Authored by Travis Gilmore via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on Dec. 29 that Israeli President Isaac Herzog told him a pardon for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “on its way.” That assertion, however, was disputed by Herzog’s office.

“He’s a wartime prime minister who’s a hero. How do you not give a pardon?” Trump, while standing alongside Netanyahu, told reporters ahead of a meeting at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

“I spoke to the president … he tells me it’s on its way.”

Trump suggested the fate of Israel would be far worse if Netanyahu had not been in charge during recent crises—including the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks.

“If you had the wrong prime minister right now, Israel would not exist,” Trump said.

“They were met with a force the likes of which very few countries could have handled.”

Herzog’s office, nevertheless, issued a statement that appeared to contradict Trump’s comments.

When asked about the U.S. president’s remarks, Herzog’s office said the Israeli president had not spoken with Trump since a pardon request was submitted several weeks ago.

“There has not been a conversation between President Herzog and President Trump since the pardon request was submitted,” the statement read.

“Several weeks ago, a conversation took place between President Herzog and a representative on behalf of President Trump, who inquired about the U.S. President’s letter. During that conversation, an explanation was provided regarding the stage of the process in which the request currently stands, and that any decision on the matter will be made in accordance with the established procedures.

“This was conveyed to President Trump’s representative, exactly as President Herzog stated publicly in Israel.”

Netanyahu is the first Israeli prime minister to be charged with a crime while in office. He denies the bribery, fraud, and breach-of-trust charges stemming from his 2019 indictment.

His own request for a pardon, submitted on Nov. 30, argued that frequent court hearings hamper his ability to govern and that clemency would be in the national interest. The appeal was lodged following the start of a U.S.-brokered cease-fire in Gaza.

Netanyahu’s appeal for clemency has been criticized by his opponents, who said that pardoning him mid-trial would be a breach of the rule of law, according to the Times of Israel.

As per Israeli law, the president has the authority to pardon convicts; however, there is no precedent for issuing a pardon while a trial is still ongoing.

Netanyahu’s quest for a pardon has been supported by Trump, who wrote a formal letter to Herzog in November urging him to grant clemency, calling the case against the Israeli prime minister “political, unjustified prosecution.”

During their Mar-a-Lago meeting on Dec. 29, Trump and Netanyahu discussed Gaza, Iran, Syria, and other matters.

“We had a big meeting with a lot of people, a lot of talent from Israel and from the U.S.,” Trump said after the meeting.

“And I think we came to a lot of conclusions. There’s very little difference in what we’re looking at, and where we want to be, where we want to go.”

Netanyahu expressed gratitude for a “very productive meeting.”

“I think we have a partnership … second to none,” he said. “It’s allowed us to do tremendous things.”

Ahead of the meeting, Trump said they would begin the second phase of the peace plan in Gaza “as quickly as we can.”

“But there has to be a disarming of Hamas,” he noted.

Rebuilding the war-torn region is a priority, and sanitization efforts are underway, Trump said.

“It’s been a mess for a long time, but we’re going to straighten it out,” Trump said. “We’re helping the people of Gaza a lot, and so is Israel.”

Netanyahu thanked Trump for the opportunity to meet and for his continued support of Israel.

“We’ve never had a friend like President Trump in the White House. It’s not even close,” the prime minister said.

“I think it’s not merely Israel’s great fortune; it’s the world’s great fortune.”

After the meeting, Netanyahu said his nation would award its highest civilian honor, the Israel Prize, to Trump, who will be the first non-Israeli to receive the prize. The prize was announced formally on Monday by Israel’s minister of education.

Home prices in America’s largest 20 cities surged 0.32% MoM in October (far higher than the +0.1% MoM move expected) but for context, this is the weakest annual home price growth since the March through July 2023 period, when the market was absorbing the initial shock of the Fed’s rapid rate hikes

Source: Bloomberg

“October’s data show the housing market settling into a much slower gear, with the National Composite Index up only about 1.4% year over year – among the weakest performances since mid-2023,” said Nicholas Godec, CFA, CAIA, CIPM, Head of Fixed Income Tradables & Commodities at S&P Dow Jones Indices.

