Denmark plans to scale back its military assistance to Ukraine next year, and the amount cut is being widely reported as a huge amount – up to almost half of what’s it’s been since 2022.

According to Danish Broadcasting Corporation, the tiny northern European country has long stood out for its exceptionally high contributions that it made earlier in the conflict, but now the Danish government wants other countries should shoulder more of the burden.

The country’s Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen has informed parliament that the government intends to allocate 9.4 billion kroner (around $1.5 billion) in aid to Ukraine in 2026.

This marks a decrease from the 16.5 billion kroner (about $2.6 billion) provided this year and the nearly 19 billion kroner (roughly $3 billion) distributed the prior year.

Danish media has described that this is partly the result dwindling resources in the Ukraine Fund, which is a dedicated pool established in 2023 with broad political support among European allies.

In total, since the start of the war in early 2022 Denmark has provided a whopping nearly $11 billion in military aid to Kiev. It has also provided F-16 jets and hosted fighter pilot training programs for Ukrainians.

Simon Kollerup, a member of the Denmark’s Defense Committee, has stated that “it is natural that we are seeing a stabilization of the level of support being provided”.

“We decided to be one of the countries that took the lead at the beginning of the war by providing large-scale support. I also think it is fair to say that this support somewhat exceeds what is actually dictated by the size of our country. Therefore, I find it quite natural that the support is decreasing,” Kollerup added.

This comes at a time that Washington is also withdrawing much of its outsized support to Ukraine, with Trump’s preferred scheme being to sell weapons to Europe, which will in turn sell or transfer them to Kiev.

The timing of Denmark’s announced major reduction in aid also comes as the Zelensky government is mired in a corruption scandal which goes straight to the presidential office itself (with top aides having been dismissed and investigated), so perhaps some EU countries are finally wising up, and no longer wish to act in a blank check manner.

Ukraine’s top donor Denmark to nearly halve military aid in 2026

It will be $1.5bn next year, down from $2.6bn spent this year. It was $3bn in 2024.

Denmark sees that their $11bn weapons support incl. F-16 did not yield a win.

The Danes hate corruption more than Russia. pic.twitter.com/RQjR1HxWIr

— Alternative News (@AlternatNews) December 7, 2025

Even the NY Times has just acknowledged in a report that “President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration has stacked boards with loyalists, left seats empty, or stalled them from being set up at all. Leaders in Kiev even rewrote company charters to limit oversight, keeping the government in control and allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent without outsiders poking around.”

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Markets opened in December with a surge in optimism as retail investors regained their “bullish spirit.” That improvement continues to build on the bullish case we discussed last week:

“Seasonality, positioning, and trend still lean in favor of the bulls. December is historically one of the stronger months for equities, particularly when the market is already up by double digits year-to-date. Expectations for a December Fed rate cut, and a gradual cooling of inflation, support the “soft-landing” narrative, while corporate buybacks and under-invested managers create fuel for a “chase into year-end” if resistance gives way. With volatility easing and breadth improving, the path of least resistance near term remains higher if key support zones are maintained.”

The increase in optimism is also attributable to the significant policy pivot from the Federal Reserve. On December 1, the Fed officially ended its quantitative tightening (QT) program. The halting of the runoff of its balance sheet and the injection of fresh liquidity into financial markets are essential. We will discuss this more momentarily. But for investors, this change removed a persistent headwind and reignited expectations for a more accommodative stance in 2026.

Speaking of Fed policy, the next FOMC rate decision is this coming week. The CME futures markets now reflect a very high probability of a 0.25% rate cut. Furthermore, expectations for further rate cuts in March of next year have risen. However, as discussed in last week’s brief, seasonality, dip-buying, and institutional positioning are already in play, and the removal of QT adds fuel to that narrative, helping to lift asset prices.

Notably, there has been a shift away from stretched growth names toward lagging sectors, such as energy, financials, and healthcare, which has improved market breadth. That improvement is a necessary component of a more sustainable rally. However, much of the action still appears technical and remains inconsistent with bullish markets.

Next week, the focus will shift toward confirmation as the markets closely scrutinize the Fed’s commentary for clues on the timing and scope of further rate cuts. Liquidity indicators in repo markets and short-term funding will also be critical. If those stay stable, the rally could continue. Lastly, economic data, particularly inflation and employment figures, the first since the Government shutdown, will also play a role in shaping expectations.

For now, the rally has legs, but once we enter 2026, the fundamentals will need to improve to sustain it.

Markets have reached a crossroads.

Investors are staring down two sharply opposing narratives as 2025 comes to a close. On one side, there’s optimism: the Federal Reserve has ended quantitative tightening, liquidity is rising, and key sectors are flush with capital. On the other hand, significant risks remain unresolved: narrow market leadership, elevated valuations, growing household stress, and deepening concerns in the credit market.

These are all things we have discussed previously, but the split reflects more than market noise. It’s a clash between structural bullish support and underlying economic fragility. While both cases are grounded in data and each carries significant implications for asset allocation, risk management, and long-term investment outcomes, they are equally essential to consider.

As we will discuss, the bull case leans heavily on liquidity, fiscal support, and renewed investment. The return of easy monetary conditions, a shift in political leadership favoring tax cuts and increased spending, and massive capital expenditure commitments by the largest U.S. companies paint a picture of continued upside. If those forces hold, equities could continue to grind higher, lifting all sectors or at least sustaining current valuations.

Conversely, the bear case warns that the fundamentals are fraying beneath the surface. Household debt is rising, delinquencies are increasing across income brackets, and private credit markets are displaying early warning signs. Meanwhile, the rally remains narrowly focused on a few mega-cap stocks tied to artificial intelligence. If those names falter, the broader market could quickly give up its gains.

In today’s analysis, we will examine both arguments and outline the most likely path for markets in 2026. Whether the market skews bullish or breaks bearish, investors need a plan. What matters now isn’t conviction in one narrative. What matters is readiness for either outcome.

Let’s get into it.

Bull Case: Why the Market Could Push Higher

Liquidity has shifted significantly more favorably for risk assets and equities. On December 1, 2025, the Federal Reserve (Fed) officially ended its quantitative tightening (QT) program and is scheduled to cut overnight lending rates by another 0.25% next week. The Fed has simultaneously conducted a large overnight repurchase agreement injection of approximately $13.5 billion into the banking system, which is the second-largest liquidity injection since the COVID-19 era began.

