With the cease-fire process that began on April 9, the future of the war in Iran remains uncertain. Although efforts are being made to keep the process moving despite various setbacks, the fact that the conditions put forward by the parties do not align is stalling the process.

It appears that the demands, which can be summarized in about 10 points, have become deadlocked on three critical issues: the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the transfer of enriched uranium to the United States, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and the cessation of Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Additionally, issues such as cutting off Iran’s support for proxy forces, disarming Hezbollah and reducing the range of Iran’s tactical ballistic missiles remain unresolved between the parties.

Looking at the broader picture, the process is proceeding less as a negotiation and more as a clash between U.S. demands and Iran’s resistance.

Then, why is a cease-fire table assembled?

There may be three main reasons for the U.S. shift toward a cease-fire: domestic political pressures and economic costs, international isolation and most importantly, the depletion of missile stockpiles in the Gulf region to 30%. The fact that the U.S. has failed to achieve its military and political objectives in the war also supports this situation. Iran’s missile capabilities have not been eliminated, its nuclear facilities have not been destroyed and the regime has not been overthrown. Furthermore, the influence of a provocative actor like Israel on the U.S. continues to this day.

One of the most striking and even unusual aspects of this process is that the cease-fire is limited to 15 days. While cease-fires in international relations are typically not time-bound, the fact that a specific date has been set here is noteworthy. This raises a critical question: Does the U.S. truly want to end the war, or is it using the cease-fire negotiations to buy time for greater military preparations?

Developments on the ground offer important clues for understanding the answer to this question.

Iran tends not to retaliate unless directly attacked. However, following 40 days of fighting, it is working to heal its wounds, address its shortcomings and rebuild its capabilities. At the same time, it is striving to enhance its military strength with support from Russia and China.

On the U.S. side, there is significantly more active military movement.

Ground forces have been deployed to the region. A brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division, marines brought in from South Korea and the 142nd Artillery Brigade are deployed in the region. In terms of naval power, one aircraft carrier is in the Eastern Mediterranean, another is south of Oman and a third is reportedly en route to the region.

In addition, the U.S. is conducting intensive ammunition transfers using C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft. Tomahawk missiles, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot air defense systems are being deployed to the region. There is also information indicating that a significant portion of ammunition from U.S. forces in Europe has been redirected to the Gulf.

Furthermore, the U.S. is working to establish a new air defense system in the Middle East. Mobile tactical radars and the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) early warning aircraft have been deployed to replace the fixed radars destroyed by Iran. Israel is also being heavily supported in this context.

The issue of mines in the Gulf is also noteworthy. The mines laid by Iran off Basra are intended for coastal defense and do not obstruct maritime traffic. Therefore, the U.S.’s mine-clearing efforts may point to a different objective: paving the way for a potential amphibious operation. This scenario strengthens the likelihood that the U.S. has planned a ground attack on Iran from the Strait of Hormuz and the Basra coast. The artillery units deployed to the region are also a significant indicator supporting this possibility.

In light of all this data, it can be assessed that the U.S. is using the current process not as a cease-fire but as a new strategic buildup process. Unlike the initial buildup, which was leader-focused and had limited objectives, this time it appears a broader plan has been devised – one that is longer-term, more intensive and incorporates different operational methods. April 22 stands before us as the critical threshold that will determine the direction of this process.

Iran rejects US President Trump’s Uranium transfer claim

Iran rejects Donald Trump’s claims that there was an agreement on moving enriched uranium to the US. Also challenging other Trump statements

etc., read at the link

In his speech at the Munich Security Conference yesterday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not waste time mourning the end of the so-called “rules-based order” which has governed international relations for decades. (I question just how much the rules based order governed international relations). Instead, he celebrated it, branding that old order a foolish delusion and putting forward the Trump administration’s vision for what comes next: a future based on hard power, pursuit of national interests, and revitalised Western leadership. (This is work in process by the US return the globe to the unipolar world they dominated- after the fall of the USSR)