“This broad stagnation suggests that elevated mortgage rates – still hovering around the mid-6% range in late October – are finally overwhelming the market’s earlier supply-driven resilience. Would-be buyers are facing the highest borrowing costs in decades, and that affordability squeeze has curbed demand enough to erode price momentum across most of the country.”

But could be set to improve in the (lagged) months ahead…

Source: Bloomberg

Regional performance underscores a striking geographic rotation.

• Chicago now leads all major markets with a 5.8% annual price gain, followed by New York at 5.0% and Cleveland at 4.1%. These traditionally stable Midwestern and Northeastern metros have sustained solid growth even as broader conditions soften.

• By contrast, Tampa home prices are down 4.2% year over year – the steepest drop among the 20 cities, marking Tampa’s 12th consecutive month of annual declines. Other former highflyers in the Sun Belt are similarly struggling: Phoenix (-1.5%), Dallas (-1.5%), and Miami (-1.1%) all remain in negative territory.

As Godec notes, “it’s a stark reversal from the pandemic boom, as the markets that were once ‘pandemic darlings’ are now seeing the sharpest corrections while more traditional metros continue to post modest gains.”

Mark Zuckerberg has been aggressively repositioning Meta Platforms’ focus and spending toward artificial intelligence, particularly to achieve “personal superintelligence” that enhances existing apps like Facebook and Instagram and, of course, boosts revenue. Put simply, the pivot to AI looks like a far better venture than Zuckerberg’s absolutely horrendous bet on the metaverse.

A new Wall Street Journal report on Tuesday said that Meta is buying an AI startup with Chinese founders that conducts deep research called Manus. The move is a familiar strategy: if you cannot beat the competition, buy it. Zuckerberg has repeatedly taken this approach this year, including aggressively poaching AI talent across Silicon Valley.

Manus is entering the next chapter: we’re joining forces with Meta to take general agents to the next level.

Full story on our blog: https://t.co/huPrnbITCi

— Manus (@ManusAI) December 29, 2025

People familiar with the Meta-Manus deal say the acquisition will cost upwards of $2 billion. At the same time, Manus was seeking a new round of fundraising at roughly that valuation when Meta approached with an offer.

In a statement to the Financial Times, Meta said it would “operate and sell the Manus service” while integrating its technology into its own products, such as the Meta AI chatbot.

Meta noted that Manus is one of the “leading autonomous general-purpose agents,” with tools capable of performing tasks including market research, coding, and data analysis. Meta could ultimately offer this new AI agent service for as little as $20 per month.

The acquisition stands out as one of the most high-profile deals to date involving a U.S. tech giant purchasing an AI product built within Asia’s AI and startup ecosystem. It highlights how AI innovation is no longer confined to Silicon Valley, but is emerging across parts of Asia. The deal also highlights a strategic shift by U.S. tech giants toward acquiring proven AI products and talent overseas, rather than relying solely on in-house development, as the race for AI agents and automation intensifies following China’s DeepSeek debut earlier this year.

Manus raised $75 million in a Series B funding round led by U.S. venture firm Benchmark in April. Political scrutiny surrounding the VC firm’s funding round with the China-linked startup later prompted Manus to relocate its headquarters to Singapore.

WSJ reported that Manus CEO Xiao Hong will soon report to Meta COO Javier Olivan. The startup employs about 100 staff, primarily in Singapore.

Using publicly available data from the supply chain analysis firm Sayari, Manus is owned by Singapore-registered Butterfly Effect Technology (Butterfly Effect Pte. Ltd.). The founders include Xiao Hong, often called “Red,” as CEO and co-founder; Yichao “Peak” Ji as chief scientist and co-founder; and Zhang Tao as co-founder and product partner.