That signals the Fed is done draining cash from the system and may even be ready to begin loosening again. Furthermore, that shift removes a significant structural drag on equities. Furthermore, as noted, adding to that backdrop are further expected rate cuts, as early as next week. As shown, the market performs well during periods of a Federal Reserve rate-cutting cycle when the economy is not in a recession. Currently, although economic data remains weak, recession risks are muted.

With easier liquidity, investors are likely to return to riskier assets. Historically, when QT ends and liquidity returns, equities have tended to rally, and the renewed cash flow may support not only large-cap stocks but also corporate cap-ex, buybacks, and broader credit-based investments. The return of liquidity breathes new life into the structural bull arguments of a fresh technology cycle, substantial capital expenditure by major firms, corporate buybacks, and deregulation or capital easing.

Furthermore, on the consumer side, while household debt rose modestly in Q3, overall borrowing increased in a controlled way. Total U.S. household debt reached about $18.59 trillion as of Q3 2025, a 1 percent increase over the prior quarter and up about $642 billion year‑over‑year. That rise was reflected in mortgages, credit cards, student loans, HELOCs, and auto loans. Notably, mortgage balances alone rose by $137 billion, bringing the total mortgages to $13.07 trillion.

Despite this, delinquency rates for mortgages remain relatively stable, while student-loan and unsecured debt are showing increased levels of strain. This suggests that households are still serviceable on their debt, which in turn could provide further support to corporate earnings in the near term. Again, I am not dismissing the rise in credit card and student loan delinquencies, but these have not yet morphed into broader economic stress…yet.

Given liquidity, consumer balance‑sheet resilience (at least in aggregate), and the potential for renewed capital expenditures and buybacks, the environment favors further upside. Stocks that had lagged or sectors outside of narrow, “hot” themes may attract renewed interest as investors seek value and diversified exposure.

Statistically, there is also a bullish case to be made. As shown in the table below, many have forgotten about the ~20% decline we saw in March and April this year. That “reset” was necessary as 20% corrections, while they happen, are more “severe” events that reverse overly bullish sentiment and positioning. However, more notable was the sharp reversal from the April lows. Such a selloff and reversal has only occurred four times since 1950. While there is still roughly one month left in 2025, if returns hold at their current levels, it suggests that 2026 could have a positive year as bullish momentum continues.

But not everything is “bullish” heading into 2026.

Bear Case: Why the Rally Could Falter

While a bullish outlook for 2026 is present, numerous and growing risks are also present. Many of the powerful catalysts that drove the post‑pandemic rally now show signs of fatigue or overhang. However, before we delve into those, let’s begin with overall performance. Over the last three years, the market has delivered extraordinarily high returns of 20% or more consecutively. That is not unprecedented, but it does lean to the more unusual side of the statistical ledger. As we noted yesterday in our #DailyMarket Commentary:

“The S&P 500 has posted a strong three-year price return of approximately 76.7 percent, excluding dividends. That translates to an annualized return of 20% to 22%. This is well above the long-term average annual return of roughly 10% to 11% with dividends reinvested. Such elevated returns over a short period suggest that the market is trading well above its historical trend. Historically, when the S&P 500 rolling 3-year return is two standard deviations above its three-year moving average, the market is statistically extended. This deviation typically precedes a shift in volatility and return outcomes. In other words, when markets reach this level of extension, two patterns emerge: increased volatility and weaker forward returns.”

While many expect 2026 to be a continuation of 2025, we should always respect the most powerful force in investing: the principle of “reversion to the mean.”

However, adding to that concern is the continued fact that the market remains extremely narrow. Gains have concentrated heavily among a small group of high-growth companies with strong ties to AI and technology. If optimism around AI, tech investment, or “transformational technology” cracks, even slightly, whether due to earnings disappointments, regulatory headwinds, or shifting investor sentiment, the broader market could struggle. The narrow leadership leaves little margin for broader weakness, and given that the vast majority of earnings growth has come from a handful of companies, it suggests that “disappointment risk” could be a significant factor next year.

Valuations remain elevated. With forward price‑to-earnings (P/E) multiples for the broad market stretched, there is little buffer for disappointments in earnings growth, macroeconomic slowdown, or credit stress. Overpaid valuations amplify the downside if growth or liquidity fails to meet expectations.

Credit‑market vulnerabilities are rising. The rapid growth of non-bank “private credit” as an alternative to traditional lending is now drawing scrutiny. Investors are increasingly withdrawing from publicly listed funds that hold such private credit instruments. That suggests waning confidence and potential repricing of private debt risk. If borrowers across corporate or household sectors struggle, losses could reverberate through credit markets and spill into equities.

One caveat to the bear case is that while these are all very valid factors that could negatively impact stocks, they are also dependent on a more macro-type shock to “ignite the fuse.” Yes, valuations are high, but there must be an “event” to cause a rapid repricing of forward earnings estimates. Yes, debt is problematic, but only when a recession triggers job losses, leading to sharp increases in defaults across all categories.

So, yes, while these factors are essential, I do not expect them to occur over the span of the next week, month, or even quarter.

However, with that being said, what should investors expect heading into next year?

In 2026, there is a growing possibility that investors may experience both bull and bear markets. As noted, the “bear case” is predicated on longer-term, macro events that will take some time to mature. However, the “bull case” is more focused on short-term factors, such as liquidity, which, although plentiful today, can evaporate tomorrow. Given the data and dynamics, the most likely near-term outcome is a continued bull market, which may lead to increased volatility and potentially bearish outcomes later in the year.

Key Catalysts Next Week

Markets enter this week with elevated expectations. With the recent end of quantitative tightening, investors are now watching a cluster of important events that could define whether the year-end rally broadens or stalls. The most significant driver will be the upcoming meeting of the Federal Reserve (Fed). But a series of economic data releases and significant corporate earnings will also test optimism.

