Clever By Half - Elise Stefanik Now Caught In Her Vindictive Lie

politico  |  Elise Stefanik’s viral line of questioning of an elite trio of university presidents last week over how to respond to calls for the genocide of Jews didn’t just spark bipartisan outrage and lead to a high-profile resignation. It settled a personal score the congresswoman had with her alma mater, which had all but disowned her in the wake of Jan. 6.

Back then, in 2021, the dean of Harvard University’s school of government said the New York congresswoman’s comments about voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election had “no basis in evidence,” and the Harvard Institute of Politics removed Stefanik from its senior advisory committee. Stefanik at the time criticized what she described as “the ivory tower’s march toward a monoculture of like-minded, intolerant liberal views.”

Mitch Daniels, the retired former president of Purdue University and a former Republican governor of Indiana, called it “higher ed’s Bud Light moment” — referring to the beermaker’s divisive ad campaign featuring a transgender influencer — “when people who hang out with only people who adhere to what has become prevailing and dominant ideologies on campuses and suddenly discover there’s a world of people out there who disagrees.”

Republicans, of course, have been the loudest voices defending Stefanik. Daniels, who has also testified before hostile lawmakers on behalf of his university, mocked that the administrators Stefanik questioned retained the white-shoe law firm WilmerHale to prepare.

 

Why Has The U.S. Sent An Ohio Class Submarine To Israel?

newsweek  |   The Pentagon has further bolstered its naval strike capabilities in the Middle East amid Israel's war against Palestinian militant group Hamas, with United States Central Command—known as CENTCOM, and responsible for U.S. operations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and parts of South Asia—confirming the weekend arrival of a nuclear submarine in the region.

CENTCOM posted a rare announcement on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday noting that an Ohio-class nuclear submarine "arrived in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility," without offering further details regarding the specific location or the name of the vessel in question. Newsweek has contacted CENTCOM by email to request further information.

The U.S. Navy's Ohio-class offering consists of 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and four cruise missile submarines (SSGNs), the latter converted to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles rather than their original nuclear-armed ballistic missile loadout.

One SSGN can be armed with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, significantly more than the number carried by U.S. guided-missile destroyers and attack submarines. Tomahawk missiles can carry up to a 1,000-pound high-explosive warhead out to around 1,500 miles.

The Pentagon has been expanding its presence in the Mediterranean and Middle East regions amid Israel's showdown with Hamas in Gaza, prompted by the militant group's October 7 infiltration attack into southern Israel that killed at least 1,400 people, per figures published by the Associated Press. Roughly 240 people were also taken hostage.

Two American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers—the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower—were sent to the Mediterranean Sea amid rising regional tensions. As of last week, the Dwight D. Eisenhower was operating in the Red Sea. The Pentagon has also dispatched additional air defense capabilities to the region.

Israel's subsequent unprecedented land, air, and sea campaign in the Gaza Strip is ongoing, and has so far killed at least 9,448 Palestinians as of November 4, the Associated Press reported citing the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza.

The threat of regional escalation is looming over the latest conflagration in the besieged Palestinian coastal territory, with multiple Iranian-aligned groups involved. Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza—both funded and armed by Tehran—are continuing their attacks against Israel, and the Houthi movement in Yemen has launched ballistic missiles and drones towards Israel. U.S. forces are also in the firing line, with several American bases in Iraq and Syria repeatedly targeted by Iranian-backed militias.

Fighting is also ongoing along the Lebanese border between Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah, a powerful Shiite militia aligned with Tehran.

On Friday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah distanced himself from the Hamas October 7 attack, saying the operation was "100 percent Palestinian in terms of both decision and execution." Meanwhile, he lauded what he called the "very important and significant" Hezbollah operations against Israel and vowed they would not be "the end" of the Lebanon-based group's involvement.

Into The Valley Of Death Go 10,000 U.S. Sailors

military  |  Within hours of the horrific attack by Hamas, the U.S. began moving warships and aircraft to the region to be ready to provide Israel with whatever it needed to respond.

A second U.S. carrier strike group departs from Norfolk, Virginia, on Friday. Scores of aircraft are heading to U.S. military bases around the Middle East. Special operations forces are now assisting Israel's military in planning and intelligence. The first shipment of additional munitions has already arrived.

 More is expected, soon. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will arrive in Israel Friday to meet with Israeli leaders to discuss what else the U.S. can provide.

For now, the buildup reflects U.S. concern that the deadly fighting between Hamas and Israel could escalate into a more dangerous regional conflict. So the primary mission for those ships and warplanes is to establish a force presence that deters Hezbollah, Iran or others from taking advantage of the situation. But the forces the U.S. sends are capable of more than that.

Into the valley of death sailed the 10,000, aboard aircraft carriers Ford and Eisenhower – sitting ducks for swarming drones & other weaponry not dreamed of by those who made short work of the Charge of the Light Brigade. Perhaps Blinken/Nuland/Austin want that? Or are just dumb?

— Ray McGovern (@raymcgovern) October 15, 2023

A look at what weapons and options the U.S. military could provide:

WEAPONS AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

The U.S. is providing some personnel and much-needed munitions to Israel. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced that a small special operations cell was now assisting Israel with intelligence and planning, and providing advice and consultations to the Israeli Defense Forces on hostage recovery efforts. Those forces, however, have not been tasked with hostage rescue, which would put them on the ground fighting in the conflict. That's something the Biden administration has not approved and White House spokesman John Kirby has said the Israelis do not want.

The U.S. is also getting U.S. defense companies to expedite weapons orders by Israel that were already on the books. Chief among those are munitions for Israel's Iron Dome air defense system.

“We’re surging additional military assistance, including ammunition and interceptors to replenish Iron Dome,” President Joe Biden said Tuesday. “We’re going to make sure that Israel does not run out of these critical assets to defend its cities and its citizens.”

Iron Dome’s missiles target rockets that approach its cities. According to Raytheon, Israel has 10 such systems in place. Beginning with Saturday's attack, Hamas has fired more than 5,000 rockets at Israel, most of which the system has been able to intercept, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

Raytheon produces most of the missile components for Iron Dome in the U.S., and the Army has two systems in its stockpile.

The Iron Dome munitions the U.S. provides to Israel will likely be above and beyond what Israel has ordered and will be part of ongoing military assistance packages. Those packages will also include small diameter bombs and JDAM kits — essentially a tail fin and navigation kit that turns a “dumb” bomb into a “smart” bomb and enables troops to guide the munition to a target, rather than simply dropping it.

NAVY SHIPS AND PLANES

One of the most visible examples of the U.S. response was the announcement just hours after the attacks that the Pentagon would redirect the Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to sail toward Israel. The carrier had just completed an exercise with the Italian Navy when the ship with its crew of about 5,000 was ordered to quickly sail to the Eastern Mediterranean.