“In this AI wave, Chinese entrepreneurs building open-source large models or AI applications have been iterating the fastest and are highly competitive,” Li Chengdong, founder of the Haitun internet think tank, told the FT. He added, “An incredible company and team are being sold to the United States. If China does not value talent and entrepreneurs and does not respect the basic rules of capital, it will ultimately be very hard for the country to win the China-US tech war.”

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com,

Following the Ukrainian drone attack that damaged a key export terminal on Russia’s Black Sea at end-November, Kazakhstan’s crude and condensate production has fallen by 6% so far in December compared to the average output in November, an anonymous industry source told Reuters on Monday. 

A Ukrainian attack damaged infrastructure through which the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) exports most of Kazakhstan’s oil near the Russian port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. 

Oil has continued to flow, but at lower rates, while Kazakhstan sought to re-route some exports away from the Black Sea to keep supply relatively steady. 

CPC operates the pipeline from the Caspian coast in northwest Kazakhstan to the Novorossiysk port, which handles 80% of Kazakhstan’s crude exports from giant oilfields operated by international oil firms. 

Affiliates of Chevron and ExxonMobil are also minority shareholders in CPC, with the Russian Federation as its largest shareholder with a 24% stake.

As a result of the damaged infrastructure at the CPC export terminal, crude and gas condensate output from Kazakhstan dropped by 6% between December 1 and 28, down compared to an average of 1.93 million barrels per day (bpd) in November, according to Reuters’ source.  

Production at the giant Tengiz oilfield on the Caspian Sea, operated by a consortium led by Chevron, has also fallen this month. Output dipped by 10% to 719,800 bpd in the period December 1 through December 28, the source told the publication.

Earlier this month, Kazakhstan said it would reroute some of the oil from at its giant Kashagan oilfield toward China. 

In view of urgent repairs at one of three single-point moorings and deferred loadings, Kazakhstan works on rerouting part of its crude exports, Kazakhstan’s Energy Ministry told Reuters nearly three weeks ago. 

Kazakhstan is also diverting more of its westbound exports to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline to the Turkish Mediterranean coast after the attack, multiple industry sources told Reuters in early December.  

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Economic prosperity is created in free markets by innovative companies. Over 50 percent of globally operating AI unicorns are located in the U.S., while Europe plays virtually no role. The race for the next future technology is already decided.

It seems that economic history is repeating itself in these months. On the stock markets, companies in the artificial intelligence and data center sectors are being traded feverishly. Massive capital flows into this technology. Much of it resembles the dot-com boom 25 years ago.

Structurally and regionally, little has changed since then: The U.S. and China are fighting for pole position, while the European Union’s economy remains largely on the sidelines, pushed into a spectator role by EU regulators.

Unicorns as a Measure of Innovation

An interesting measure of the EU’s lag in artificial intelligence is the number of so-called unicorns—private startups valued at at least one billion U.S. dollars before going public. This metric is considered a valid indicator of a region’s innovative capacity—and for the EU, the comparison with the U.S. is catastrophic.

About 1,700 such innovative companies currently operate in the U.S., while the EU has only around 280. The U.S. dominates this market with over 50 percent share, whereas the European economy lags far behind with less than ten percent of the global market.

This economic gap is also reflected in investment volume. Hyperscalers such as Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta invested over $320 billion in AI and corresponding data center infrastructure this year alone. More than 550 new projects—with a focus in Virginia, Texas, and Arizona—are forming the backbone of a new economy.

Data center capacity in the U.S. grew by around 160 percent this year, while Europe’s capacity increased by only about 75 percent, equaling an investment volume of just under €100 billion.

With investments of around $125 billion, China’s economy also lags far behind the American one. An interesting context—especially from the perspective of European, and particularly German, policymakers—is that nuclear power is gaining noticeable momentum in these regions.