What Investors Should Focus On

• The Fed meeting on December 10 looms as the central anchor. A well‑telegraphed 25‑bps cut, or even the possibility of a path of cuts, could reopen risk‑asset flows. If the Fed soft‑pedals, expect volatility and potential rotation out of overvalued sectors.

• Labor market data from JOLTS and weekly jobless claims will indicate whether employment remains resilient or is starting to exhibit cracks, which has direct implications for consumer spending and credit risk.

• Earnings from big tech and AI firms (ORCL, ADBE, and AVGO) will continue to test whether growth expectations baked into valuations are realistic or overly optimistic.

• The mix of budget, trade, and cost data will inform broader macro narratives, including growth, inflation, and fiscal/credit conditions.

This week offers a high‑stakes test of sentiment. If liquidity (through the Fed’s policy) aligns with solid economic and earnings data, the rally could broaden beyond mega‑caps and extend into 2026. If not, this “year‑end bounce” risks fading or turning into a broader reassessment.

Support and Resistance Zones

Based on the 6,878 close and the latest available pivot‑point and technical data, key zones to watch in the coming sessions:

• Immediate support: ~ 6,744 – 6,757 (20- and 50-day moving average cluster)

• Secondary support: ~ 6,598 (100‑day moving average) — a zone that, if broken, would signal weakening of the broader uptrend.

• Critical Support ~6,195 (200-day moving average) – if this level fails, the market will be facing a larger corrective action.

• Near‑term resistance: ~ 6,885 – 6,900 as markets approach previous rally peaks and all-time highs

• Major resistance/breakout zone: ~ 6,920–6,940 would clear previous all-time highs moving next resistance to top of current trend line near ~7,000

The rally this past week showed signs of expanding beyond just the most significant growth and AI‑related names. As discussed last week, some underappreciated sectors, such as value and cyclical-linked areas, registered relative gains. That diversification in participation tends to support the durability of a bullish uptrend.

Caution flags also emerged and are worth paying attention to.

While the market gained ground, volume was modest, suggesting many investors remain hesitant and are not fully committing. If this remains the case, the risk of a rally built primarily on liquidity and short-term positioning, rather than broad conviction, is susceptible to swift reversals in investor sentiment. Additionally, with prices exceeding the 200-day averages, the risk of a correction also increases.

Overall, the technical backdrop is bullish but is not devoid of risk. Continue to maintain a disciplined approach, respect support and resistance levels, and manage risk exposures accordingly.

Affordability has surged into the news cycle and is almost certain to dominate the coming midterm election cycle. And when voters talk about “affordability,” they’re most concerned about the basic cost of living. Beyond food and healthcare, nothing hits harder than housing costs. 

Goldman analysts led by Arun Manohar have some bad news on the housing affordability front: even with lower mortgage rates and slower home-price growth, it’s largely an “illusion of affordability” once other ownership costs, such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance, are factored in. 

Manohar explained more in a recent note to clients:

The most important topic of discussion in the housing market remains the challenging affordability situation. The recent decline in mortgage rates and the weak pace of HPA has resulted in housing affordability climbing to the highest level since 2022 (Exhibit 1). However, affordability remains low at the 18th percentile over the past 30 years. Although affordability has climbed, it is important to note that the standard affordability metrics do not capture all the costs of homeownership such as taxes, insurance and maintenance (collectively referred to as ‘other costs’). To capture the effect of ‘other costs,’ we rely on estimates from Zillow for the monthly mortgage payment and total monthly payment on a new home purchased with the average interest rate of the month. The difference between the two series accounts for homeowner’s insurance, property taxes, and maintenance costs. We find that metro areas that have experienced home price declines over the past year have generally witnessed greater increases in the ‘other costs’ over the past few years (Exhibit 2). Although falling home prices would typically make a home more affordable, prospective buyers may experience only partial relief since overall homeownership costs are not decreasing at the same rate as property values. With the median age of the US housing stock being over 40 years old, nationwide insurance premiums and maintenance expenses could increase further.

Mortgage rates are unlikely to decline enough to provide a significant boost to affordability in 2026. 

Manohar’s view on President Trump’s newly proposed 50-year mortgage: 

50-year mortgages: Short-term affordability boost, but with long-term consequencesRecently, the administration and the FHFA Director have explored the feasibility of introducing a 50-year mortgage product to help improve mortgage affordability. The 30-year fixed rate mortgage available in the US is already among the longest in the developed world. We see four key issues with a 50-year mortgage. First, while monthly payments decline slightly, the increase in the lifetime cost of homeownership can be prohibitive. Using the example of a $400k mortgage at 6.25% interest rates, we note that if the term were to be extended to 50-years, the monthly principal and interest payment would be about 11% lower than that if the term remained at 30-years. However, the total lifetime interest would climb 87% (Exhibit 4). Second, the above calculation assumes mortgage rates are the same for 30-year and 50-year mortgages. In reality though, the longer term will likely translate into higher mortgage rates and hence lower savings in monthly payments. It is quite likely that a 50-year mortgage would receive a rate that is at least 50bp higher than that on a 30-year mortgage (Exhibit 5). Using the same example of a $400k mortgage and the assumption that a 50-year mortgage receives a 50bp higher rate than the 30-year mortgage, the savings in monthly payment drops to just 5%, and the total lifetime interest would more than double. A mortgage rate that is 95bp higher than the prevailing 30-year mortgage rate of 6.25% would result in parity in monthly payments, completely nullifying the benefits of extending the term to 50 years. Third, with a 50-year mortgage, borrowers would build equity at an even slower pace than that with a 30-year mortgage during the initial years, which increases default risks in a housing downturn scenario. Finally, a sudden boost to affordability risks increasing home prices, as potential homebuyers would compete for the same limited inventory. Therefore, any improvement in housing affordability would be short lived.

In a recent Fox News interview, Vice President JD Vance blamed the affordability crisis on lingering effects of failed policies from the Biden-Harris years.

“A lot of young people are saying, housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were taking houses that ought by right go to American citizens,” Vance told Fox News’ Sean Hannity last month. And at the same time, we weren’t building enough new houses to begin with, even for the population that we had.”

ZeroHedge Pro subs can read the full note in the usual place. It’s packed with a lot more housing market charts.