One week after the attacks, as Israel positioned for a major ground offensive into Gaza City, Austin announced a second carrier group would be sailing toward Israel, as he ordered the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group to join the Ford in the Eastern Mediterranean. In a statement announcing the move, Austin said he was sending the Eisenhower too “as part of our effort to deter hostile actions against Israel or any efforts toward widening this war following Hamas’s attack on Israel.”

The carriers provide a host of options. They serve as primary command and control operations centers and can conduct information warfare. They can launch and recover E2-Hawkeye surveillance planes, recognizable by their 24-foot (7-meter) diameter disc-shaped radars. The planes provide early warnings on missile launches, conduct surveillance and manage the airspace, not only detecting enemy aircraft but also directing U.S. movements.

They also serve as a floating airbase for F-18 fighter jets that can fly intercepts or strike targets. And the carriers can flex to provide significant capabilities for humanitarian work, including onboard hospitals with ICUs, emergency rooms, medics, surgeons and doctors. They also sail with helicopters that can be used to airlift critical supplies in or victims out.

The Eisenhower had already been scheduled to deploy to the Mediterranean on a regular rotation, and the Ford is near the end of its scheduled deployment. But the Biden administration for now has decided to have both carriers there.

AIR FORCE WARPLANES

The Pentagon has also ordered additional warplanes to bolster A-10, F-15 and F-16 squadrons at bases throughout the Middle East. More are to be added if needed.

 

What Becomes Of Israel When Suicide Drones Converge From Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen?

ejmagnier  |  The ongoing conflict’s impact is deeply felt in Israel’s economic and social fabric. On a single tumultuous day, the Israeli stock market plunged by a staggering $13.5 billion, a sign of growing investor anxiety. Adding to the economic strain, the local currency has experienced a sharp decline.

But the impact isn’t limited to the financial charts. On the ground, there’s a palpable sense of desperation. A growing number of Israelis and foreigners are going to the civilian airport, eager to escape the rising tensions. Their urgency is heightened because many foreign airlines have suspended flights to and from Israel. This mass departure highlights not only the immediate dangers of the conflict, but also the more profound, lasting effects it may have on Israel’s social morale and economic resilience. The recent announcement of a US frigate’s support for Israel may seem significant. However, in the grand scheme of things, its impact on boosting Israeli morale appears minimal.

As the conflict intensifies, the recent deployment of a US fleet supporting Israel has attracted some attention. However, insiders within the Axis of Resistance have expressed scepticism about the real impact of this move.

While the arrival of a US fleet is a significant show of force, the strategic calculus of the situation is more complicated. Israel, with its already formidable air capabilities, has hundreds of aircraft and a powerful naval force. Adding 80 to 90 aircraft from the US carrier may not tip the balance as decisively as one might think. The Axis of Resistance argues that the US intervention won’t guarantee victory.

But the implications of this US military support go beyond immediate tactical considerations. There’s a wider geopolitical dimension at play. Any overt US intervention in the conflict could have repercussions far beyond Israel’s borders. The US maintains a significant military presence in Iraq, and these forces could become targets if the US is perceived as intervening too directly in the Israel-Gaza conflict. Resistance groups in Iraq have been unequivocal in their warning: US bases in the region would be at risk of retaliatory attacks.

Moreover, the Hezbollah’s supersonic anti-ship missiles adds another layer of complexity. These missiles, if deployed, have the potential to block Israeli ports, effectively choking off a vital lifeline and adding a naval dimension to the conflict. Such a move would further escalate the situation, potentially drawing in other regional players and expanding the theatre of operations.

The current conflict is deeply intertwined with the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Any move can have repercussions far beyond the immediate battlefield. The coming days and weeks will reveal how these dynamics play out and whether the region is on the brink of a more comprehensive and complex confrontation.

The sources also criticised Prime Minister Netanyahu’s approach, highlighting the targeting of civilian structures in Gaza, including the residences of leaders, media personalities and vital infrastructure. However, they believe that such anticipated destruction is merely tactical. They believe these actions will not weaken the resistance’s resolve or alter its strategic plan.

Israel’s recent military manoeuvres, including the deployment of troop carriers, tanks and ground forces, indicate a clear intention to launch a ground assault on Gaza. While the scope of this incursion may not be limited, reminiscent of the 2014 ground operation that only penetrated a few hundred metres into Gaza, its implications could be far-reaching.

In the face of these developments, the involvement of the Axis of Resistance alliance becomes crucial. The need for a united and cohesive multi-regional front is more urgent than ever.

Inside sources have highlighted the growing unity and strength of the ‘Axis allies’ in the face of the Israeli military. They argue that the Israeli army, which traditionally relies on air strikes to pave the way for ground operations, avoids direct confrontation unless areas are pre-emptively cleared with extensive bombing. The sources point to instances where Israeli forces withdrew, leaving behind their war equipment when Palestinian militants attacked their military barracks in the Gaza Strip encirclement.

Drawing parallels with the 2006 conflict, the sources suggest that the Israeli army may face determined and fierce resistance, similar to the combined forces it encountered in southern Lebanon after the initial heavy bombardment.

The message is clear: if Israel persists in its aggressive actions in Gaza, the united resistance bloc is ready to offer comprehensive support, possibly opening several fronts. This stance remains firm, regardless of threats from the West. Given the current dynamics, sources no longer rule out the possibility of a barrage of suicide drones entering the conflict launched from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

The Palestinian resistance in the settlements surrounding the Gaza Strip remains unyielding. This continued defiance provides an insight into the apparent indecision and inconsistency of the Israeli army. On the one hand, they tell the 50,000 residents of the settlements to evacuate, only to later reverse this order and ask them to stay put closed indoors.

Haaretz Blames Netanyahu For Getting Israel Into This Existential Crisis

Haaretz  | (archived) The disaster that befell Israel on the holiday of Simchat Torah is the clear responsibility of one person: Benjamin Netanyahu. The prime minister, who has prided himself on his vast political experience and irreplaceable wisdom in security matters, completely failed to identify the dangers he was consciously leading Israel into when establishing a government of annexation and dispossession, when appointing Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir to key positions, while embracing a foreign policy that openly ignored the existence and rights of Palestinians.

Netanyahu will certainly try to evade his responsibility and cast the blame on the heads of the army, Military Intelligence and the Shin Bet security service who, like their predecessors on the eve of the Yom Kippur War, saw a low probability of war with their preparations for a Hamas attack proving flawed.

They scorned the enemy and its offensive military capabilities. Over the next days and weeks, when the depth of Israel Defense Forces and intelligence failures come to light, a justified demand to replace them and take stock will surely arise.