Even if green-minded Germany refuses to acknowledge it due to its ideological stance against nuclear energy, the enormous energy demand of new technologies will in the future be covered to a significant extent by the expansion of nuclear power.

Among the few major projects in the European Union are the Brookfield project in Sweden, with an investment volume of around $10 billion, and the Start Campus in Portugal, which could also activate nearly $10 billion in investments.

Crash of Ideologies

Especially in AI, the ideological clash between the U.S. and the EU can be observed in practice and in all its consequences. While the U.S. relies on deregulation and private solutions, removing barriers for intense competition, EU Europe still adheres to the mantra of political global control. Nothing may happen unless Brussels officials have schemed it at their green table in all their wisdom.

The Draghi motto still applies here: Only massive public investments—credit-financed and centrally planned—will, in the view of EU statist planners, help overcome the enormous gap between Europe and the U.S.

In the simulations of the EU Commission’s master plan, now stretched over seven years under Ursula von der Leyen, everything seems surprisingly simple, almost simplified. The EU’s Invest-AI plan intends to borrow around €50 billion in loans and invest them in selected projects in the coming years. This is supposed to trigger private investments of €150 billion, ultimately creating four AI gigafactories.

Welcome to the socialist textbook world of “Habeckonomics”: a system in which state projects like Northvolt repeatedly fail. Yet as long as public guarantees, subsidies, and state-guaranteed purchase prices are in prospect, the small flame of political hope continues flickering in Europe’s lukewarm wind.

As usual, we also observe the typical European jungle of funding programs, subsidies, and steering projects. These include “Horizon Europe,” which is meant to strengthen computing power in science, the RAISE pilot, and the Gen-AI-4-EU initiative, together investing another billion euros in the EU’s digital infrastructure.

The Power of Competition

The ideological clash between the two major economic blocks, the U.S. and the EU, is producing strange effects. While the open capital market in the U.S. lets startups sprout like mushrooms from fertile soil, EU regulation—especially under the Digital Markets Act—has fostered a predatory mentality. That this was likely the Eurocrats’ goal from the start comes as no surprise.

Brussels imposed more than €3.2 billion in competition fines this year, mainly targeting U.S. corporations. Brussels has degenerated into a bureaucratic leviathan—a parasitic glutton absorbing economic energy and generating ossified structures and economic vacuum.

In EU Europe, the motto is: the regulatory framework matters most—and the state takes its cut. That private industry prefers other locations and withdraws capital matters little to Brussels’ extraction experts.

Against the backdrop of Europe’s massive descent into a climate-socialist dystopia, it is surprising that the roots of libertarian economic thinking originate precisely on this continent. Consider the great economist Ludwig von Mises, who repeatedly pointed out that it is the entrepreneur who drives the engine of the market economy through profit-seeking, and that without exception, decentralized processes create prosperity—while state interventions regularly derail it.

Civilization-superior models like the free market sink in the waves of ideological EU infantilism. Its repressive climate socialism promotes the growth of corporatist structures in which politics and subsidized parts of the economy carry out the extraction, eliminating competition.

The rigid adherence to centrally planned control of the new tech industry tragically mirrors the timeline of the dot-com era. What Europe fails to understand is that groundbreaking innovation inevitably triggers an investment boom, often resulting in overinvestment and a stock market crash—but ultimately leaving economically profitable structures permanently woven into the existing economy.

As with companies like Amazon, Google, or Microsoft, Europeans will look back in a few years at these months and examine this intercontinental economic bifurcation through the examples of OpenAI, Gemini, or Perplexity. The energy needed will come from French nuclear reactors and soon also from Polish nuclear power.

Most people know that plastic pollution is a problem, but microplastics (the tiny fragments shed by everyday products) are much more pervasive than many realize.

Microplastics are defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 mm.

These particles are found everywhere: in oceans, soil, drinking water, food, and even the air we breathe. Yet, the origins of these particles are often invisible to consumers.