European leaders should not be reassured by Rubio’s gentle tone or his repeated appeals to the deep historical and cultural ties linking the United States with their continent, however. His speech was intended not as a love letter, but as an ultimatum. ( I didn’t get any love letter idea from Rubio) According to Rubio, Europe faces a choice. It can either align itself with Washington’s agenda in building a “new Western Century”, or it can go it alone and find itself on the receiving end of continued US pressure. ( So bullying, in plain talk) Whether Washington can make good on its threats is unclear, but the reality facing Europe should not be.
Rubio deserves credit for his honest and clear-eyed diagnosis of the mistakes made at the end of the Cold War, and his unsentimental acknowledgement that the old way of doing things no longer works. His speech departed from the consensus in important and productive ways, for instance, by discarding the democratic liberalism that has long been the foundation of the transatlantic relationship. He was right to call out the failure of institutions to address contemporary economic challenges and to fault Europe for leaving itself geopolitically vulnerable by outsourcing its security. ( I believe the US was fully behind making Europe geopolitically vulnerable- because it kept them subservient)

But the new world order Rubio called for looks remarkably like the one he criticised in at least one respect: it has a dominant America at its centre, ready to coerce allies and adversaries alike.

Yes…

Rubio’s speech did not throw out everything from the past. He was genuine in his hope that, for all its flaws, the transatlantic relationship could be sustained and restored — this time not with a focus on shared values and security threats, but on common culture, history, language, and religion.

The foundation of the transatlantic bond is different in Rubio’s narrative, but its purpose and utility for the United States is not. Donald Trump’s Washington still seeks American preeminence, and still hopes that Europe will sign up to support this project — as it has for decades — by strengthening itself militarily and economically, and backing the administration’s vision of the “new Western Century”.

But Rubio’s speech also contained an implicit threat. If Europe does not join this effort, America will go its own way, and the old continent will be left behind. Compliance, then, is the price of a continued transatlantic partnership.

Compliance– As it was previously, and is now, so it will continue. But, in my opinion, Europe would be better served by strengthening trade with Russia and China. The dominance of the US over Europe only served the US. Not Europe. That’s clear from the present day state of affairs in Europe.

Non-European leaders should be equally uncomfortable with Rubio’s speech. Decades of US primacy have been harmful for the world, due to America’s ready use of military power and exploitation of economic advantages. Yesterday’s speech promises more of the same, even if the rhetoric, rationales, and institutions enabling America’s pursuit of dominance change. Rubio’s vision is also a confrontational one, which pits a vaguely defined West against unnamed adversaries and rivals, not only in competition for resources and security but in an existential civilisational struggle as well.

There are two looming challenges facing the Trump administration as it works toward this desired future.

First, because this imagined new order retains the core characteristics of the old one, with the United States at the centre and the collective West locked in conflict with its rivals, it is not clear that this system will be any better at addressing today’s challenges, preventing fresh wars, or correcting the mistakes of the past.

Second, Trump’s coercive approach to building this new order may not work in an increasingly multipolar world. States in Europe and elsewhere now have many options, including the ability to form new balancing coalitions against the US which protect their interests.

At the same time, Washington’s power has declined in relative terms.

Rubio is right to proclaim the rules-based order dead, but by clinging to what remains of American hegemony, his vision for the future misses the mark. It risks leaving not Europe but the United States isolated and alone.

I think a very isolated US will be the outcome. This is already occurring & the US leadership understands that clearly. Hence MAGA?! Many citizens of the US and Canada, for that matter, do not grasp the world has changed. This is not the same world after WW2 or after the USSR fell.

That all said, the US will certainly make the planet a very dangerous place for humanity. Just my opinion

Chas Freeman: U.S. Restoring Empire & War On Eurasia

Interesting...via Forbes

President Donald Trump on Thursday promised “big retaliation” for European countries if they sell U.S. Treasury bonds in response to his threats to impose tariffs on NATO partners resisting his bid to acquire Greenland.

Key Facts

Trump made the comments on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, telling Fox Business, “we have all the cards.”

Trump’s tariff threats—which he has since walked back—created speculation that European countries could sell off U.S. stocks and bonds as retribution.

The Danish Pension fund AkademikerPension announced plans this week to sell $100 million in U.S. Treasury bonds after Trump doubled down on his demands to absorb the Danish territory, and the Greenland SISA Pension has said it’s also considering divesting U.S. stocks, according to Bloomberg.

Swedish pension fund Alecta also told Reuters this week it’s sold most of its U.S. Treasury holdings over the past year amid volatility in the global political landscape under Trump.

$10 trillion. That’s how much in U.S. assets are held within the European Union, according to U.S. Treasury data.

“Denmark’s investment in US treasury bonds like Denmark itself is irrelevant,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters Wednesday when asked how concerned he is about European investors potentially pulling out of the Treasury.