Authored by Gary Abernathy of The Empowerment Alliance,

It’s been an interesting few weeks on the climate hysteria front. Organizations associated with climate alarmism have recently found themselves engulfed in turmoil. Bill Gates has recanted earlier predictions of gloom and doom. But the Father of Climate Panic, former Vice President Al Gore, remains steadfast, if increasingly marginalized.

Let’s start with probably the best-known environmental organization in the world, the Sierra Club. According to a recent New York Times report, the club thrived when it seemed laser-focused on the environment. But then, during Donald Trump’s first term, “its leaders sought to expand far beyond environmentalism, embracing other progressive causes. Those included racial justice, labor rights, gay rights, immigrant rights and more.”

As a result of the effort to morph into a catch-all for a myriad of social justice causes, the Times noted that by 2022 the Sierra Club “had exhausted its finances and splintered its coalition.” By August, according to the Times, the number of Sierra Club “champions” – “a group that included dues-paying members as well as supporters who had donated, signed petitions or participated in events” – was “down about 60 percent from its high in 2019.”

Despite the upheaval, few lessons seem learned. The Times noted that “in recent weeks, supporters who clicked on the group’s website for ‘current campaigns’ were presented with 131 petitions, some out of date, like calls to support clean-energy funding that Mr. Trump has already gutted, or to support a voting-rights bill that died in 2023.”

Asked whether he had any regrets, the club’s current board president, Patrick Murphy, summoned the spirit of Kamala “not a thing comes to mind” Harris and replied, “I have a hard time pinpointing how I believe we should have made different choices.” Alrighty then.

Also falling on hard times is 350.org, which first gained notoriety for its successful efforts to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline during the Obama administration. As Politico reported this month, the group “will ‘temporarily suspend programming’ in the U.S. and other countries amid funding woes.”

Executive Director Anne Jellema said 350.org “had suffered a 25 percent drop in income for its 2025 and 2026 fiscal years, compelling it to halt operations,” and would subsequently reduce its global staff by about 30 percent.

“The group had endured economic hardship over the years, including problems of financial management and several rounds of layoffs that eroded its influence,” Politico reported. Jellema said the organization was facing its challenges “with our ambition intact.” But apparently not much else.

An implosion of a different kind is from the world of “green banking.” NBA star Kawhi Leonard’s endorsement contract with the pro-environment group Aspiration is alleged to have been a vehicle for Leonard and the Los Angelas Clippers to skirt NBA salary cap rules.

As reported by ESPN, Aspiration Partners was a company founded in 2013 to provide “socially-conscious and sustainable banking services and investment products.” Their slogan was, “Do Well. Do Good.” Catchy. Operating like an environmentally conscious digital bank, Aspiration promised to “never fund fossil fuel projects like pipelines, oil rigs and coalmines.” The company’s products included “an option to plant a tree with every purchase roundup.”

According to ESPN, Clippers owner Steve Ballmer invested $50 million in Aspiration. The subsequent allegation is that Leonard signed a $28 million endorsement deal with Aspiration “as a way to circumvent the league’s salary cap.” Ballmer has denied any knowledge of the deal, according to the report. Leonard has also denied any wrongdoing.

ESPN reported that Aspiration filed for bankruptcy in March, and co-founder Joe Sanberg pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud after “federal prosecutors said Sanberg defrauded investors and lenders out of $248 million by fraudulently obtaining loans, falsifying bank and brokerage statements and concealing that he was the source of some revenue booked by the company.”

The NBA is investigating. How many trees Aspiration planted is unknown.

To add insult to injury comes what appears to be an about-face from no less a dedicated environmentalist than Bill Gates. For decades, Gates has been a leader in the movement to reduce carbon emissions. But last month he caused a stir when he declared that climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise.”

It’s heartening when others finally catch on. Earlier this year, the climate group funded by Gates, Breakthrough Energy, laid off dozens of employees in the U.S. and Europe “as it pulls back from public policy advocacy work that was a cornerstone of its mission,” as the industry site Energy Connects reported.

Sadly, such admirable retrospection will likely never occur to Al Gore, arguably history’s leading figure in propagating climate hysteria and someone who has reportedly made a fortune from his climate alarmism. Gore’s reaction to Gates’ newfound enlightenment was a predictable temper tantrum during which he speculated that Gates had succumbed to “bullying” by President Trump.

Takes one to know one – Gore has often been accused of bullying those not on board with his climate crusade.

In an increasingly splintered movement that once marched in lockstep, it may be that someday only Al Gore will remain – the last true believer of a story he largely authored, perched atop his high horse at his solar-powered compound.

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

With the War in Ukraine now approaching its fifth year and possibly reaching a climatic stage, it’s timely to offer an overview of the situation.

This overview has three vectors – the situation on the battlefield, the corruption scandal rocking Kyiv, and the prospects for the success of the Trump peace plan.

The thread that connects these three vectors is the role of the Russian Federation and specter of Vladimir Putin.

Let’s look at these vectors separately and then unify them in the end.

On The Ground

The situation on the battlefield is straightforward. Russia is winning the war decisively and is now poised to take all Ukrainian territory east of the Dnipro River, the main waterway that divides east and west Ukraine.

The Donbas consists of two Russian-speaking provinces in eastern Ukraine called Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia has formally annexed the Donbas into the Russian Federation, although the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) continue to fight to retain them. Russia has scored a series of key victories in Mariupol (2022), Bakhmut (2023) and Avdiivka (2024). A major AFU counteroffensive in 2024 failed totally.

U.S. and NATO weapons have been of no benefit to Ukraine. Armored vehicles including Abrams, Challenger and Leopard tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles have been left burning on the battlefield. Precision artillery has been made useless by the Russian ability to jam the GPS guidance systems. Ukraine’s initial advantage in drones has been crushed by Russia’s war mobilization and ability to produce thousands of drones per month.

F-16 fighter jets are shot down with ease by advanced Russian anti-aircraft systems. Patriot anti-missile systems are being blown-up by Russian hypersonic missiles that the west does not even possess. Ukraine has managed some attacks on Russian energy infrastructure inside Russia, but these have been no more than pinpricks and have been easily repaired. Meanwhile, the entire Ukrainian power grid has been severely degraded by Russian drones and missiles as bitter cold winter weather approaches.