Using data from the IUCN, CSIRO, and Elsevier, this graphic, via Visual Capitalist, by Made Visual Daily breaks down what actually makes up these particles and where they come from.

A breakdown of microplastic sources, compiled from multiple environmental studies:

The chart shows that the biggest contributor to microplastics is synthetic textiles, which account for 35% of the total. Tires (28%) and city dust (24%) are also major culprits, followed by road markings (7%) and a grab bag of other sources (6%).

How Do These Microplastics Enter the Environment?

Microplastics enter the environment in two main forms: primary and secondary.

Primary microplastics are released directly into the environment at a microscopic size. These include:

• Fibers shed from washing synthetic fabrics like polyester, nylon, or acrylic.

• Rubber dust worn from car and truck tires during normal use.

• Fragments in city dust from the abrasion of paints, soles, furniture, and building coatings.

• Plastic pellets (“nurdles”) lost during plastic manufacturing or shipping.

Secondary microplastics, on the other hand, are formed when larger plastic debris—like bags, bottles, or fishing gear—breaks down over time due to sunlight, wave action, and weathering. These degrade into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming microplastics.

Both types are persistent, pervasive, and increasingly found in even the most remote ecosystems. Research shows that even atmospheric currents can transport microplastic particles across continents and oceans.

The Scale of the Problem

Scientists estimate that roughly 21 million tonnes of primary microplastics have accumulated across land and sea environments, with millions of tonnes found in both agricultural soils and ocean waters. To help readers grasp the sheer scale of this invisible pollution, the graphic visualizes this total as an area filled 10 feet (3 meters) deep across a span of 2 miles (3.2 kilometers).

As highlighted in our previous breakdown of the future of the world’s plastic, the accumulation of these invisible pollutants is a growing concern, with long-term impacts still being uncovered.

What Can Be Done?

Solutions will require both technological and behavioral changes. For instance, innovations like microfiber filters in washing machines, and the development of alternative materials for tires and textiles, could help reduce the release of particles at the source.

In the meantime, understanding where microplastics come from is a critical first step. As this breakdown shows, the issue goes far beyond just plastic straws and bags.

Explore more microplastic visualizations like Visualizing The Size of Microplastics on Voronoi, our data storytelling app.

By Michael Kern of OilPrice.com,

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, which has been under Russian control since early 2022, could resume operations within a year and a half after a potential end to the war, the head of the plant’s Russian operating company said on Monday. 

“If this (the end of the conflict) happens tomorrow, we will be ready to start up in mid-2027,” Ramil Galiyev, CEO of the Zaporizhzhya NPP Operating Organization, said, as carried by Russia’s state news agency RIA. 

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is not operational and does not produce electricity, but needs power supply from external sources to cool the nuclear material and avoid a nuclear meltdown or disaster.

Zaporizhzhia is Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant in terms of installed capacity of 5.7 gigawatts (GW).

Located in Enerhodar, the nuclear power plant supplied about 20% of Ukraine’s electricity before the war. 

Earlier this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began a process to help restore external electricity to the power plant, following weeks of diplomatic engagement with both Ukraine and Russia after the facility again lost all access to the national grid.

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi announced that work had begun to re-establish off-site power through repairs to the damaged 750 kV Dniprovska and 330 kV Ferosplavna-1 transmission lines.

These lines, located on opposite sides of the front line, are essential for supplying the electricity needed to cool the plant’s six shutdown reactors and spent fuel.

Last week, Russian media claimed that the Trump Administration held talks with Russia over joint management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, including the potential to use its power for crypto mining. The discussions, which have not been independently confirmed, were allegedly held without Ukraine’s participation, and likewise proposed resuming electricity supply to Ukraine, Russian newspaper Kommersant reported on Friday.  

By 2050, 68% of the global population is projected to live in urban centers, up from 55% today.

The world’s largest megacity, when measured by the combination of satellite imagery and census data, is Guangzhou, China.