Lots of instability. The US is still threatening Iran. Lots going on in Syria. And now… more financial happenings

In all my years of following geo politics- I can honestly say the first month of 2026 has been quite busy and disturbing

The Independent

Donald Trump claims to have hashed out the “framework” of a future deal on Greenland following weeks of threats to annex the Danish territory.

The US president emerged from talks with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte on Wednesday confident that a deal was in sight and that all parties were happy with it.

In sight? In immediate sight? A distant sight?

Denmark said it was open to dialogue so long as its borders are respected – but have notably not endorsed any aspects of the agreement briefed to the media or discussed publicly by Mr Rutte.

The shape of the arrangement was “a little bit complex”, Mr Trump said, and would have to be explained “down the line”. However, he waived his previous threat of tariffs against European allies in an apparent attempt to defuse tensions.

Mr Rutte said that Denmark would retain its sovereignty and stressed that Nato allies would have to step up on Arctic security “within months” under the framework deal currently being discussed.

Officials close to the negotiations briefed media outlets that a deal could see greater US freedom to build on the island, modelled on Britain’s overseas arrangements. But concrete details of what could form part of the deal remain scarce and there is no guarantee that Mr Trump’s demands will be accepted by Europe.

What is the deal missing?

The framework remains informal and lacks specifics. If the main challenges are, as Nato says, combatting Russian and Chinese investment and interference, the US already has the right to build bases and Denmark has countered Chinese investment in the past.

The development of the island’s mining sector is also wrapped up in red tape and opposition from indigenous people, and it is unclear how Greenland would be compensated if the US tries to extract rare minerals. The extraction of oil and gas is banned for environmental reasons

Sky News

Donald Trump’s team will act like he has achieved something with an apparent “framework of a deal” on Greenland. But be in no doubt, that’s nonsense – and the US president has inflicted serious damage to the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Donald Trump may claim there is, but that’s only because he needed a way to back down from his threats when he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to own Greenland.

“Is this just Trump’s off-ramp? No actual framework of a deal yet?” I asked one diplomat at the heart of it all.

The response: “Exactly.”

Through the “Trump whisperer”, NATO secretary general Mark Rutte, the Danish and Greenlander positions have essentially been reiterated to the American president.

During a face-to-face meeting in Davos, pre-existing commitments in the 1951 US-Denmark treaty were reemphasised and European nations re-committed to increase their own defence of Greenland.

When they did precisely this last week, by literally sending senior military officials to Greenland, Trump interpreted it as a provocation against him and issued the tariff threat.

“I’m so bored of this now…” one European ambassador told me over the weekend, such is the level of weariness over the American president’s antics.

A trio of U-turns

The day in Davos was dizzying even by Trump’s standards.

He first U-turned on the implicit threat of military action, then he U-turned on the tariff threat, and then he U-turned on the insistence that he take sovereignty of Greenland. All in the space of a day.

The penny had dropped in his head, it seems. He realised his Greenland ownership plans were more than just unpopular at home (among his own side too). They were seen as self-defeating, undeliverable and frankly mad.

U-turns and TACO’s

Importantly, though, Trump has pulled back on his proposed European 10% levies set to come into effect on 1 February and noted that the US will not take Greenland by force; both clarifications were meaningful and helped calm markets

After finding the above information- a Glenn Diesen interview came my way

Via Archive.ph

The Tariffs were always a from of economic warfare, to waged against other nations

1: Trump Imposes Tariffs on Countries Supporting Greenland

President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday that he would impose an additional 10 percent tariff on eight European countries—Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K.—for deploying a small joint force to Greenland to conduct reconnaissance. Trump said the tariffs would take effect on February 1 and increase to 25 percent on June 1, adding they “will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” The leaders of the eight European nations responded in a joint statement, writing that “tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.” To learn more about Trump’s campaign to acquire Greenland, read Thursday’s TMD.

• Bloomberg reported Sunday that French President Emmanuel Macron plans to request that European Union leaders activate the EU’s anti-coercion instrument, a never-before-used mechanism created in 2023 that would implement further trade restrictions on the U.S., while also placing July 2025’s U.S.-EU trade deal in jeopardy. EU ambassadors met in Brussels later that night to discuss a potential response.

• On Friday, a bipartisan group of American lawmakers met with Danish lawmakers in Copenhagen.
• The same day, the chief military leader of Denmark’s Greenland-based Joint Arctic Command, Major General Soren Andersen, said that his priority is preparing against potential threats from Russia. “I don’t see a NATO ally attacking another NATO ally,” he said.