Now, Russia has taken Pokrovsk, a medium-sized city in the Eastern Donbas closer to the Dnipro River. The significance of Pokrovsk is not its size, but its role as a major logistics hub for rail and road transportation. Pokrovsk is the distribution center for almost all AFU military operations in the Donbas region. Now, pockets of Ukrainian resistance in other cities such as Kramatorsk, Slovyansk and Lyman are without supplies of food and ammunition and are gradually being surrounded.

A Prelude to Victory. Pokrovsk is considered the gateway to Donbas and the key to allowing Russia to capture the rest of the region. When it was taken, it now gives Russia a new “jumping off” point into other major cities in the Donbas.

At the same time, the Russians have surrounded another major city in the north called Kup’yansk at the head of the Oskil River, not far from the provincial capital city of Kharkiv. Once Kup’yansk falls, the way will be open to surround Kharkiv. The Ukrainians have already stated to evacuate civilians from that city. These encirclement maneuvers are in addition to a major pincer movement in central Donbas focused on Kostyantynivka, Yablunivka and Toretsk.

The result is that the Russians are making major offensive moves in the north, central and southern areas of the Donbas and AFU positions are crumbling due to lack of food, ammunition and manpower. By this winter, there will be little standing in the way of a full-on Russian race to the Dnipro.

Beyond that, the Russians would look to the eventual taking of Kharkiv, Odessa and the portion of Kherson on the western bank of the Dnipro. Russian control of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and the entire Black Sea coast of Ukraine would be complete. There would be nothing left of Ukraine except a landlocked rump state and the cities of Kyiv and Lviv.

Russian never wanted to conquer all of Ukraine. It wanted to secure the Russian-speaking areas and strategic points along the Dnipro River and the Black Sea Coast. With a much larger population, larger economy, better technology, full war mobilization, gold reserves, and the complete failure of Western economic sanctions, it is close to achieving those goals.

A Corrupt Kyiv

While Russia advances, Kyiv collapses politically. A major corruption scandal has emerged, implicating many of the top political leaders around the Ukrainian military dictator Zelensky. The accusations involve kickbacks and bribes from major Ukrainian energy companies.

This is the same racket that Hunter Biden and the Biden Crime Family conducted from 2014 to 2022, but on a larger scale. One key figure close to Zelensky has already fled to Israel (which has no extradition treaties). Zelensky’s top aide Andrii Yermak has recently resigned. All signs point to Zelensky himself being implicated in this scandal.

The only real scandal is why this current scandal wasn’t revealed earlier. This corruption has been going on in Ukraine for over thirty years. A lot of the corrupt money was being funneled back to the Democratic Party, which is why the U.S. never pursued the matter under Obama or Biden. When Trump tried raising the issue in 2019, he was impeached for just discussing it on the phone.

The implication is that the U.S. is now allowing the investigation to move forward because it’s time for Zelensky to move to one of his mansions in Miami, Dubai or Spain. The anti-corruption commission in Ukraine is controlled by U.S. appointees and funded with U.S. money. The message to Zelensky is to sign the Trump peace treaty or run for your life – perhaps both.

Three Choices for Trump

This brings us to the peace process currently underway. Top White House negotiator Steve Witkoff, aided by Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have just met with Putin in Moscow after discussions with Zelensky and NATO allies including the UK, France and Germany.

The Trump peace plan began a few weeks ago with 28-points. These points were narrowed down to 19-points after discussions with Zelensky. The exact text of this plan has never been revealed to the public and it is a work in progress.

In the main, we know it would cede the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson to Russia up to the Dnipro River. Russia would give up a small patch of Ukrainian territory in the Sumy region, which was never on Russia’s list of goals. Russia would also give up its designs on Odessa. Ukraine would agree never to join NATO and maintain a kind of neutrality between east and west.

Russia’s list of demands to end the war has scarcely changed since before the war. It includes demilitarization, de-Nazification, neutrality, no NATO membership and protections for the Russian-speaking population. As Zelensky attacked the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Russia’s list expanded to include protections for the Church.

The biggest change in the Russian position has involved the annexation of Ukraine territory into the Russian Federation. Russia began the war with Crimea and quickly expanded its territory to include the Donbass. The longer the war lasts, the more territory Russia gains. There should be no expectation that Russia will return any of this land except Sumy. Today, Russia claims Ukrainian territory up to the Dnipro River that is has not yet occupied but expects to in the ongoing offensive.

The Russian position is very close to the original Trump 28-point plan – close enough to get a deal done. The problem is that NATO and Zelensky have changed the Trump deal in the last two weeks of negotiations. These changes include “boots on the ground” in the form of a peacekeeping force comprised of NATO troops and security guarantees that would oblige NATO members to come to the aid of Ukraine in the event the Russians engaged in future military action. Of course, Russian military action could easily be provoked by Ukrainian covert operations or drone attacks.

In short, the Ukrainian additions to the original peace plan amount to NATO status without formal NATO membership and lay the foundation for a new war. It would be the same package of lies the west has served up to Moscow in the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements, not to mention the Maidan “color revolution” in 2014 orchestrated by CIA, MI6 and Ukrainian Nazis.

Trump’s Choices. While the outcome is uncertain in the war, the timing is not. We’ll know within a week or two which way this is going. Russia wins in every scenario.

The Trump team is between a rock and a hard place. If they push the modified peace plan with the Ukrainian changes, Russia will say no. If they agree to the Russian position with slight concessions by Moscow, then Ukraine, France, Germany and the UK will say no.

Trump has three choices:

• The first is to stick with the modified plan, in which the case the war will drag on.

• The second is to agree to the Russian position and force Zelensky out of office in favor of a new leader who will agree. In that event, the war will end quickly. Western Europe doesn’t really matter in this scenario – they’re vassal states.

• The third is just to walk away; something Trump should have done last February when it was still Biden’s war. It’s not too late to do that, although Trump will be branded as a Putin Puppet by the DC warmongers.

My estimate is that the first scenario will play out.

But Trump has enormous capacity to surprise the world, so one cannot discard the second scenario. The third scenario seems unlikely because it’s a no-win for Trump politically, even though it would be the cleanest course militarily.