Strikingly, the population has boomed by nearly 20-fold in just 50 years driven by China’s rapid economic rise.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows the growth of the world’s megacities, based on data from the European Commission via Our World in Data.

The Rise of the World’s Megacities (1975-2025P)

Below, we show the rise of the top five largest cities worldwide—using satellite imagery and census data—not administrative borders:

Since 1975, the population of Guangzhou has expanded by 40.9 million. It has the equivalent population of the entire country of Canada.

During the 1990s, the city’s population growth accelerated, driven by trade and industrial activity. Located on the Pearl River Delta, north of Hong Kong, it stands as a key port and transportation hub.

Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital and the economic hub of Southeast Asia’s largest economy, has undergone massive expansion. Its population has surged by 29 million over the past five decades, reaching 38.1 million today.

Meanwhile, New Delhi, India has grown 398%, supported by rising incomes and urban migration. By 2030, the city is expected to gain nearly two million more residents, spanning a population of 33.3 million.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s fastest-growing economies.

Authored by J.Ricardo Martins via journal-neo.su,

Europe’s long-standing security framework is undergoing profound strain, increasingly overshadowed by economic instruments that shape geopolitical influence.

This analysis examines how geoeconomic logics are reshaping Europe’s strategic posture and challenging the foundations of its traditional security order.

1. The Unraveling: How Europe Lost Control of Its Own Security Architecture

The photograph of Steve Witkoff with Vladimir Putin in Moscow is not merely another episode in the long chronicle of American informal diplomacy. It is a symbol of something far more consequential: the definitive erosion of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture that has anchored Europe since 1945. Europe now finds itself a spectator to a negotiation that directly concerns its future but in which it has no meaningful voice.

For decades, European leaders assumed that their security environment was guaranteed through three pillars: American military supremacy, NATO cohesion, and a Russia that could be simultaneously contained and marginalised. The war in Ukraine temporarily sustained this illusion. The European Union interpreted Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as validation of the post-1991 Atlantic order, proof that Europe needed more NATO, more American leadership, more defence spending, and more ideological alignment with Washington.

Europe’s tragedy is not that it is being excluded from the negotiations shaping its own future, but that it does not yet fully grasp the depth of its exclusion

But as the conflict entered its later stages, and as new political dynamics emerged in Washington, a deeper reality became visible: Europe’s vision of security was not aligned with America’s long-term strategic trajectory.

Washington seeks to contain China; Europe seeks to contain Russia. Washington looked to the Indo-Pacific; Europe clung to its Eastern frontier. Washington viewed Russia as a potential co-player in global resource extraction, Arctic development, and strategic balancing; Europe continued to frame Russia as a permanent existential enemy.

The result is a form of strategic misalignment, with Europe still operating inside an architecture that Washington no longer fully believes in.

The American Pivot, the European Panic

Donald Trump’s return to the international stage accelerated this divergence dramatically. Trump’s strategic re-imagination of Russia, as an asset rather than an adversary placed Europe in a state of near-panic. His willingness to undermine NATO commitments, his explicit distrust of European leaders, and his understanding of geopolitics as business diplomacy all contribute to Europe’s strategic anxiety.

Trump’s humiliation of Europe is deliberate. By sending Witkoff, an adviser with no diplomatic obligations, to Moscow repeatedly while ignoring Kyiv, Trump signals that the centre of gravity has moved. The peace process will not be mediated through Brussels, Berlin, or Paris; it will be mediated through a Washington–Moscow axis, bypassing European institutions entirely.

Europe’s refusal to speak with Moscow is interpreted in the Kremlin not as principled resistance but as strategic self-sabotage. And Washington, sensing opportunity, is willing to exploit this fracture.

As many analysts warned—both sympathetic and critical—Europe is discovering too late that its security cannot be maintained through moral rhetoric, sanctions, or rearmament without industrial foundations. Europe wants to contain Russia, but it no longer has the political, military, or economic tools to do so.