The EU is well positioned to trade with China and Russia and should do so- As they were before

2: Trump Issues More Pardons

Trump keeps right on pardoning criminals

Trump issued 14 pardons and eight commutations on Thursday and Friday. To learn more about Trump’s use of the pardon power, read the December 11 issue ofTMD. Last week’s pardons included:

• Former Puerto Rican Gov. Wanda Vazquez Garced—who was indicted in August 2022 for allegedly engaging in a bribery scheme to fund her 2020 re-election campaign—along with Garced’s two co-defendants.
• Venezuelan-Italian banker Julio Martin Herrera Velutini, whose daughter donated $3.5 million to Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc.
• Adriana Camberos, a California businesswoman who was convicted of wire fraud in October 2024 for making tens of millions of dollars by giving false information to consumer goods and food manufacturers. She received a commutation by Trump in 2021 after being convicted for operating illegal business schemes.

3: More Details on the U.S. Campaign in Venezuela

Reuters reported Saturday that U.S. officials had been communicating with Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello months before the U.S. apprehended Nicolás Maduro in a raid earlier this month. Sources told Reuters that the Trump administration has continued talks with Cabello, including warning him against ordering violence against opposition members. The Associated Press also reported Saturday that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has categorized acting Venezuelan leader Delcy Rodríguez as a “priority target” for several years, with one confidential informant telling the federal agency in 2021 that she was running a money laundering scheme in the Caribbean

4: Ukraine Meetings in Florida

Ukrainian officials met with White House special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law and foreign policy adviser, Jared Kushner, in Florida over the weekend for a two-day discussion of prospective security guarantees and post-war reconstruction proposals. On Sunday, Ukrainian lead negotiator Rustem Umerov said that discussions focused on “practical mechanisms and carrying out and implementing them,” adding that both sides plan to meet again later this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine’s defense systems were “insufficient” and that some were currently “without missiles.

David Barnea—the director of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad—arrived in Miami on Friday to discuss with U.S. officials prospective responses to Iran’s violent crackdown.
Leaders of an Iraq-based Kurdish separatist group told the Associated Press that they have provided military and financial support to the anti-government protesters.
Reza Pahlavi—the son of the deposed shah of Iran—urged Trump during a press conference on Friday to intervene and support the anti-government protesters in the country, laying out a plan to lead the country through a prospective transition to democratic governance. On Sunday night, hackers broadcast footage supporting Pahlavi on Iranian state television transmissions.

5:Iran Blames Trump for Killings

In a Saturday speech—later reiterated on Twitter—Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei admitted that thousands had died in the country’s protests, but blamed the demonstrations and the deaths on U.S. interference. “We find the U.S. President guilty due to the casualties, damages and slander he inflicted upon the Iranian nation,” Khamenei’s account posted. Trump had commended the Iranian regime on Friday, posting on Truth Social that he “greatly respect[s] the fact that they canceled” the execution of more than 800 protesters scheduled to take place last week. But when asked about Khamenei’s posts over the weekend, Trump toldPolitico, “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran.” On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian warned that “any aggression” against Khamenei would be treated as “tantamount to all-out war against” the country.

Reza Pahlavi—the son of the deposed shah of Iran—urged Trump during a press conference on Friday to intervene and support the anti-government protesters in the country, laying out a plan to lead the country through a prospective transition to democratic governance. On Sunday night, hackers broadcast footage supporting Pahlavi on Iranian state television transmissions.

David Barnea—the director of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad—arrived in Miami on Friday to discuss with U.S. officials prospective responses to Iran’s violent crackdown.

Leaders of an Iraq-based Kurdish separatist group told the Associated Press that they have provided military and financial support to the anti-government protesters.

As mentioned in a previous post- This would be the PKK providing guns and money to PJAK in Iran- They are the same

**More on the hacking of Iranian television

To broadcast the so called exiled crown prince (resident of the US)

Hackers disrupted Iranian state television satellite transmissions to air footage supporting the country’s exiled crown prince and calling on security forces to not “point your weapons at the people,” footage online showed early Monday, the latest disruption to follow nationwide protests in the country.

***Some Kurdish thugs in Iran were killed according to this group

Since they were given cash and arms from the PKK- I gotta figure they were up to no good!