However, the military and intelligence failure does not absolve Netanyahu of his overall responsibility for the crisis, as he is the ultimate arbiter of Israeli foreign and security affairs. Netanyahu is no novice in this role, like Ehud Olmert was in the Second Lebanon War. Nor is he ignorant in military matters, as Golda Meir in 1973 and Menachem Begin in 1982 claimed to be.

Netanyahu also shaped the policy embraced by the short-lived “government of change” led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid: a multidimensional effort to crush the Palestinian national movement in both its wings, in Gaza and the West Bank, at a price that would seem acceptable to the Israeli public.

In the past, Netanyahu marketed himself as a cautious leader who eschewed wars and multiple casualties on Israel’s side. After his victory in the last election, he replaced this caution with the policy of a “fully-right government,” with overt steps taken to annex the West Bank, to carry out ethnic cleansing in parts of the Oslo-defined Area C, including the Hebron Hills and the Jordan Valley.

This also included a massive expansion of settlements and bolstering of the Jewish presence on Temple Mount, near the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as boasts of an impending peace deal with the Saudis in which the Palestinians would get nothing, with open talk of a “second Nakba” in his governing coalition. As expected, signs of an outbreak of hostilities began in the West Bank, where Palestinians started feeling the heavier hand of the Israeli occupier. Hamas exploited the opportunity in order to launch its surprise attack on Saturday.

Above all, the danger looming over Israel in recent years has been fully realized. A prime minister indicted in three corruption cases cannot look after state affairs, as national interests will necessarily be subordinate to extricating him from a possible conviction and jail time.

This was the reason for establishing this horrific coalition and the judicial coup advanced by Netanyahu, and for the enfeeblement of top army and intelligence officers, who were perceived as political opponents. The price was paid by the victims of the invasion in the Western Negev.

Former Whitehouse Stenographer Blowing The Whistle On Biden And Jake Sullivan

NYPost  |  Then-Vice President Joe Biden visited Ukraine on a mission to bolster the country’s energy industry days after his son Hunter joined the board of natural gas company Burisma in 2014 — which a former White House stenographer claims implicates the now-80-year-old in a foreign influence-peddling “kickback scheme.”

Mike McCormick says he was with current national security adviser Jake Sullivan — then a Biden aide — in the press cabin of Air Force Two en route to Kyiv on April 21, 2014, as he outlined how the world’s wealthiest country would help the deeply corrupt post-Soviet state build its gas industry.

Giving a rundown of priorities for the trip, Sullivan — described in a transcript as an anonymous “senior administration official” — said Biden would “discuss with [Ukrainian officials] medium- and long-term strategies to boost conventional gas production, and also to begin to take advantage of the unconventional gas reserves that are in Ukraine.”

Asked for details, the Biden aide said the US was interested in providing “technical assistance to help [Ukraine] be able to boost production in their conventional gas fields, where presently they aren’t getting the maximum of what they could be” while offering “technical assistance relating to a regulatory framework, and also the technology that would be required to extract unconventional gas resources; and Ukraine has meaningful reserves of unconventional gas according to the latest estimates.”

In December of that year, amid broader Obama administration support for Ukraine, Congress approved $50 million to support the country’s energy sector, including the natural gas industry.

McCormick, who worked more than a decade at the White House, told The Post this week he believes the timeline of events, featuring the unmasked longtime Joe Biden aide, demonstrates that the president used his prior position to help his son’s foreign business interests.

“Joe Biden was over there telling them, ‘You can’t be corrupt! You can’t be corrupt!’ while he was corrupt,” McCormick says. “Look, this is Air Force Two. This is Joe Biden’s plane. He’s in control of it. Jake Sullivan was in the front of the plane with Joe Biden in a meeting and then he walks back in the plane to talk to the press.”

Now, McCormick tells The Post that he wants to testify before the federal grand jury in Delaware considering charges against Hunter — saying he has relevant information that the FBI ignored.

“They’ve been looking at Hunter Biden, but this ties Joe Biden and [Sullivan] into promoting a kickback scheme with Ukraine,” he said. “It’s the timeline that does it.”

Hunter’s role at Burisma was not made public until a May 12, 2014, press release from the company.

 

The Regressive Thinking Of Cold War Octogenarians Can't Get Outside The Box

austinvernon  |   In a previous post, I covered what the US military is doing to counter China. Both countries have a relatively short-term view of hostilities, opting for complicated weapons and platforms that take years to build. But what happens if a war breaks out and both sides want to keep fighting? The munitions, ships, and planes required might be very different.

Maximizing Destruction Per Dollar

Several useful strategies emerge when fighting an existential war.

1. Cheap Precision

   In total war, boutique weapons won't be able to destroy enough enemies even if they are tactically successful. It is also challenging to produce and transport the mind-boggling mass inaccurate weapons require. The sweet spot is accurate but cheap weapons. These can be classic smart weapons like GPS-gravity bombs but also include an Abrams tank that can reliably kill adversaries 3000 meters away with unguided shells.

2. Avoid Unreliable Systems

   An enemy can grind unreliable weapons into the ground by forcing a high tempo. The twenty US B-2 Bombers could deliver a one-time nuclear strike but could not eliminate thousands of Chinese ships, bases, and troop concentrations because of their low sortie rate and limited numbers.

3. Manage Survivability vs. Expendability Carefully

   There are many tradeoffs when designing weapons. The math tends to push design choices towards cheap, less survivable systems or pricier, long-lasting ones. Survivability can come from the ability to take damage (like having armor) or from deception (stealth, electronic interference, speed).

   The cheap system could lack the capability to score any kill against superior weapons or end up still being too expensive. The expensive one could be more vulnerable or less effective than hoped. What capabilities a country has and its strategic position matter when choosing.

   A classic comparison is the US Sherman tank and the Soviet T-34 in World War II. The Soviets saw that tanks on the Eastern front rarely lasted 24 hours in battle and took planned obsolescence to the extreme to make the T-34 cheap. The US designed the Sherman for reliability and repairability. Engineers carefully designed engines and suspensions for durability. The number of Shermans in Europe kept increasing because mechanics would have "knocked out" tanks back in battle within days.

4. Focus on Mass Production

   An adversary can make a powerful weapon irrelevant by sheer numbers if it is challenging to produce. Historical examples include the Tiger Tank, Me-262, and sophisticated cruise missiles.

   The need for easy-to-manufacture designs is even more critical for expendable munitions. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have top ten economies, yet they are drawing down global munition stocks. Each side must carefully manage consumption and substitute away from bespoke weapons like Javelin missiles for more available systems. Imagine the top two economies duking it out.