2. The Dealmakers: How Trump, Putin, and Business Networks Are Writing Europe Out of Its Own Future

Shadow Diplomacy as the New Geopolitics

Witkoff’s shuttle diplomacy represents a structural shift: diplomacy is no longer the domain of foreign ministries but of political families, corporate intermediaries, and resource-based alliances. This is why Kushner’s presence in Moscow matters profoundly. The December talks were not simply high-level negotiations; they were the emergence of a new system of geopolitical conduct, in which trust between individual power networks outweighs institutional protocols.

The Trump–Putin paradigm is built on three principles: (i) commercial logic over ideological confrontation; (ii) resource extraction as the foundation of geopolitical stability; and (iii) bilateral trust over multilateral institutions.

This is profoundly humiliating for Europe, which traditionally sought legitimacy via multilateralism. For Washington and Moscow, however, Europe’s exclusion is not an oversight but a feature. The old European security architecture depended on Europe’s centrality. The new one does not.

The Economic Heart of the New Architecture

The emerging Washington–Moscow understanding is grounded in four economic pillars:

– Arctic and Northern Sea Route Resource Extraction: Joint participation in Arctic minerals, hydrocarbons, and rare earths is central. The US is far behind Russia in icebreaker capacity and Arctic infrastructure, and cooperation is a pragmatic solution.

– Energy Corridors and Post-War Reconstruction: American investors eye Russian energy as an undervalued frontier market. Simultaneously, reconstruction of Ukraine (potentially funded by frozen Russian assets) creates massive opportunities for US construction and energy firms.

– Reintegrating Russian hydrocarbons into global markets: This is a long-term American objective, both to stabilise global energy prices and to manage China’s growing leverage over Russia.

– Replacing NATO’s military logic with economic interdependence: This is the core of Trump’s thinking: build a Washington–Moscow axis rooted in profitability, thereby reducing the incentive for armed confrontation.

Why Europeans Are Desperate

Because Europe has tied its industrial base to sanctions, decarbonisation, and American military dependency, it is now structurally weaker than both Washington and Moscow in the emerging configuration.

Europe is discovering three painful truths:

– It cannot defend itself without the US. NATO’s European pillars lack ammunition, industrial capacity, and high-end military technology.

– Sanctions have weakened Europe more than Russia. Energy-intensive industries in Germany, Austria, and Italy are relocating to the US. Deindustrialisation is underway in Europe.

– The peace negotiations will not include Europe as a co-author. Europe will receive the final document, but not be invited to shape it.

This is why European strategists are furious: the security architecture that defined the continent is being rewritten over their heads.

3. After Ukraine: What the New European Security Order Might Look Like

Will NATO survive as Europe’s central pillar?

NATO will not disappear. It remains too deeply institutionalised, too symbolically powerful for Europeans, and too useful for Washington’s basing structures and arms exports. But it will be downgraded, transformed from the core of the European security order into a secondary framework, increasingly dependent on: US political will, a fragmented European defence sector, reduced American enthusiasm for European commitments, and a US–Russia modus vivendi that Europe does not control.

Under a Trump presidency, NATO has become a transactional umbrella, not a strategic alliance. Its credibility will depend entirely on the personal relationship between Trump and Putin—and Europe hates this because it strips the continent of agency.

The Impact of the War and the Coming Peace on Europe’s Architectural Future

The conflict in Ukraine revealed Europe’s structural vulnerabilities: lack of ammunition, lack of production capacity, overreliance on sanctions, and strategic incoherence. The peace will reveal something even more uncomfortable: Europe cannot enforce the consequences of the settlement on its own.

If the US and Russia craft the final settlement, Europe must either accept it or refuse and confront the consequences alone. Neither Paris nor Berlin is prepared for the latter scenario.

Ukraine, tragically, will be the ultimate pressure point. Its sovereignty will be negotiated by outsiders. Europe knows this but cannot alter it.

Can Europe Hold the Architecture Without the US?