I saw something about a smeltering facility the DoD (Department of War) purchased with JP Morgan– Financed by JPMorgan, Jointly Owned by US DoD

US Secures Silver Smelter Deal

The project, known as the “U.S. Smelter,” is expected to require approximately $6.6 billion in capital expenditures, with total investment reaching $7.4 billion including financing costs. It is being developed in coordination with the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of Commerce, according to project materials and government statements.

Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg said the investment reflects a strategic shift in U.S. industrial and defense priorities.

“President Trump has directed his Administration to prioritize critical minerals as essential to America’s defense and economic security,” Feinberg said.

And here

US intervention and kidnapping of Venezuela’s leader has changed the rules of resource extraction.

Venezuela possesses extraordinary abundance beneath its soil. What today’s events have underscored is the absence of the above-ground architecture required to translate that abundance into bankable supply.

Give this a listen- it covers a lot!

I’m not alone in understanding the empire is collapsing and is dangerously desperate to cling to power- Venezuela made that point very clear.

Gallier the Eldersays:

December 28, 2025 at 6:04 am•Edit

I love to look at the whole picture rather than get lost in details.

Under this link you will find a text that shows a good overall picture. Have fun looking at it. (linked above)

I wish you all a smooth transition into the new year and all the best for you and your families.

Gallier the Elder

It’s the type of piece that would be characterized here as a dot connector. Much like the post from the other day– I like the overall picture as well, but, there are times the devil is in the details and those details require a bit more examination– Over my many years of reading, writing and reporting a wide range of topics have been examined. Gallier’s link gave me an opportunity to review previous work & refresh everyone’s memory on these topics that contribute like trees to the formation of the forest. As we enter into 2026, a year that is looking to be potentially very dangerous for the planet- It seems a good time to review.

I’m including excerpts from the linked piece while adding in additional information and perspectives. If you take the time to read the entire piece, which is worth reading, you’ll realize we’ve talked about much of this here. Some of my views differ from Gregorz, but, it’s all good

This is not the collapse of the Roman Empire; this is more like the collapse of the Roman Republic.

This is the collapse of the phase of the entity in which ordinary citizens have a say in their own government. This is the period before the rise of an empire and a protracted period of expansionist, destructive, warlike insanity. You thought it was bad before? Just wait until they don’t have to have a pretext anymore. Wait until they don’t have to have any checks on their ambition. Wait until they can do whatever they want right out in the open without having to explain it to the public—because that is what we are looking at next.

I see the collapse of the empire and that is not naive. Not in my opinion. But it won’t be fast or easy due to the powerful and deeply interconnected global military assets of the US. Alongside the US dollar being the currency of global trade. It is the beginning of an era of belligerence. But not expansionism. It's a belligerence brought about by the understanding that ones global relevance is shrinking. And it is the last dangerous effort to retain the status of global empire.

In fact here’s a report from the other day pointing out just how much the Empire’s dollar superiority has slipped globally- Wired.com– The dollar is facing an end to it’s dominance, via archive.ph

”2026 will be the year when US dollar dilution—the quiet erosion of its global dominance as countries trade and pay in alternatives—starts to build momentum. The more Washington uses the dollar as a weapon, the more the world builds ways to circumvent it.

America’s share of global trade has fallen from one-third in 2000 to just one-quarter today. As emerging economies trade more with each other, the dollar is less central to the flow of goods. Indian and Russian trade now settles in rupees, dirhams, and yuan. More than half of China’s trade now moves through CIPS, China’s own cross-border payment system, instead of SWIFT—the global messaging network long dominated by Western banks. Other trading partnerships like Brazil-Argentina, UAE-India, and Indonesia-Malaysia are also piloting local currency settlements.
At the same time, central banks around the world are starting to accumulate currencies other than the dollar as reserves. The dollar made up 72 percent of global reserves in 1999. Today, it’s down to 58 percent—and falling.”

This erosion of the US dollar supremacy, which has been ongoing for decades- is NOT lost on the US leadership.

If you are imagining a scenario where the United States simply shrinks from its position as the dominant global superpower without first lashing out at everyone, you are out of your minds. That is what they are stress-testing right now.

Yes, that is what the US is doing. Pushing buttons. Stress testing. Lashing out. The tariffs are a form of economic warfare- Never mind the rabid and blatant war mongering!

Notice how the Democrats are just going along with it and there is no public pushback.