While the outcome is uncertain, the timing is not. We’ll know within a week or two which way this is going. Russia wins in every scenario. The only variables are the size and speed of the victory.

Via Remix News,

A few weeks back, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a new “media labeling” system, while also assuring citizens that this “media accreditation” will not include any sort of state-backed labeling. 

Suffice it to say, these assurances have only stoked fears of an authoritarian creep into the media sphere. 

Back in November, Macron had told La Voix du Nord that “a labeling process carried out by professionals” was in the works to highlight those media outlets that respected certain “ethical standards,” and thus also those it deems lacking.

Le Journal du Dimanche (JDD), owned by the conservative Bolloré group, denounced this development on its front page as a project for “information control,” reports France24.

Jordan Bardella, head of the right-wing National Rally, also posted on X about the news: ”The role of the State is not to “certify the truth” with an obscure label: it is to guarantee freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Let us reject Emmanuel Macron’s project, which is nothing less than to establish genuine control over information.”

Le rôle de l’État n’est pas de « certifier la vérité » avec un obscur label : il est de garantir la liberté de la presse et la liberté d’expression.

Refusons le projet d’Emmanuel Macron qui est d’instaurer, ni plus ni moins, un véritable contrôle de l’information. pic.twitter.com/ef0SnGiu1X

— Jordan Bardella (@J_Bardella) December 2, 2025

The Élysée posted itself in response to criticisms, with the message: “Pravda? Ministry of Truth? When talking about the fight against disinformation sparks disinformation…”

In response to this, Marion Marechal, president of Identity Liberty and niece of Marine Le Pen, noted, referencing Arcom, the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication.

“French people, rest assured, so it is therefore not the Élysée that will deliver the media truth label but a ‘Journalism Arcom,” held, once again, by socialists designated by the president?” she asked.

Bruno Retailleau, the leader of the Republicans, has now launched a petition entitled “Media: Yes to Freedom, No to Labeling!” which garnered over 40,000 signatures.

Éric Ciotti, now allied with the National Rally, published his own petition shortly thereafter, reaching the same number. 

Read more here…

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Trump 2.0 just released its National Security Strategy (NSS).

It can be read in full here, but for those with limited time, the present piece will summarize its contents. The new NSS reconceptualizes, narrows, and reprioritizes US interests. Focus is placed on the primacy of nations over transnational organizations, preserving the balance of power through optimized burden-sharing, and the US’ reindustrialization that’ll be facilitated by securing critical supply chains. The Western Hemisphere is the top priority.

The “Trump Corrolary” to the Monroe Doctrine is the centerpiece and will seek to deny non-hemispheric competitors ownership or control of strategically vital assets in an allusion to China’s influence over the Panama Canal.

The NSS envisages enlisting regional champions and friendly forces to help ensure regional stability for preventing migrant crises, fight the cartels, and erode the aforesaid competitors’ influence. This aligns with the “Fortress America” strategy of restoring US hegemony in the hemisphere.

Asia is next on the NSS’ hierarchy of priorities. Together with its incentivized partners, the US will rebalance trade ties with China, compete more vigorously with it in the Global South in an allusion to challenging BRI, and deter China over Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Trade loopholes through third countries like Mexico will be closed, the Global South will tie its currencies more closely to the dollar, and Asian allies will grant the US greater access to their ports, etc., while ramping up defense spending.

As for Europe, the US wants it “to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation” in order to avoid “civilizational erasure”.

The US will “manage European relations with Russia”, “build up the healthy nations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe” in an allusion to the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative”, and ultimately “help Europe correct its current trajectory.”

A hybrid set of economic and political tools will be employed to this end.

West Asia and Africa are at the bottom of the NSS’ priorities. The US foresees the first becoming a greater source of investment and destination of such while the second’s ties with the US will transition from a foreign aid paradigm to an investment and growth one centered on select partners. Like with the rest of the world, the US wants to keep the peace through optimized burden-sharing and without overextending itself, but it’ll also still keep an eye on Islamist terrorist activity in both regions too.

The following passage sums up the NSS’ new approach:

“As the United States rejects the ill-fated concept of global domination for itself, we must prevent the global, and in some cases even regional, domination of others.”

To that end, the balance of power must be maintained through pragmatic carrot-and-stick policies in conjunction with close partners, which includes securing critical supply chains (especially those in the Western Hemisphere). This is essentially how Trump 2.0 plans to respond to multipolarity.

The grand strategic goal is to restore the US’ central role in the global system, but if that’s not possible and it loses control of the Eastern Hemisphere to China, then Plan B is to retreat to the Western Hemisphere, which will be autarkic under the US’ hegemony if it succeeds in building “Fortress America”.

Trump 2.0’s NSS is very ambitious and will be more difficult to implement than it was to promulgate, but even partial success could radically reshape the global systemic transition in the US’ favor.

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Across the American political spectrum, support for the State of Israel is steadily eroding. With the long-running, staggeringly expensive redistribution of American wealth and weapons to one of the world’s most prosperous countries under unprecedented threat, Israel’s advocates inside the United States are growing increasingly desperate to suppress the facts, opinions, questions and imagery that are causing this sea change. 

Pro-Israel forces have long worked to limit and shape US discourse to Israel’s advantage. However, the intensity and novelty of what’s taking place in 2025 — from the government-coerced transfer of a social media platform to pro-Israel billionaires, to the jailing and attempted deportation of a student for writing an opinion piece, and more — deserves the attention of every American who values free expression, an enlightened electorate, and independence from foreign influence.

Many Americans know that Congress and President Biden teamed up in 2024 to force the Chinese company ByteDance to divest its US operation of the popular video-sharing app TikTok, yet few realize this unusual intervention was motivated in large part by a desire to serve the interests of Israel. 

Though politicians pointed to the supposed Chinese menace lurking inside the app — while revealing their lack of sincerity by continuing to use it themselves — the catalyst for the extraordinary TikTok ban’s passage was a sea of viral content illuminating Israel’s rampage in Gaza, casting Palestinians in empathetic light, and questioning the legitimacy of the political philosophy that is Zionism. 

