sector. But looming is the continued escalation, and the potential for the West to pour more powerful weapons into the conflict, such as long-range missiles.

If this happens, Moscow will probably unleash more intensive ‘shock and awe’ style strikes on population and decision-making centers like Kiev.

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity.news,

Under Keir Starmer’s Labour government, the UK has become a dystopian nightmare where criticizing the Prime Minister gets you banned from entry. Meanwhile, boatloads of illegal migrants wash across the Channel daily, rewarded with hotel stays and taxpayer-funded perks.

Dutch commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek learned this the hard way when her travel authorization was revoked just days after calling out Starmer’s hypocrisy on immigration and free speech.

This blatant act of political censorship highlights Labour’s twisted priorities: protect the establishment narrative at all costs, even as unchecked migration erodes British sovereignty and burdens citizens.

I’ve been banned from traveling to the UK. 🇬🇧

No reason given. No right to appeal. Zero due process.

Just an email saying the UK government deems me “not conducive to the public good” – exactly three days after I criticized Keir Starmer.

I guess my point that the UK is no… pic.twitter.com/JAcMMcjf1I

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) January 14, 2026

Vlaardingerbroek, a 29-year-old Dutch lawyer, political commentator, and activist, has built a reputation for her outspoken criticism of mass immigration, globalism, and threats to Western culture. Formerly affiliated with the Netherlands’ Forum for Democracy party, she advocates for “remigration” policies to preserve national identity and has amassed a large following on social media for her unfiltered takes on Europe’s migration crisis. As such, her views have made her a target for leftist regimes eager to silence dissent.

The UK government informed Eva “Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good.”

Holy sh*t.

I’ve been banned from traveling to the UK. They revoked my ETA.

“Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conductive to the public good.”

3 days after posting this about Starmer. https://t.co/NqWBtaTkZe pic.twitter.com/lm5lZgL2i7

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) January 14, 2026

The post she referenced slammed Starmer directly: “Keir Starmer wants to crack down on X under the pretense of “women’s safety”, whilst he’s the one allowing the ongoing rape and killing of British girls by migrant rape gangs. Evil, despicable man.”

“I’ve become a victim of two tier justice and Keir Starmer is a TYRANT!”
World exclusive Outspoken interview with Eva Vlaardingerbroek after being banned from the UK.@EvaVlaar ❤️ pic.twitter.com/eOWH3av0HU

— Dan Wootton (@danwootton) January 14, 2026

Meanwhile Starmer recently announced that one of his top priorities was getting an anti-white Egyptian extremist to the UK and was “delighted” to “welcome”‘” him:

Despite el-Fattah’s vile history – including posts like “fucking hate white people … a blight on the earth they are” and calls for “random shooting of white males” – Starmer celebrated his return to the UK.

As we higlighted, el-Fattah has praised Osama bin Laden, denied the Holocaust, and urged violence against police and Zionists. Yet Labour bent over backward to import this hate-monger, exposing their contempt for British values.

Last month, the UK government welcomed into the country a man who told people to “burn Downing Street,” said “I don’t like white people,” and called British people “dogs and monkeys.”

Apparently, he was ‘conducive to the public good’. https://t.co/keEFFGu5bJ

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) January 14, 2026

Meanwhile @Keir_Starmer announced his “top priority” was getting this guy to the UK and was “delighted” to “welcome” him… 😩 pic.twitter.com/dnyv50mPFi

— Emily Wilding Davison🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 (@Wommando) January 14, 2026

As Vlaardingerbroek’s ban made headlines, recent reports confirm the UK’s borders remain a sieve. In the first week of January 2026 alone, dozens braved sub-zero temperatures to cross the Channel in small boats, adding to the over 41,000 arrivals in 2025 – the second-highest year on record. These migrants are often housed in hotels at taxpayer expense, with costs soaring to £8 million per day, while British families struggle.