So, once they have finally eliminated the last republican institutions, once they have finally eliminated the last traces of public involvement in the government, this is what we will be left with. That is the better analogy. It is not the fall of the Roman Empire; rather, all the window dressing is gone, and we are moving into straight imperialism.

To me this statement applies more to the internal American populace- those outside of the US understand what the US is, having been subjected to it’s vagaries for decades. It is Pax Americana. And has been for a very long time. But the Americans themselves may finally come to understand this reality.

Unfortunately, I completely agree with this statement. Things are only going to get worse. A global war and, or a global techno-feudal prison is coming. Because people live in a world of naivety, not understanding that the US is a superpower and a world hegemon acting like a global terrorist, they don’t understand what is coming.

Maybe more people do live in a world of naivety? But, I’m not one of them.

I explain, as does Brian Berletic, that all this talk about a divide between America and Europe is nonsense.

It is a colony. By design. The EU and the US are on the same page no matter the presentation of disagreement

In 2014, I did a post at my former site. It has since been relinked here.

2014; From my former site- more then a decade ago. Contrary to the recent claims of Donald Trump – the EU was created to be both subordinate to the US and act as thorn in Russia’s side. Hence the “whole and free” agenda. That’s obvious enough isn’t it? The EU was not created to do damage to the US as Trump claims.

You can access the entire report via the web archive

https://web.archive.org/web/20170411091333/http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2014/05/toward-europe-whole-free-via-nato.html

Including Recall?-   Trigger a cold war to make it easier (for the US) to annex Europe

And so it happened.

Therefore, I’m 100 percent in agreement with the statement the EU is a US colony

How is America allegedly against the war in Ukraine while it still provides intelligence, and while Congress just approved the Pentagon budget, which allocates money for weapons for Ukraine? If Europe is a weak vassal and Kallas is too afraid to even name the US, and when Trump imposed tariffs on Europe they gave America everything it wanted, then how can anyone tell me with a straight face that there is a meaningful divide between America and Europe? America holds all the cards and could simply impose tariffs again, saying they will only be lifted if Europe agrees to peace with Russia. The US could also cut intelligence sharing with the Ukrainian army, which would lead to its collapse — yet it does neither. And we are still supposed to believe America wants peace with Russia while continuing to fund and support Ukraine militarily?

I don’t believe America wants peace or it would have had peace.

Some people will still reject what I say and claim it is speculation, insisting Merkel was not lying in 2022. To them I point out one thing: Poland built one of the largest LNG ports in Europe and constructed the Baltic pipeline from Norway through Denmark — all in preparation for a Ukraine war. I live in Poland, and even I didn’t know that Poland now produces 90% of the West’s TNT supply used by Western armies. Poland was clearly informed by the US that war was coming, and positioned itself to profit from it.

I’ve written on this subject, previously. Numerous times. Here and at my censored site- The push to have Poland replace Germany as the most important state on the NATO frontline

Originally published in 2014 moved here in 2022

2023- Poland, home of Russia’s government in waiting

2022 Poland Europes Newest Military Power

Use the search bar to find many more reports on Poland’s growing dominance- It’s not been happenstance, it’s been planned for quite some time now

I’m not on the same page as the author and his contentions regarding Northstream and Poland. They wanted Northstream blown, because Polish leadership wanted to be the dominant power player in Europe. But I can see Merkel not wanting the pipeline destroyed or the war with Ukraine, understanding Germany would be destroyed in the process.

I argue that Germany — especially Merkel’s faction — did everything they could to prevent the war until the very end. America knew this, and that Germany did not want war because it would destroy German industry, so the US felt compelled to destroy Nord Stream. Blowing it up was risky: if the public realized America had sabotaged German infrastructure, it could cause massive political backlash. Yet the US did it anyway, because if Nord Stream remained intact, Germany might still return to Russian gas, even during the conflict.

NATO is based on a few simple concepts. The US leads. Keeping Germany down and Russia out. And never to allow for German/Russian cooperation That would be one powerful partnership.. Not just militarily, but economically that would be a strong challenger to American hegemony.

Gregorz broaches the eastern mediterranean pipeline projects ; IMEC corridor, energy

Big piece of the global puzzle. Most recently talked about the other day in the dot connecting post where the economic deal between Turkey and Libya is mentioned

Gregorz moves onto Azerbaijan and Armenia

Now we come to Azerbaijan and the “Azerbaijan Trump Corridor.”