   The enemy can often fight harder than you think and regenerate more forces than you hope. The conflict can rapidly devolve into a lower-tech slugfest with alarming casualty counts if you can't produce enough capable weapons.

5. Have Appropriate Designs Ready

   The US won World War II by increasing the output of weapons already in production or well into development. It took too long to bring new designs into mass production. And it was much easier to expand the output of systems already in production than ramp up programs coming out of development. The several-year penalty for new designs could cost millions of lives or the war.

The US Army's Cold War Winning Blueprint

The US Army renewed its focus on Europe and countering the Soviet Union in the late 1970s. The challenge was immense because Warsaw Pact forces would outnumber US front-line units 10:1. After some high-profile failures, a new series of programs with narrower scopes gave the US the edge over the Soviets. The overarching themes were crew survivability, repairability/reliability, and using computing advances to fire simple munitions accurately.

1. M1 Abrams Tank:

   Improved optics and computing allowed the M1 to fire inexpensive shells accurately for thousands of meters. New armor technology dramatically increased protection, especially against anti-tank-guided missiles. And maintenance was as simple as swapping a broken module - crews could change the turbine engine in a few hours. These tanks were almost impossible to permanently disable because field mechanics could get them back in the fight. The result is a tank that keeps its highly-trained crew alive, has nine lives itself, and has enough firepower to shred smaller Soviet tanks. Each tank could conceivably kill hundreds of vehicles over its life.

2. Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle:

   The Bradley carries infantry into battle and uses it's 25 mm chain gun and anti-tank missiles to support them. It has many of the same design principles as the Abrams around survivability, maintenance, and weapon accuracy but carries less armor.

3. New Mobile Artillery:

   US artillery needed to be more mobile than traditional towed guns to avoid counter-battery fire from much more numerous Soviet artillery. The M109 self-propelled gun and the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (a bigger HIMARS) were the solutions. Both systems could rapidly respond to intel from artillery radars, scouts, and electronic intelligence to target Soviet artillery, troop concentrations, and command posts, then move to a new location. Again, reliability and repairability were at the forefront. US guns had less range than Soviet systems, but that didn't matter in conflicts like Desert Storm. US artillery disintegrated the opposing artillery with counter barrages before they could hit anything.

4. Efficient Artillery Shells and Rockets:

   Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) disperse cluster bomblets capable of penetrating 3" of armor over a wide area, compensating for the inherent inaccuracy of unguided artillery. They are ~10x more effective than traditional unitary high explosives for a slight cost premium. The new self-propelled guns and rocket systems would almost exclusively shoot this ammo to level the playing field. The First Gulf War put its brutal efficiency on display. The Army kept 10 million+ shells and rockets in inventory, equal to hundreds of millions of shells you see Ukraine and Russia firing today. The US still keeps a significant portion of this stock as an insurance policy because non-cluster alternatives have been challenging to develop.
   
   

The emphasis on crew and system survivability paired with inexpensive, accurate munitions made perfect sense for the US with its technology leadership, volunteer army, and faraway industrial base. They all worked to lower the cost per enemy killed. Even if the Russians got to fight in their perfect scenario of an artillery slugfest, the US Army could still defeat the fully-mobilized Soviet Union. US artillery and armor could cut down any combination of human waves and simple tank attacks the Soviets could manage.

Chosen Whiteness: Israeli Ethnocracy Democratic Toward Jews Jewish Toward Palestinians

NYTimes  | For most of the Palestinians under Israeli control — those in the West Bank and Gaza Strip—Israel is not a democracy. It’s not a democracy because Palestinians in the Occupied Territories can’t vote for the government that dominates their lives. When Mr. Gantz sends Israeli troops to shut down their human rights groups, West Bank Palestinians can’t punish him at the ballot box. They can complain to the Palestinian Authority. But the P.A. is a subcontractor, not a state. Like other Palestinians, its officials need Israeli permission even to leave the West Bank. In Gaza, too, Israel determines, with help from Egypt, which people and products enter and exit. And Gaza’s residents, who live in what Human Rights Watch calls “an open-air prison,” can’t vote out the Israeli officials who hold the key.

This lack of democratic rights helps explain why Palestinians are less motivated than Israeli Jews to defend Israel’s Supreme Court. As the Israeli law professors David Kretzmer and Yael Ronen note in their book, “The Occupation of Justice,” “in almost all of its judgments relating to the Occupied Territories, especially those dealing with questions of principle, the Court has decided in favor of the authorities.” Enfeebling the court would undermine legal protections that Israeli Jews take for granted but most Palestinians did not enjoy in the first place.

To be fair, roughly 20 percent of the Palestinians under Israeli control enjoy Israeli citizenship and the right to vote in Israeli elections. Yet it is often these Palestinians who protest most vociferously against Israel’s democratic credentials. In 2009 the Palestinian Knesset member Ahmad Tibi quipped that Israel was indeed “Jewish and democratic: Democratic toward Jews and Jewish toward Arabs.” To many liberal Zionists, that might sound churlish. After all, Mr. Tibi has now served in Israel’s Parliament for almost 25 years. But he understands that the Jewish state contains a deep structure that systematically denies Palestinians legal equality, whether they are citizens or not.

Consider how Israel allocates land. Most of the land inside Israel proper was seized from Palestinians during Israel’s war of independence in the late 1940s, when more than half the Palestinian population was expelled or fled in fear. By the early 1950s, the Israeli government controlled more than 90 percent of Israel’s land. It still does. The government distributes that land for development and leases it to citizens through the Israel Land Authority. Almost half the seats on its governing council are reserved for the Jewish National Fund, whose mission is “strengthening the bond between the Jewish people and its homeland.”

This helps explain why Palestinians comprise more than 20 percent of Israel’s citizens but Palestinian municipalities, according to a 2017 report by a variety of Palestinian and Israeli human rights groups, encompass less than 3 percent of Israel’s land. In 2003, an Israeli government commission found that “many Arab towns and villages were surrounded by land designated for purposes such as security zones, Jewish regional councils, national parks and nature reserves or highways, which prevent or impede the possibility of their expansion.” Unable to gain permission, many Palestinian citizens build homes illegally — which are therefore subject to government demolition. Ninety-seven percent of the demolition orders in Israel proper between 2012 and 2014, according to the 2017 report, were against Palestinians.

This isn’t an accident. It’s the logical outgrowth of Israel’s self-definition. Israel is not a “state for all its citizens,” a concept Mr. Lapid said in 2019 that he has opposed “my entire life.” In 2018, when several Palestinian lawmakers introduced legislation “to anchor in constitutional law the principle of equal citizenship,” the Knesset’s speaker ruled that it could not even be discussed because it would “gnaw at the foundations of the state.” That same year, the Knesset passed legislation reaffirming Israel’s identity as the “nation-state of the Jewish people,” which means that the country belongs to Jews like me, who don’t live there, but not to the Palestinians who live under its control, even the lucky few who hold Israeli citizenship. All this happened before Mr. Netanyahu’s new government took power. This is the vibrant liberal democracy that liberal Zionists want to save.