You’re not a rapey illegal migrant so Keir Starmer won’t let you in

— Inevitable West (@Inevitablewest) January 14, 2026

The Home Office plans to evict some from hotels by spring 2026, but with crossings continuing unabated – 32 detected in the first five days of the year – the system is overwhelmed. Labour’s “one in, one out” scheme faltered when the first 2026 return flight to France was cancelled, leaving more invaders to stay.

But if u get on a dinghy, we’ll put you in a hotel, feed u, give u healthcare, internet, phones and free travel.

— Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 (@EssexPR) January 14, 2026

This ties into deeper rot. A former aide to Starmer recently blew the whistle on a “deep state” – a “political perma-class” of insiders, NGOs, and lobbyists – controlling the government and obsessing over fringe issues like el-Fattah’s case while ignoring voter concerns.

The former aide Paul Ovenden described it as a “stakeholder state” that shifts power “away from voters and towards groups with the time, money and institutional access to make themselves too important to ignore.”

Ovenden slammed policies that “import antisemitic Islamists who wish us harm” and treat “British citizenship as a scrap of paper.” This blob forces the government to “row with muffled oars” to appease campaign groups and regulators, sidelining secure borders.

The reason for Vlaardingerbroek’s ban is clear. Her call for “remigration” of immigrants made her persona non grata. And the Labour government’s message is clear: Dissent against open borders and leftist agendas? You’re out. But if you’re an illegal crosser or hate-spewing extremist, welcome aboard – hotel room included.

The “You cannot appeal this decision” is the most Leftist sentence I have ever read.

This fascist thinking is so fundamental to their ethos that they do not even recognize it.

It is simply the air that they breathe and is of no consequence. pic.twitter.com/QsiolJGjWx

— Andy Martin (@Dollarlogic) January 14, 2026

This hypocrisy must end. Brits deserve a government that puts citizens first, secures borders, and defends free speech against the deep state’s grip. Until then, the invasion continues, and patriots like Vlaardingerbroek pay the price.

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

Via The Cradle

Chinese authorities instructed domestic companies to stop using certain US and Israeli cybersecurity software, citing national security concerns and the risk of sensitive data being transferred overseas, according to informed sources cited by Reuters on January 14.

Chinese officials, speaking through the sources – who spoke in anonymity – said the notice was issued in recent days and targeted software produced by roughly a dozen foreign firms. 

The move affects Chinese companies operating across multiple sectors, although Reuters said it could not determine how many received the directive.

Among the firms named were US companies Broadcom-owned VMware, Palo Alto Networks, and Fortinet, as well as Israeli firm Check Point Software Technologies, according to the sources.

Those briefed said the concern is that the software could “collect and transmit confidential information abroad,” raising fears about foreign access to sensitive Chinese data. 

Neither China’s internet regulator, the Cyberspace Administration of China, nor the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology responded to requests for comment by the time of publication, while the companies named in the report also did not reply to Reuters’  inquiries.

The decision comes as Beijing continues efforts to reduce reliance on western technology. While much of that push has focused on semiconductors and artificial intelligence (AI), analysts cited by Reuters said authorities are also moving to replace foreign computer equipment and software.

Chinese analysts added that concerns have grown that western technology could be vulnerable to hacking by foreign powers, reinforcing Beijing’s drive toward domestic alternatives.

Back in October 2014, Chinese state-linked media reported that Beijing had ordered the phased removal of Microsoft Windows from government computers, citing security risks and mandating a shift toward domestic operating systems. 

That policy, which followed an earlier ban on Windows 8, also extended to state-owned enterprises and reflected early concerns about reliance on foreign software for sensitive state systems.

The developments also reflect a wider backdrop of intensifying US–China rivalry, as Washington moves to counter Beijing’s expanding economic, energy, and technological footprint across West Asia, a region that has become central to China’s long-term strategic and infrastructure ambitions.

There may have been some back-channel dealmaking and a ‘mutual understanding’ reached between Iran and Israel far behind the scenes as protests unfolded on Iran’s streets, and as President Trump began to make threats about striking Tehran.