“The “Azerbaijan Trump Corridor,” officially the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), is a U.S.-brokered transport corridor agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It links mainland Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave via Armenia, featuring roads, railways, pipelines, and fiber optics. The corridor promises regional peace and trade by providing new East-West transit routes while reducing Russian and Iranian influence, with the U.S. holding development rights for 99 years.”

Already covered here multiple times and at my old site

The author writes about the dispute between Pakistan and Iran

Recently, there was a conflict between Pakistan and India, which I discussed in my posts. This war was provoked by the United States, which conducted a terrorist attack in India using our McJihadists, giving India an excuse to attack Pakistan. Many people believe Pakistan won the conflict, but I disagree.

As do I. Pakistan did not win.

Pakistan was heavily beaten by India and, in desperation, asked Trump to intervene and make India stop its attack. For the first time in history, immediately after this conflict, the military leader of Pakistan — the actual power in the country — visited the White House.

Yup.

This feels too much like a contrived ”feather in the cap” situation for the Trump administration.

Then there was the dust up between Afghanistan and Pakistan- Instigated by the Pakistan at the behest of the US

That’s my view on what has happened between both nations- Pakistan egged on by the Trump administration has attacked Afghanistan. To be clear Pakistan and the US have been fast military friends for a very long time.

Thanks to Grzegorz Ochman for an interesting read, which gave me an opportunity to fondly reminisce on the many years of global machinations that have been covered by yours truly starting way back in 2008.

If your interest has been piqued- use the search bar to enlighten yourself

2026 will soon be here.

Financial Post

The European Central Bank has warned that if Europeans appear willing to grab other countries’ money, it could undermine confidence in the euro currency.

Financial Times

Russia’s central bank has filed a lawsuit in Moscow seeking damages from Brussels-based depository Euroclear for freezing its sovereign assets, and vowed to challenge European plans to immobilise the reserves.

The central bank said on Friday that Euroclear, which holds €185bn of the €210bn in Russian assets frozen by Europe, had “made it impossible to access funds and securities belonging to the Bank of Russia” through “illegal actions”.

The suit is Russia’s first shot across Europe’s bows as Brussels moves to indefinitely immobilise the assets to fund a €90bn loan to Ukraine next week. Belgium, where most of the assets are held, has opposed the idea, fearing Russian retaliation.

The European Commission believes no courts outside the EU would have jurisdiction over the case. But Russia’s central bank said it would also “unconditionally challenge” efforts to immobilise its assets via international courts in both “friendly and hostile countries”.

What the European Commission believes may be incorrect in reality?

It is seeking damages based on “the sum of the Bank of Russia’s blocked funds, the value of the blocked securities, and loss of expected gains”, the central bank added.

It added that it would pursue “all available legal and other mechanisms to defend its interests” if the European plans to use Russia’s assets move forward. Euroclear declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Kyiv’s western allies froze $300bn in Russia’s reserves shortly after President Vladimir Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. They are currently immobilised every six months through a process that requires unanimous agreement from all 27 EU members, including opponents of the scheme such as Hungary.

But the European Commission proposed using emergency powers to immobilise €210bn indefinitely to fund the €90bn loan, hoping it will bolster Kyiv’s resistance to Russia’s invasion and help secure a role for the continent in US-led peace talks.

Belgium has demanded other member states share the risks of future Russian legal challenges. But France, whose commercial banks hold about €18bn of the Russian assets, has pushed back against the idea.

If you haven’t been following the bouncing ball, check here, here and here for starters

Because the US is looking for a way to grab a big chunk of the stolen Russian assets for the benefit of the US. I’ve been saying this is the reality behind the ruse..

In this post

The US is entirely involved.

Or here

Very clearly this is about stealing the frozen Russian assets!! This is the US and Ukraine with the EU legitimizing the theft of Russian assets.

Let’s read from the Wall Street Journal article- via Archive.ph

The U.S. blueprint has been spelled out in appendices to current peace proposals that aren’t public but were described to The Wall Street Journal by U.S. and European officials. The documents detail plans for U.S. financial firms and other businesses to tap roughly $200 billion of frozen Russian assets for projects in Ukraine—including a massive new data center to be powered by a nuclear plant currently occupied by Russian troops.

Another appendix offers America’s broad-strokes vision for bringing Russia’s economy in from the cold, with U.S. companies investing in strategic sectors from rare-earth extraction to drilling for oil in the Arctic, and helping to restore Russian energy flows to Western Europe and the rest of the world.