Some Jews may worry that by advocating genuine liberal democracy — and thus exposing themselves to accusations of anti-Zionism — Mr. Netanyahu’s critics will marginalize themselves. But if they widen their vision they’ll see that the opposite is true. By including Palestinians as full partners, Israel’s democracy movement will discover a vast reservoir of new allies and develop a far clearer moral voice. Ultimately, a movement premised on ethnocracy cannot successfully defend the rule of law. Only a movement for equality can.

Teenvogue Marketing The Lifestyles Of Useless White Women To Black Boys....,

teenvogue  | The fast food joint where Zuriel Hooks worked was just up the street from where she lived in Alabama, but the commute was harrowing. When she started the job in April 2021, she had to walk to work on the shoulder of the road in the Alabama sun. She would pause at the intersection, waiting for the right opportunity to run across multiple lanes of traffic. 

It was hot, it was dangerous, it was exhausting – but if she wanted to keep her job, she didn’t have much of a choice. “I felt so bad about myself at that time. Because I'm just like, ‘I’m too pretty to be doing all this,’” Hooks said, laughing while looking back. “Literally, I deserve to be driven to work.” 

Hooks, 19, now works for the Knights and Orchids Society, an organization serving Alabama’s Black LGBT community. But the experience of walking to that job stuck with her. Though she’s been working towards it for two years, Hooks doesn’t have a driver’s license. 

For trans youth like Hooks, this crucial rite of passage can be a complicated, lengthy and often frustrating journey. Trans young people face unique challenges to driving at every turn, from complicated ID laws to practicing with a parent. Without adequate support, trans youth may give up on driving entirely, resulting in a crisis of safety and independence.

The most obvious obstacle involves the license itself. Teenagers who choose to change their names or gender markers face a complicated and costly legal battle. The processes vary: some states require background checks, some court appearances, some medical documentation. At times, the rules can border on ridiculous. Alabama’s SB 184 forbade people under the age of 19 from pursuing medical transition. Yet the state also passed a law requiring drivers to undergo medical transition in order to change their gender markers. Though that law has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, the state of Alabama is appealing that decision, leaving trans drivers with no official resolution. 

“It creates this – I don't want to use the cliche, but – patchwork,” said Olivia Hunt, director of policy at the National Center for Transgender Equality. “Not just state-to-state, but even person-to-person, where every person's name change and gender marker change situation is different.”

The cost can vary widely, too. Documentation, court fees and other requirements can quickly tally up to hundreds of dollars. “If you've got somebody who's already in a situation where, due to financial problems, [who] doesn't have access to a car, that might make it just that more inaccessible for them,” Hunt told Teen Vogue.

This lack of access to name and gender marker revisions puts first time drivers in a dangerous limbo. If your name or gender marker doesn’t match your appearance, there’s potential for harassment. The fear of getting outed by an ID (and subsequent abuse) is what some researchers call “ID anxiety.”

“For trans drivers, this is a unique, personal embodiment of stress,” said Arjee Restar, a social epidemiologist and an assistant professor at the University of Washington, “given that the same ID anxiety does not occur to cisgender drivers.”

With that being said, ID law is not the only thing troubling young trans drivers. Public driver education programs have dwindled significantly since the 1970s, leaving much of the burden of teaching driver’s ed on parents. In most states, teenagers must practice for their driving exams under adult supervision, typically a parent or guardian. 

But trans youth often have fraught relationships with the adults in their lives . Hooks, who started practicing driving with someone close to her at 17, often felt like a captive audience while trying to drive. “As [they were] trying to somehow teach me how to drive, I feel like it was [their] way to try to… I would say somehow try to brainwash me back from being who I am,” said Hooks. “They’d turn [the conversation] from driving to, ‘why are you even transitioning?’”

In Alabama, teenagers must complete a minimum of 50 hours of driving with adult supervision in order to get their licenses in lieu of a state-approved drivers’ education course. Hooks tried to muscle through it. But navigating the roads while navigating the emotions in the passenger side got to be too much. One day, Hooks just gave up. “If I'm gonna have this much agony trying to get this done,” Hooks recalled thinking, “then I don't want to do it.”

The alternative wasn’t much better. She didn’t just feel miserable walking everywhere; she felt vulnerable. 

“I always got catcalled, I always got beeped at by a lot of men,” she said.

France Facing A Catastrophic Nuclear Energy Crisis

express.co.uk  |  French President Emmanuel Macron is said to be in a "panic" as the issues with France's ageing nuclear reactors have laid bare the flaws in the country's energy plans, an expert has told Express.co.uk. Sixteen out France's 56 nuclear reactors are currently offline due to corrosion and maintenance issues, sending its normal power output levels plummeting in recent months. Prior to these problems, France's nuclear fleet generated 70 percent of the country's electricity. 

According to Dr Paul Dorfman, a nuclear expert from the University of Sussex, France's "chickens are coming home to roost" as the decision to rely so heavily on nuclear is appearing to backfire, with further delays to repairs also announced this week. 

He said: "France was nuclear power excellence, post-war all buffed up with power - it said it was going to be the top dogs. So it had a vast quantity of nuclear reactors dotted all around France. But what is happening now is that its chickens are coming home to roost. 

"EDF (owned by the French state) is 43billion euros in debt, it faces a 100billion euro bill for mandatory safety upgrades, and a significant number of its reactors continue to be offline due to ageing corrosion problems. It also faces a huge decommissioning and waste management bill that is uncosted - they are just beginning to say 'oh my god'. 

"Around a quarter of their reactors are still offline at winter when they really need it. They are even importing power from Germany after being a net exporter. France is panicking about what to do about renewables and insulation."

But all this could be of concern for Britain, which does rely on some French imports that are sent across the Channel via interconnectors. National Grid has previously warned that if the UK fails to shore up enough energy imports from Europe this winter, it may have to roll out organised blackouts in the "deepest, darkest" nights of the coldest months of the year. 

However, while France's nuclear power issues have sparked concern, Dr Dorfman said the UK is luckier than France in that it is one of the leading players in offshore wind, which could provide a vital lifeline this winter. 

He said: "The UK has seriously thought about renewables in the last few years, without any question. But there have been problems with onshore wind and legislation issues. There also problems with the legislation for solar, but offshore wind has helped enormously. But the UK hasn't really considered about the lowest hanging through which is energy efficiency and insulation."