At a moment Trump seems to have climbed down (at least for now) from the threatened drive to intervene militarily, The Washington Post has issued a Wednesday report saying Israel and Iran have been in indirect diplomatic contact via Russia as a mediator.

“Days before protests erupted in Iran in late December, Israeli officials notified the Iranian leadership via Russia that they would not launch strikes against Iran if Israel were not attacked first,” WaPo writes. “Iran responded through the Russian channel that it would also refrain from a preemptive attack, diplomats and regional officials with knowledge of the exchange said.”

Could this be because of the Iranian missiles that rained down on Tel Aviv back in June? If so, it seems the Islamic Republic has finally established deterrence. 

The timeline of what was communicated when remains unclear. But this backchannel had already been revealed in Middle East media reports, for example in the following prior reporting:

Israel and Iran have recently exchanged secret, indirect messages through Russia in the midst of heightened regional tensions, according to a new report by Amwaj.media today. The exchanges were described as an effort to prevent further military escalation rather than to establish any form of ceasefire or diplomatic framework.

According to the report, the messages were conveyed through Russian President Vladimir Putin after Israel sought to pass along a signal that it was not interested in escalating military conflict at this stage. Iranian officials acknowledged the message but emphasized that their reply carried no commitment, no coordination, and no obligation on Iran’s part. An Iranian political source quoted in the report said bluntly that “there is no commitment, no coordination, and no ceasefire agreement.” The source emphasized that the contact should not be interpreted as a step toward broader understandings between the two countries, which remain bitter adversaries with no direct diplomatic ties.

The exchanges were reportedly limited in scope and intent. No guarantees were offered, no timelines were discussed, and no monitoring or enforcement mechanisms were established. One source described the communication as “a mutual announcement to a mutual friend on no new strikes,” meaning that the goal was simply to manage tensions at a specific moment rather than to lock in any lasting arrangement.

A senior Iranian political source confirmed that indirect communication with Israel had indeed taken place, identifying Russia, and specifically Putin, as the intermediary. The source reiterated that there was “no ceasefire agreement” and that the messages amounted only to parallel notifications of intent, rather than a shared understanding or deal.

The report says the Iranian side of the exchanges was handled not by the foreign ministry but by Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. 

It’s possible that this served as important background to Trump’s apparent decision to not strike Iran at this point. Israel is usually the country yelling loudest to hit Iran, but this time the Netanyahu government was somewhat muted.

Sorry to be a hater, but this is not “breaking news”. It was reported over two weeks ago: https://t.co/SjEJKtgAT6 https://t.co/jDExKOZVND

— Mohammad Ali Shabani (@mashabani) January 14, 2026

By all accounts, Iran’s streets have pretty much gone quiet by now, after a crescendo of violence this week left hundreds dead, including many police and security personnel. 

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

The oligarchy that really controls the Empire of Chaos has hit the panic button, as the structural contours of Hegemony seriously wobble.

The petrodollar is one of the key features of this Hegemony: a recycling machine channeling non-stop buying of US Treasuries then spent on Forever Wars. Any player even thinking of diversifying from this infernal machine is met with asset freezes, sanctions – or worse.

At the same time, the Empire of Chaos cannot demonstrate raw power by bleeding itself dry in the black soil of Novorossiya. Dominance requires ever-expanding – plundered – resources, side by side with that non-stop printing of US dollars as a reserve currency to pay for astronomic bills. Additionally, borrowing from the world works as imperial financial containment of rivals.

But now a choice becomes imperative – an inescapable structural constraint. Either keep astronomical spending on military dominance (enter Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget for the Department of War.) Or keep ruling the international financial system.

The Empire of Chaos cannot do both.

And that’s why, when the math was done, Ukraine became expendable. At least in theory.

Against the weaponization of the US Treasury bond system – de facto monetary imperialism – BRICS incarnate the strategic choice of the Global South, coordinating a drive towards alternative payment systems.

The straw that broke the steppe camel’s back was the freezing – actually stealing – of Russian assets after the expulsion of a nuclear/hypersonic power, Russia, from SWIFT. Now it’s clear that Central Banks everywhere are going for gold, bilateral deals and considering alternative payment systems.