European officials want to use the same frozen Russian funds—held in European institutions—to extend a loan to Ukraine’s cash-strapped government so it can buy weapons it needs to defend itself and keep operating as its coffers run dry.

The clash at the negotiating table is now not just about borders but increasingly about business—and in a twist, pits not just Russia against Ukraine but the U.S. against its traditional allies in Europe. The Journal earlier reported that American companies with close links to the Trump administration were positioning themselves to profit from the U.S. peace plan

If the U.S. vision prevails, it would override Europe’s own plans to shore up Ukraine’s wartime government and further cement Russia’s economic isolation. The result is what several officials described as a frenzied race to move ahead before the U.S. imposes its own arrangements.
U.S. officials involved in the negotiations say Europe’s approach would quickly deplete the frozen funds. Washington, on the other hand, would tap Wall Street executives and private-equity billionaires to invest the money and expand the amount available to invest. One official involved in the talks said the pot could grow to $800 billion under American management. “Our sensibility is that we really understand financial growth,” the official said.
On Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he had held productive conversations with the investment firm BlackRock’s chief executive, Larry Fink.

Read the rest for yourselves at the link provided- This is the empire plundering and if anyone thinks this is going to go over well?? I can’t see it!

When asked if peace was closer or further away after the meeting, Ushakov replied, “Not further, that’s for sure,” adding that “there’s still a lot of work to be done, both in Washington and in Moscow,” the Associated Press reported.

Nothing has changed.

I've serious doubts these meetings are anything other than appearance making for all parties- And why is Jared Kushner there at all? Nepotism reigns supreme in the Trump admin as it did in the Biden administration. Not a shocker, really.

Being brutally honest here, I still see no reason to believe the US really wants peace with Russia or truly wants to end the conflict. They’d have it done it already! It would be a simple as cutting off weapons, intelligence and other supports.

As for the EU..

BRUSSELS — The European Union on Wednesday revealed details of its plan to use billions of euros in frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s needs over the next two years, but Belgium rejected the scheme and insisted that it poses major financial and legal risks.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the EU would cover two-thirds of Ukraine’s financial and military needs for 2026 and 2027, which the International Monetary Fund puts at 137 billion euros ($160 billion), by providing 90 billion euros ($105 billion).

She said that other international partners would be called on to cover the remaining third.

Von der Leyen said that using the frozen assets would strengthen the Ukrainian position at peace negotiations with Russia and the U.S. but it would also send a message to Moscow that “the prolongation of the war on their side comes with a high cost for them.” She said that she had informed the Trump administration about the proposal.(Of course, she did!)

EU leaders have committed to fund Ukraine over the next two years, whatever the method. The EU has already poured in over 170 billion euros ($197 billion) since the war started in 2022.

EUInsanity

Von der Leyen said that if the loan plan didn’t pass muster, the bloc could borrow the money on international markets in a scheme underpinned by its long-term budget. The problem here, though, is that it would require the approval of all 27 member countries, and Hungary has consistently blocked aid to Ukraine.

The biggest pot of ready funds available is through frozen Russian assets. Most of the money is held in Belgium – around 194 billion euros as of June – and outside the EU in Japan, with around $50 billion, and the U.S., U.K. and Canada with lesser amounts. A total of 210 billion euros worth ($245 billion) are held in Europe.

Canada holding a smaller amount of these stolen funds has been mentioned here previously

To address Belgian concerns, the commission’s complex proposal includes safeguards to protect EU nations from “possible retaliation from Russia,” a prohibition of any release of the frozen assets, and a way to borrow money as the EU to “underpin a loan to Ukraine.”

But Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot said that his country considers “the option of the reparations loan the worst of all, as it is risky. It has never been done before.” Russia has described the scheme as “theft.”

Haltingly reading prepared remarks to reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Prévot urged the EU to borrow the money for Ukraine on international markets. “It is a well-known, a robust and a well-established option with predictable parameters,” he said.

“The reparation loans scheme entails consequential economic, financial and legal risks,” he said, adding that the commission’s proposals do not address Belgium’s concerns. “It is not acceptable to use the money and leave us alone facing the risks.”

Belgium fears that the Brussels-based financial clearing house holding the frozen assets, Euroclear, could take legal action if Russia challenges any use of the funds or if the move harms its image and business interests.

Meanwhile Russia continues on making trade deals..