When asked whether the UK is lucky that it has not copied the French model, Dr Dorfman responded: "We are hugely lucky. France is in a catastrophic situation in terms of the vast debt that it owes in nuclear and the existential waste and decommissioning problem that it is facing...The UK is certainly in a better position in terms of offshore windpower, but it needs to get its act together in terms of allowing much greater onshore wind and much greater solar...and all the things that make up a balanced energy portfolio.

 

 

The West Is Weak Where It Matters And In Ways That It Cannot Fix

aurelian |   These problems are coming together, to some extent, with the widespread diffusion of automatic weapons, and the spread of ethnic organised crime groups in the suburbs of major European cities. Together with the increasing hold of organised Islamic fundamentalism on the local communities, this has created a series of areas where governments no longer wish to send the security forces, because of the fear of violent confrontation, and where these groups exert an effective monopoly of violence themselves. Again, it’s not clear what current military or paramilitary capabilities would be of any real use in dealing with such situations, and there is the risk of other, non-state, actors intervening instead.  (It’s worth adding that we are not talking about “civil war” here, which is a quite different issue)

So the existing force-structures of western states are going to have problems coping with the likely domestic security threats of the near future. Most western militaries are simply too small, too highly specialised and too technological to deal with situations where the basic tool of military force is required: large numbers of trained and disciplined personnel, able to provide and maintain a secure environment, and enforce the monopoly of legitimate violence. Paramilitary forces can only help to a certain extent. The potential political consequences of that failure could be enormous. The most basic political question, after all, is not Carl Schmitt’s infamous “who is my enemy?” but rather “who will protect me?” If modern states, themselves lacking capability, but also with security forces that are too small and poorly adapted, cannot protect the population, what then? Experience elsewhere suggests that, if the only people who can protect you are Islamic extremists and drug traffickers, you are pretty much obliged to give your loyalty to them, or if not, to some equally strong non-state force that opposes them.

In a perverse kind of way, the same issues of respect and capability also arise at the international level. I’ve already written several times about the parlous state of conventional western forces today, and the impossibility of restoring them to something like Cold War levels. Here, I just want to finish by talking about some of the less obvious political consequences of that weakness.

At its simplest, relative military effectiveness influences how you view your neighbours and how they view you. This can involve threats and fear, but it doesn’t have to. It means, for example, that the perception of what regional security problems are, and how to deal with them, is going to be disproportionately influenced by the concerns of more capable states. (Thus the influential position enjoyed by Nigeria in West Africa, for example). This isn’t necessarily from a crude measure of size of forces either: in the old NATO, the Netherlands probably had more influence than Turkey, though its forces were much smaller. Within international groupings—formal alliances or not—some states tend to lead and others to follow, depending on perceptions of experience and capability.

Internationally—in the UN for example—countries like Britain and France, together with Sweden, Canada, Australia, India, and a few others, were influential because they had capable militaries, effective government systems and, most importantly, experience of conducting operations away from home. So if you were the Secretary-General of the UN, and you were putting together a small group to look at the possibilities for a peace mission in Myanmar, who would you invite? The Argentinians? The Congolese? The Algerians? The Mexicans? You would invite some nations from the region, certainly, but you would mainly focus on capable nations with a proven track record. But in quite complex and subtle ways, patterns of influence, both at the practical and conceptual level, are changing. The current vision even of what security is, and how it should be pursued, is currently western-dominated. That will be much less the case in the future.

This decline in influence will also apply to the United States. Its most powerful and expensive weapons—nuclear missiles, nuclear submarines, carrier battle groups, high performance air-superiority fighters — are either not usable, or simply not relevant, to most of the security problems of today. We do not know the precise numbers and effectiveness of Chinese land-based anti-shipping missiles for example, but it’s clear that sending US surface ships anywhere within their range is going to be too great a risk for any US government to take. And since the Chinese know this, the subtle nuances of power relations between the two countries are altered. Again, the US has found itself unable to actually influence the outcome of a major war in Europe, because it does not have the forces to intervene directly, and the weapons it has been able to send are too few and in many cases of the wrong kind. The Russians are obviously aware of this, but it is the kind of thing that other states notice as well, and then has consequences.

Finally, there is the question of the future relationship between weak European states in a continent where the US has ceased to be an important player. As I’ve pointed out before, NATO has continued as long as it has because it has all sorts of unacknowledged practical advantages for different nations, even if some of these advantages are actually mutually exclusive. But it’s not obvious that such a state of affairs will continue. No European nation, nor any reasonable coalition of them, is going to have the military power to match that of Russia, and the US has long been incapable of making up the difference. On the other hand, this is not the Cold War, where Soviet troops were stationed a few hundred kilometres from major western capitals. There will actually be nothing really to fight about, and no obvious place to do the fighting. What there will be is a relationship of dominance and inferiority such as Europe has never really known before, and the end of such shaky consensus as remains on what the military, and security forces in general, are actually for. I suspect, but it’s no more than that, that we are going to see a turning inward, as states try to deal with problems within their borders and on them. Ironically, the greatest protection against major conflicts may be the inability of most European states, these days, to conduct them. Weakness can also have its virtues.

Biden And Team Go To Mexico

This will be hard for Joe. He's going to Mexico -- along with clown advisors Blinken and Sullivan, Kamala was not invited in spite of her skin color and border expertise.

AMLO is similar to Putin: stoic, polite, nerves of steel, long memory, well informed, able to control agendas and conversations. He and his able staff have been preparing for this meeting with Biden and Trudeau/Freeland. They will be polite and likely maintain a focus on border issues along with trade but the reception already looks set up to be chilly. AMLO just informed Biden that he will need to land at an airport way outside the city which means he'll need to endure a 60 minute ride through traffic to get to the meeting. Same for Trudeau.

Mexican media reporting that President Joe Biden and Air Force One will NOT land next week at Mexico's new Felipe Ángeles Airport, rejecting AMLO's public request to do so.

The reason is security concerns about the drive to the city, according to Mileniohttps://t.co/GbO79Tq4Qv

— Eric Martin (@EMPosts) January 4, 2023

"The new airport is about 30 miles north of Mexico City’s National Palace, where the summit of North American leaders will take place, and traffic can mean the drive can take more than an hour. The more convenient Mexico City International Airport, which has serviced the capital since 1931, is about five miles from the Mexican version of the White House.

Biden will visit Mexico for his first international trip in the Western Hemisphere since taking office last year amid a record-breaking wave of illegal immigration across the border between the two countries. AMLO last year blamed Biden for inspiring the border rush, saying, “Expectations were created that with the government of President Biden there would be a better treatment of migrants. And this has caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border thinking that it is easier to do so.”

NYPost |  This takes air traffic control to a whole new level.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is asking President Biden to land Air Force One at a new airport farther from the center of Mexico City when he visits next month — describing it as a favor to quell domestic criticism of the project.