As the first serious structural shock to the system since the end of WWII, BRICS is not overtly trying to overturn the system – but to build a viable alternative, complete with large-scale infrastructure financing bypassing the US dollar.

Venezuela now illustrates a critical case: Can a major oil producer survive outside of the US dollar system – without being destroyed?

The Empire of Chaos has ruled, “No”. The Global South must prove it wrong. Venezuela was not that critical on the geopolitical chessboard as it represented just 4% of China’s oil imports. Iran in fact is the crucial case, as 95% of its oil is sold to China and settled in yuan, not US dollars.

Iran though is not Venezuela. The latest coordinated intel op/terror attacks/regime change attempt on Iran – complete with a pathetic mini-Shah refugee in Maryland – miserably failed. The threat of war, though, remains.

BRICS Pay, The Unit, or CIPS?

The US dollar now represents less than 40% of global currency reserves – the lowest in at least 20 years. Gold now accounts for more global foreign exchange reserves than the euro, the yen and the pound combined. Central Banks are stockpiling gold like crazy, while BRICS accelerates the test of alternative payment systems in what I previously defined as “the BRICS lab”.

One of the scenarios being directly proposed to BRICS, and designed as an alternative to cumbersome SWIFT, which does at least $1 trillion in transactions a day, features the introduction of a non-sovereign, blockchain-based trade token.

That’s The Unit.

The Unit, correctly described as “apolitical money”, is not a currency, but a unit of account used for settlement in trade and finance between participating countries. The token could be pegged to a commodity basket or a neutral index to prevent domination by any single country. In this case it would work like the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), but within a BRICS framework.

Then there’s mBridge – not part of the “BRICS lab” – which features a multi-central bank digital currency (CBDC) shared among participating central banks and commercial banks. mBridge includes only five members, but that includes powerful players such as the Digital Currency Institute of the People’s Bank of China and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Other 30 countries are interested to join.

mBridge tough was the inspiration behind BRICS Bridge, still being tested, which aims to speed up a range of international payment mechanisms: money transfers, payment processing, account management.

It’s a very simple mechanism: instead of converting currencies into US dollars for international trade, BRICS countries exchange their currencies directly.

The New Development Bank (NDB), or the BRICS bank, established in Shanghai in 2015, should be the key connectivity node of BRICS Bridge.

But that, for the moment, is on hold – because all the NDB’s statutes are linked to the US dollar, and that must be reassessed. With the NDB integrated into the broader financial infrastructure of BRICS member-nations, the bank should be able to handle currency conversion, clearing, and settlement under BRICS Bridge. But we’re still very far away from that.

BRICS Pay is a different animal: a strategic infrastructure for building a self-described “decentralized, sustainable, and inclusive” financial system across BRICS+ nations and partners.

BRICS Pay is on pilot mode all the way to 2027. By then the member-nations should start discussing a deal to set up a settlement unit for intra-BRICS trade no later than 2030.

Once again, that will not be a global reserve currency; but a mechanism offering a “parallel, compatible option” to SWIFT within the BRICS ecosystem.

BRICS Pay, for the moment, is also a very simple system: for instance, tourists and business travelers may use it without opening a local bank account or exchanging currency. They simply link their Visa or Mastercard to the BRICS Pay app and use it to pay via QR code.

And that’s exactly the crucial problem: how to circumvent Visa and Mastercard, under US financial system vigilance, and incorporate BRICS members cards such as Union Pay (China) and Mir (Russia).

Overall, for bigger and more complex transactions, the problem of bypassing SWIFT persists. All these “BRICS lab” tests need to solve two key problems: messaging interoperability – via secure, standardized data formats; and processing the actual settlement, as in how funds move via Central Bank accounts bypassing the inevitable threat of sanctions.

Internalization of The Yuan, Or a New Reserve Currency?