The honest answer is no, not in the short or medium term. Europe lacks nuclear deterrence autonomy, military-industrial depth, cohesive political will, strategic consensus, energy security, technological parity with the US, and the capacity to contain Russia without American leadership.

The idea of European strategic autonomy remains aspirational rhetoric. The EU has military instruments, but not a military. It has ambitions, but not the industrial base to sustain them.

The Asian Century and the Decline of Europe

The more Washington and Moscow converge economically, the more Europe’s global relevance declines. The Russia–China axis strengthens, India emerges as a balancing pole, and the BRICS expand their economic and political weight. Europe becomes a peninsula of a Eurasian supercontinent that it does not control, increasingly marginal to global power centres.

Whether Asia can provide stability depends on the trust networks forming between Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi, Riyadh, and Tehran. Europe is not part of those networks.

Conclusion: A Continent in Suspension

Europe’s tragedy is not that it is being excluded from the negotiations shaping its own future, but that it does not yet fully grasp the depth of its exclusion.

The Moscow meetings are not a negotiation between equals; it is a negotiation between systems of power. Trump and Putin understand one another because they speak the language of transactional geopolitics. Europe speaks the language of norms, laws, and bureaucratic procedures—in a world that is no longer governed by them.

A new European security architecture is being drafted, and it is not being drafted in Brussels. It is being drafted in Washington and Moscow.

Europe must confront a stark question: Can a continent that has lost strategic agency recover it before the next geopolitical cycle closes?

Via The Cradle

The Chinese Foreign Ministry released a statement on Monday condemning Israel’s recognition of the separatist Republic of Somaliland, after Taiwan became the first state to welcome Tel Aviv’s move. 

China opposes the Israeli recognition of Somaliland as an “independent sovereign state” and the decision to “establish diplomatic relations” with it, said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian. “No country should encourage or support other countries’ internal separatist forces for its own selfish interests,” he added, while urging the country of Somalia to halt “separatist activities and collusion with external forces.”

The spokesman made the comments during a news briefing. “China firmly supports Somalia’s sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity, and opposes any moves that undermine Somali territorial integrity,” he went on to say.

A day earlier, Taiwan became the first state to welcome Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. The Taiwanese Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Israel, Taiwan, and Somaliland are “like-minded democratic partners sharing the values of democracy, freedom, and rule of law.“

Last week, Israel became the first state to formally recognize Somaliland, which broke away from Somalia in 1991 but had never been recognized by any UN member state. Somali officials slammed the move. 

The Israeli government has been aiming for Somaliland to serve as a potential destination for Palestinians that Tel Aviv aims to forcibly displace from Gaza, according to multiple reports over the past year. 

Somali Prime Minister Hamza Barre said that Israel was “searching for a foothold in the Horn of Africa” and called on it to recognize and accept a Palestinian state instead. 

Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud referred to the move as a “naked invasion” and said it poses a “threat to regional stability.”

The Arab League, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), African Union, and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also strongly rejected the Israeli recognition of Somaliland. Iran’s Foreign Ministry called the move “malicious.”

China’s rejection of the recognition coincided with a report by Hebrew newspaper Maariv, which claimed that after recognizing Somaliland, Israel is now considering recognizing the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) in Yemen, hoping for strategic cooperation on the Red Sea coast against Ansarallah.

The secessionist STC has recently swept across large swathes of central and southern Yemen with the hopes of creating an independent state. According to recent reports, Israel and Taiwan have also been enhancing their relationship.

Taiwanese Foreign Minister Francois Wu recently made a secret visit to Israel, sources told Reuters on 11 December. In October this year, Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te said that Israel serves as a model for the island to strengthen its defenses.

Weeks earlier, Taipei City unveiled the T-Dome system – inspired by Tel Aviv’s Iron Dome missile defense system. Taiwan and Israel do not have formal diplomatic relations. Pressure from China, which views Taiwan as one of its provinces, has left Taipei with very few diplomatic ties to other states.