The unusual request sets up a potentially awkward start to the visit and would require Biden’s motorcade to add time to its commute when the president arrives Jan. 9 for talks with López Obrador and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I am taking the opportunity to tell [Biden] that out of friendship, out of diplomacy, we ask him that his plane land at the Felipe Ángeles International Airport,” the 69-year-old Mexican president, known by his initials, AMLO, said Wednesday at a press conference.

AMLO said Trudeau had already agreed to land at the more distant airport, which opened in March, and said he was presenting his request for Biden to the US Embassy, according to Mexico City’s Excélsior newspaper.

Biden previously visited Mexico as vice president in February 2016, when he brought his son Hunter with him aboard Air Force Two after hosting his Mexican business associates at the official vice presidential residence in Washington.

Hunter Biden is under federal investigation for potential crimes including tax fraud and unregistered foreign lobbying linked to an array of influence-peddling operations while his father was vice president and held sway in countries such as Mexico, China and Ukraine. House Republicans, who retake power next week, are vowing to determine Joe Biden’s role in his family’s overseas consulting work.

Joe Biden in 2015 posed for a group photo with his son and Mexican billionaires Carlos Slim and Miguel Alemán Velasco in DC. In 2016, Hunter Biden emailed Alemán’s son, apparently from Air Force Two en route to Mexico, complaining that he hadn’t received reciprocal business favors after “I have brought every single person you have ever asked me to bring to the F’ing White House and the Vice President’s house and the inauguration.”

 

Cartel de Sinaloa Gives AMLO 72 Hours To Free Ovidio - Or Else!!!

intelslava |  There has been some speculation that Mexican authorities did this at the behest of the United States in the lead-up to the meeting of North American leaders next week in Mexico City. There is, however, reason to be skeptical of such; such a violent response by CDS was to be expected after the Battle of Culiacán in 2019. If Sinaloa's demands aren't met and they do follow through with their threats, the deterioration in the security situation could place the meeting in jeopardy.

Such would be a blow to U.S. interests, given Washington's foreign policy of late has increasingly placed an emphasis on the role of Mexico within American strategy. Likewise, Chinese reach in Latin America is growing, so the more the U.S. has to focus resources on Mexico, the more it is constrained in operating elsewhere in the region to combat this trend.

Finally, there are more immediate political considerations at play. Mexico in 2021 was the 2nd largest trading partner of the United States, with total value of this commerce estimated at $661 Billion. This is important, as Mexican national authorities have previously identified CDS (and CJNG) as a serious threat to cross border trading relations, given their influence in the Mexican borderlands. Disruptions to this trade would affect not just important states like Texas and California, but the national economy at large.

Globalization Is Dead And No One Is Listening

Video of TSMC founder Morris Chang's remarks at the TSMC Tool-In in Arizona cannot be found anywhere online. Videos of oxygen-thieving Joe Biden and turd-burgling Tim Wise are ubiquitous, however. Who gives a flying f*ck what either of these pantloading dipshits had to say?!?!?!?

Consequently, old video of Dr. Chang at Brookings is all I've got.

interconnected  |  The most powerful, and somewhat uncomfortable, part of Chang’s speech is his declaration that:

“Globalization is almost dead. Free trade is almost dead. And a lot of people still wish they would come back, but I really don’t think they will be back for a while.”

TSMC is arguably the one company that most epitomizes all the forces of globalization – free trade, hyper specialization, cross-border supply chain, and the assumption of geopolitical stability that lets all these forces interact and interconnect. In this world, TSMC, and manufacturers like it, would build factories wherever it deems to make the most economic sense, without needing to worry about adverse political consequences.

Chang no doubt reflected on the core nature of globalization and free trade, of which he and TSMC are beneficiaries. Witnessing TSMC’s newest fab being built in Arizona, a location TSMC would have never chosen if globalization were alive and well (a point he has made many times in the past), it is only appropriate for Chang to somberly proclaim the death of globalization (though he still hedged a bit with “almost”).

The unfortunate second-order effect of the death of globalization that no one likes to talk about is the rising cost of all kinds of goods and products – a future that may make persistent inflation even worse. Tim Cook announced to much fanfare at the same event that Apple will use chips made from TSMC Arizona. What he did not say is whether that will make the pricey iPhones and MacBooks even pricier to buy.

In Morris Chang’s own estimation, the chips produced from TSMC Arizona may cost “at least 50% more” than the chips from TSMC Taiwan. Will TSMC pass on that cost to Apple or let it eat into its margins? Will Apple pass on that cost to consumers or let it eat into its margins? No one knows right now, but as TSMC Arizona starts churning out wafers, we will know soon enough.

To be clear, this is not a critique of TSMC’s decision to build fabs in America. Given the reality of the world, it is probably the right thing to do. Morris Chang, who may be reluctant but is ultimately a pragmatist, gave his blessing by being at the ceremony. But he did not let the bigger lesson go unspoken.

“Offshoring” is out of fashion, and “onshoring” and “friendshoring” is the new black. Any wishful thinking that globalization will continue in its previous form is naive.

Made in America (in Taiwan)

The other uncomfortable yet thought-provoking part of Chang’s speech is this:

“...We hired almost 600 engineers here a year and a half ago, we sent them to Taiwan, and they were under training in Taiwan for one year to a year and a half. In the meantime, about the same number of Taiwan engineers underwent training in Taiwan also.

So before we see a single wafer, we have about more than a thousand people being trained. This, I think, is a very good sign that we are prepared.”

If you read between the lines, what Chang is really saying is TSMC cannot find enough qualified American talent to do the jobs TSMC needs to operate. So it must spend extra money (more cost) to send every new hire in America to Taiwan to get trained. Furthermore, due to this talent shortage, additional engineers from Taiwan must be hired, trained, and deployed to America to make TSMC Arizona function (with doubled salaries and extra benefits to boot). These trainings are not some two-to-four week corporate offsites, but up to one and a half years long!

Yet, despite all this extra cost and personnel hassle, Chang believes this is a “very good sign” and the right thing to do. That’s because these are the “people problems” and “cultural problems” that he learned the hard way 25 years ago when trying to open TSMC’s first American fab, located in Camas, Washington – an experience he called “a dream fulfilled became a nightmare fulfilled”. TSMC Arizona is now investing up front to avoid the same mistakes.

Beyond the talent shortage problem, there is also an equipment shortage and supplier shortage problem, so much so that TSMC has been shipping as many tools and equipment as possible, directly from Taiwan to Arizona. TSMC has voiced these and other concerns in a letter last month, sent to the NIST bureau of the Commerce Department (an agency I happened to have served in during the Obama administration). Of course, you wouldn’t hear about any of this if you only listen to Gina Raimondo.