The idea that passage of the ban was largely about Israel is no conspiracy theory. American politicians who supported the compelled divestiture of TikTok have candidly said so themselves. Sharing a stage with Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2024, then-Senator Mitt Romney said: 

“Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down, potentially, TikTok or other entities of that nature. You look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians relative to other social media sites — it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts, so I’d note that’s of real interest to the president, who will get the chance to take action in that regard.” 

Similarly, Rep. Mike Lawler of New York told a webinar that pro-Palestinian student protests were “exactly why we included the TikTok bill…because you’re seeing how these kids are being manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries to foment hate on their behalf and really create a hostile environment here in the US.”

Of course, mere divestiture wouldn’t guarantee that TikTok would start suppressing anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian content in the United States. To have the desired effect, the buyer — who required White House approval — would have to be an ardent supporter of Israel. That’s just how things played out. In September, President Trump approved the sale of TikTok’s US operations to a joint venture led by Larry Ellison, the founder of tech-titan Oracle and the fourth-richest man in the world. 

Ellison has expressed his “deep emotional connection to the State of Israel” and has been a major benefactor of the Israeli Defense Forces, via donations to IDF-supporting organizations. He spent at least $3 million on Marco Rubio’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, after being assured by Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations that Rubio would “be a great friend to Israel.” There are other Israel-favoring billionaires in the consortium now controlling TikTok’s American presence, among them NewsCorp head Rupert Murdoch and investment trader Jeff Yass. 

Americans were propagandized into fearing Chinese control of TikTok users’ data. Now that data will be controlled by Oracle, a firm whose founder has described Israel as his own nation, said “there is no greater honor” than supporting the IDF, and invited Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take a seat on the board. It’s also a firm with strong business ties to the Israel government, and a firm whose Israel-born executive vice chair and former CEO last year declared, “For [Oracle] employees, it’s clear: If you’re not for America or Israel, don’t work here.”

A few months before the TikTok divestiture was finalized, the company installed former IDF soldier and self-described “passionate” Zionist Erica Mindel as TikTok’s hate speech manager in July. Weeks later, and just days before the transfer of TikTok’s US operation was approved, the platform posted new guidelines on Sept 13 about what’s allowed on the platform. 

Soon after the change, users and content creators began sharing examples of content being deleted by TikTok, with the platform exploiting its vague new rules about “conspiracy theories” and “protected groups” to reject negative content about Israel — wielding the threat of demonetization of repeat offenders. In a recent appearance on the Breaking Points podcast, Guy Christensen, who has 3.4 million TikTok followers, shared his experience: 

“What all these videos have in common that have been removed since Sept 13 are that I am talking about Israel, I’m talking about AIPAC’s influence, I’m talking about Larry Ellison and the attempt to put TikTok under Zionist control — I’m criticizing Israel in some way. It’s the same thing I’ve heard from my audience, my friends who are creators. Ever since Sept 13, they’ve had the same exact experience. Videos that are more informational and critical of Israel get removed.” 

In a late-September meeting with pro-Israel social media “influencers,” Netanyahu hailed the transfer of TikTok’s US ownership. “We have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefield with which we’re engaged, and the most important ones are in social media. And the most important purchase that is going on right now is TikTok. Number one.” Expressing hope that, by “talking” with Elon Musk, his X platform could be reshaped to be more Israel-protective too, Netanyahu added, “If we can get those two things, we can get a lot.”

NEW – Netanyahu mission-briefed American influencers today, stating TikTok is the “most important” weapon in securing Israel’s right-wing support: “Weapons change over time… the most important ones are the social media,” he said. “The most important purchase that is going on… pic.twitter.com/EeszHlcZmN

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 27, 2025

Ellison’s TikTok takeover is troubling enough, but that wasn’t his only media move this year. He also financed his son David’s takeover of Paramount Skydance, the media company that controls many movie and television properties, including CBS. David Ellison quickly installed as head of CBS News Bari Weiss — a self-described “Zionist fanatic” who took a gap year before college to live on an Israeli kibbutz. 

Weiss’s history of wrangling over the bounds of acceptable speech vis-a-vis Israel goes back to her sophomore year at Columbia University, when she was part of a group of students who claimed they were subjected to intimidation by Middle East Studies professors over the students’ Zionist views. A university panel found only one of the supposed incidents represented unacceptable conduct. 

Both outside observers and network insiders are braced for Weiss to nudge the outlet’s reporting to Israel’s benefit, and there are early indications validating worries about her bias. Citing executive sources inside CBS, the Wall Street Journal reported that foreign correspondent Chris Livesay, who was set to be laid off as part of a downsizing move that preceded Weiss’s arrival, sent Weiss an email expressing his affinity for Israel and claiming he was “bullied” for his beliefs. Weiss intervened and saved Livesay from the layoff. Other correspondents told the Journal that Livesay’s claim about bullying was bogus. 

Compounding the expectations that CBS News is about to become a de facto Israel PR outlet, the network’s new ombudsman — the arbiter of editorial concerns — also has strong Zionist credentials. The New York Times describes Kenneth Weinstein as a “firm and vocal champion of Israel.” On X, Grayzone editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal notedthat, “during a 2021…event with Mike Pence, Weinstein touted his Israel lobbyist creds, describing how he’d been groomed by the Tikvah Fund, the Likudnik training network which will award Bari Weiss its Herzl Award this November.” (The Likud Party is the Israeli party led by Netanyahu.)

Here’s how Glenn Greenwald summed up the TikTok and CBS moves:

The minute the American public starts turning against Israel and the US financing of that country, the world’s richest and most fanatical pro-Israel billionaires start buying up large media outlets and TikTok, then install Bari Weiss and an ex-IDF soldier to control content: https://t.co/wjJbliKRmO

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 20, 2025

The transfer of TikTok into Israel-friendly hands isn’t the only example of intensified US government intervention in America’s public square on behalf of the tiny Middle Eastern country. Much of the Trump administration’s war against anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian speech has focused on college campuses. In the most alarming such move in 2025, the Trump administration has arrested, jailed and attempted to deport foreign students for merely voicing their support for Palestinians or opposition to the Israeli government. 