The inestimable Prof. Michael Hudson is on the global forefront of studying solutions to minimize US dollar hegemony. He is adamant that “the line of least resistance is to follow the already-in-place Chinese system.” That means CIPS – the China International Payment System, or Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, yuan-based, and already extremely popular, used by participants in 124 nations across the Global Majority.

Prof. Hudson insists “it’s very hard to create an alternative. The Unit’s principle (his emphasis), reported to be 40% gold and the rest in member currencies is fine. But this is best done through a new Keynes-style central bank to denominate debts and claims for payment to settle imbalances among member countries – along the lines of the Bancor.”

The Bancor was proposed by Keynes in Bretton Woods in 1944 – to prevent serious discrepancies in external balances, protectionism, tariffs and the scam of nations built up as tax havens. It’s no wonder the hyper-Hegemonic US at the end of WWII vetoed it.

In a new paper on the Weaponization of Oil Trade as the Bedrock of the US World Order, first published at democracycollaborative.org, Prof. Hudson clarifies how “Russian and Venezuelan freedom to export oil has weakened the ability of US officials to use oil as a weapon to squeeze other economies by threatening them with the same withdrawal of energy that has wrecked German industry and price levels. This supply of oil not under US control thus was held to be an infringement of the US rules-based order.”

And that brings us to one of the key reasons for the BRICS drive towards alternative payment systems: “The US foreign policy of creating choke points to keep other countries dependent on oil under US control, not oil supplied by Russia, Iran or Venezuela, is one of America’s key means of making other countries insecure.”

Prof. Hudson succinctly lines up the five imperatives for the Empire of Chaos: “control of the world’s oil trade is to remain a US privilege”; “oil trade must be priced and paid for in US dollars”; the petrodollar must rule, as “international oil-export earnings are to be lent to, or invested in, the United States, preferably in the form of US Treasury securities, corporate bonds and bank deposits”; “green energy alternatives to oil are to be discouraged”; and “no laws apply to or limit US rules or policies.”

Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr, one of the co-founders of the NDB, and its vice-president during 2015-2017, advances in parallel with Prof. Hudson, designing a viable path towards a new international currency in a paper that he is currently finalizing.

Considering that the US dollar system is “inefficient, unreliable and even dangerous”, and has become “an instrument of blackmail and sanctions”, Batista Jr cuts to the chase along the same lines of Prof. Hudson, arguing that “the only scenario that may present some viability would be the large-scale internationalization of the Chinese currency (…) But there is a long way to go before it can replace the dollar in a significant way. And the Chinese are reluctant to try.”

Batista Jr then proposes a solution similar to Prof. Hudson’s: “A group of countries in the Global South, something like 15 to 20 countries, which would include most of the BRICS and other emerging middle-income nations”, could be at the forefront of creating a new currency.

Yet “a new international financial institution would therefore have to be created – an issuing bank, whose sole and exclusive function would be to issue and put into circulation the new currency.”

That sounds very much like Bancor: “This issuing bank would not replace the national central banks and its currency would circulate in parallel with the other national and regional currencies existing in the world. It would be restricted to international transactions, with no domestic role.”

Batista Jr clarifies that “the currency would be based on a weighted basket of the currencies of the participating countries and would therefore fluctuate on the basis of changes in these

currencies. Since all currencies in the basket would be floating or flexible, the new currency would also be a floating currency. The weights in the basket would be given by the share of each country’s PPP GDP in the total GDP.”

Inevitably, “the high weight of the Chinese currency, issued by a country with a solid economy, would favor confidence in the backing and in the new reserve currency.”

Batista Jr is fully aware of “the risk that the initiative will provoke negative reactions from the West, which would resort to threats and sanctions against the countries involved.”

Yet the time for action is pressing: “Will we gather economic, political and intellectual efforts to get out of this trap?

The costs of maintaining Hegemony are becoming prohibitive. BRICS, gathering forces for the annual summit later this year in India, must capitalize on the fact that we are fast approaching the structural change moment when the Empire of Chaos loses the ability to unilaterally enforce its will – except via all-out war.