The wafers that TSMC Arizona will produce – and be proudly labeled “Made in America” – are looking very “Taiwanese”.

We're The Next Lost Civilization....,

kunstler  |    In 2011, relations between the US and Russia soured when President Putin accused the US of fomenting protests in Russia over its parliamentary elections. And from there, our State Department decided that Russia and the USA could not even pretend to be friendly.

     Jump ahead to 2014: Neocons in the Obama administration figured it was time to cut Russia back down to size. That effort crystalized around the former Soviet province, Ukraine, and blossomed into the US-sponsored-and-organized Maidan Revolution, utilizing Ukraine’s sizeable Stepan Bandara legacy Nazi forces in the vanguard, to foment violence in Kiev’s main city square. The US shoved out elected Ukraine President Yanukovych — who angered America by pledging to join Russia’s Custom’s Union instead of the EU — and installed its own puppet Yatsenyuk, who was ultimately replaced by the candy tycoon, Poroshenko, replaced by the Ukrainian TV star, comedian Volodymyr Zelensky. Ha Ha. Who’s laughing now? (Nobody.)

     From 2014-on, Ukraine, with America’s backing, did everything possible to antagonize Russia, especially showering the eastern provinces of Ukraine, called the Donbas, with artillery, rockets, and bombs to harass the Russia-leaning population there. After eight years of that, and continued American insults (the Steele Dossier, 2016 election interference), and renewed threats to drag Ukraine into NATO, Mr. Putin had enough and launched his “Special Military Operation” to discipline Ukraine. Once that started, American Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stated explicitly to the world that America’s general policy now was to “weaken Russia.”

     That declaration was accompanied by America’s policy to isolate Russia economically with ever more sanctions. Didn’t work. Russia just turned eastward to the enormous Asian market to sell its oil and gas and utilized an alternate electronic trade-clearance system to replace America’s SWIFT system. Sanctions also gave Russia a reason to aggressively pursue an import-replacement economic strategy — manufacturing stuff that they had been buying from the West, for instance, German machine tools critical for industry.

     Russia did sacrifice more than $50-billion in financial assets stranded in the US banking system — we just confiscated it — but, ultimately, that only harmed the US banking system’s reputation as a safe place to park money, and made foreign investors much more wary of stashing capital in American banks. Net effect: the value of the ruble increased and stabilized, and Russia found new ways to neutralize American economic bullying.

     Europe was the big loser in all that. For a while, Europe could pretend to go along with the US / NATO project, pouring arms and money into Ukraine, and at the same time depend on Russian oil and gas imports. Eight months into the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the US blew up the Nord Stream One and Two pipelines, and that was the end of Europe’s supply of affordable natgas, to heat homes and power industry. In a sane world, that sabotage would have been considered an act of war against Germany by the USA. But it only revealed the secret, humiliating state of vassalage that Europe was in. Europe had already made itself ridiculous buying into the hysteria over climate change and attempting to tailor its energy use to so-called “renewables” in history’s biggest virtue-signaling exercise. Germany, the engine of the EU’s economy, made one dumb mistake after another. It invested heavily in wind and solar installations, which fell so short of adequacy they were a joke, and it closed down its nuke-powered electric generation plants so as to appear ecologically correct.

    So now, Germany, and many other EU member states, teeter on the edge of leaving Modernity behind. They managed to scramble and fill their gas reserves sufficiently this fall to perhaps squeak through winter without freezing to death, but not without a lot of sacrifice, chopping down Europe’s forests, and wearing their coats indoors. Now, only a few days into Winter, it remains to be seen how that will work out. We’ll know more in March of the new year. France had been the exception in Europe, due to its large fleet of atomic energy plants. But many of them have now aged-out, some shut down altogether, and “green” politics stood in the way of replacing them, so France, too, will find itself increasingly subject to affordable energy shortages.

     Prediction: Europe’s industry will falter and close down by painful increments. The EU will not withstand the economic stress of de-industrialization. It will shatter and leave Europe once again a small continent of many small fractious nations with longstanding grudges. Some of these countries may break-up into smaller entities in turn, as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Russia did in the 1990s. Keep in mind, the macro trend world-wide will be downscaling and localization as affordable energy recedes for everyone. Since the end of World War Two, Europe was the world’s tourist theme park. Now it could go back to being a slaughterhouse. The Euro currency will have to be phased out as sovereign bankruptcies make the EU financial system untenable, and animosities and hostilities arise. Each country will have to return to its traditional money. Gold and silver will play a larger role in that.

     The USA poured over $100-billion into Ukraine in arms, goods, and cash in 2022. That largesse will not continue as America sinks into its Second Great Depression. In any case, much of that schwag was fobbed off with. The arms are spent, the launchers destroyed. A lot of weapons were trafficked around to other countries and non-state actors. Russia is going to prevail in Ukraine. The news emanating from American media about Ukraine’s military triumphs has been all propaganda. There was hardly ever any real doubt that Russia dominated the war zone strategically and tactically. Even its withdrawals from one city or another were tactically intelligent and worthwhile, sparing Russian lives. The Special Military Operation wasn’t a cakewalk because Russia wanted to avoid killing civilians and refrain from destroying infrastructure that would leave Ukraine a gutted, failed state. Over time, the USA proved itself to be negotiation-unworthy, and Ukraine’s president Zelensky refused to entertain rational terms for settling the crisis. So, now the gloves are off in Ukraine. As of December 29, Russia shut off the lights in Kiev and Lvov.

     The open questions: how much punishment does Ukraine seek to suffer before it capitulates? Will Zelensky survive? (Even if he runs off to Miami, he may not survive.) What exactly will be left of Ukraine? In 2023 Russia will decide the disposition of things on-the-ground. Failed states make terrible neighbors. One would imagine that Russia’s main goal is to set up a rump Ukraine that can function, but cease to be an annoying pawn of its antagonists. Ukraine will no longer enjoy access to the Black Sea; it will be landlocked. The best case would be for Ukraine to revert to the agricultural backwater it was for centuries before the mighty disruptions of the modern era. Perhaps Russia will take it over altogether and govern it as it had ever since the 1700s — except for Ukraine’s brief interlude post-USSR as one of the world’s most corrupt and mal-administered sovereign states.

     Bottom line: Ukraine is and always was within Russia’s sphere-of-influence, and will remain so. The USA has no business there and it will be best for all concerned when we bug out. Let’s hope that happens without America triggering a nuclear World War Three. (Yeah, “hope” is not a plan. Try prayer, then.) Mr. Putin’s challenge going into 2023 is to conclude the Ukraine hostilities without humiliating the USA to the degree that we do something really stupid.