The most atrocious example — which Stark Realities examined in depth earlier this year — centers on a 30-year-old, Turkish Tufts University PhD candidate who was arrested on a Boston street and whisked away to a dismal Louisiana prison, just for co-authoring a calmly-written Tufts Daily op-ed urging the university to formally characterize Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide, and to sell the school’s Israel-associated investments. 

This cruelly despotic tactic is the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. In a policy paper, the think tank urged pro-Israel groups and the US government to characterize pro-Palestinian activists as “effectively members of a terrorist support network,” and then use that characterization to target activists for deportations, expulsions from colleges, lawsuits, terminations by employers, and exclusion from “open society.”

Supporters of Israel have long attempted to stifle critics of the Israeli government by smearing them as antisemites. In 2016, that kind of mislabelling was codified in a definition of antisemitism that’s now being embraced by governments, universities and other institutions in the United States and around the world: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “working definition of antisemitism.”

Some elements of the IHRA definition are reasonable, but others irrationally conflate criticism of the State of Israel with hatred of all Jews. For example, the IHRA definition says it’s antisemitic to “claim that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” or to merely “draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 

Other, vague elements of the definition are open to creative interpretations, facilitating bogus accusations of bigotry against Israel’s critics. For example, the IHRA says it’s antisemitic to “apply double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” The IHRA also says it’s antisemitic to make statements about the “power of Jews as [a] collective,” which can put someone who talks about the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby squarely in the crosshairs. 

Similarly, the IHRA says it’s antisemitic to “deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” a definition that could ensnare people who — right or wrong — advocate for the State of Israel to be replaced by a new governing arrangement for the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, those who want speech to be policed on Israel’s behalf frequently point to the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as inherently antisemitic. 

As I wrote in an earlier article (“No Country Has a Right To Exist”): 

Those who support the State of Israel are free to present a case that it’s a just arrangement for the 7.5 million Jews and 7.5 million Palestinians “between the river and the sea.” However, painting those who demand a new arrangement as inherently immoral, genocidal or antisemitic is ignorant at best and maliciously misleading at worst. 

Doing its part to vilify Israel’s critics and mislead the public and policymakers, the Anti-Defamation League has employed expansive definitions in its numerical tracking of antisemitic incidents — statistics that are unquestioningly quoted by journalists and cited by pro-Israel politicians. 

For example, in early 2024, the ADL claimed that, in the first three months after the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion of Israel and the IDF’s brutal assault on Gaza, antisemitic incidents skyrocketed 360%. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said Jews faced a threat “unprecedented in modern history.” However, the ADL admitted that it was counting as antisemitic incidents all protests that included “anti-Zionist chants and slogans.” 

Of course, exaggerating the scale of antisemitism does more than facilitate efforts to suppress criticism of Israel: It also helps the ADL justify its existence and boost its fundraising. The ADL’s over-counting is nothing new. In 2017, the ADL claimed antisemitic incidents in the United States had soared by 86% in the first quarter of the year, and major media outlets ran with the story. However, much of the increase springs from the ADL’s decision to include a huge number of bomb threats phoned into US synagogues and schools by a Jew living in Israel.

The IHRA definition is at the forefront of a broad campaign to suppress candid discourse about Israel and Palestine on college campuses, with multiple state governments ordering public schools to use it to determine what can and can’t be said. 

Bard College’s Kenneth Stern, a lead drafter of a 2004 antisemitism definition that was subsequently adopted by the IHRA, has spoken out against the weaponization of the definition to stifle discourse at universities. “The history of the abuse of the IHRA definition demonstrates the desire is largely political—it is not so much a desire to identify antisemitism, but rather to label certain speech about Israel as antisemitic,” Stern wrote at the Knight First Amendment Institute. 

Even at schools that haven’t adopted the IHRA definition, activists and scholars who are critical of Israel and empathetic to the Palestinians are being subjected to countless false accusations of antisemitism, and universities are being sued by pro-Israel students who claim the schools tolerate antisemitism. 

A Stark Realities analysis of an 84-page complaint filed against the University of Pennsylvania found nearly every alleged “antisemitic incident” was merely an instance in which Penn students, professors and guest speakers engaged in political expression that proponents of the State of Israel strongly disagree with. Eighteen months later, a federal judge agreed. “At worst, Plaintiffs accuse Penn of tolerating and permitting the expression of viewpoints which differ from their own,” Judge Mitchell Goldberg wroteas he dismissed the case. 

Courtroom victories, however, can only do so much to counter the chilling effect of campaigns that vilify students, professors and institutions as antisemitic. That’s especially true when university cash flows are threatened. 

Major pro-Israel donors have withdrawn or threatened to suspend donations to various schools, and those threats have been credited with forcing out university presidents like Penn’s Liz Magill. Donor pressure has also led schools to adopt the problematic IHRA antisemitism definition, shut down chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, and strip Israel-critical professors of chair positions. 

The greatest financial pressure being exerted on universities, however, is coming from the Trump administration, which has not only suspended billions of dollars in funding from various universities that are supposed hives of antisemitism, but has also filed lawsuits and hammered schools with fines. Many of them are surrendering, paying the government large sums and making policy and staffing changes. Last week, Northwestern agreed to pay $75 million to the federal government for its alleged failure to fight “antisemitism.” Earlier, Columbia agreed to a $200 million fine payable over three years, and Brown will surrender $50 million.

There are other avenues by which government force is being tapped to squelch criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinians. Dozens of states have passed legislation that bar individuals and businesses from contracting with the state if they boycott or divest from Israel. That led to a bizarre spectacle in which hurricane-battered Texans applying for emergency benefits were asked to verify that they do not and will not boycott Israel. Comparable federal measures have been introduced, but not yet enacted. 

Another proposed federal bill is the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require the Department of Education to use the IHRA definition when evaluating accusations that colleges tolerate antisemitism — essentially codifying a Trump executive order. It sailed through the House in 2024 by a 320-91 vote, but stalled in the Senate this year amid bipartisan concerns about the definition. Seven amendments had been attached in committee, including one clarifying that criticism of the Israeli government isn’t antisemitism. 

Tellingly, champions of the bill said amendments like that were poison pills that would render it un-passable.

Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Join thousands who benefit from ad-free, monthly insights at starkrealities.substack.com

* * *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge