Menu Icon

Debt Rattle March 3 2025

Mar 032025
 
 March 3, 2025  Posted by at 11:02 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  50 Responses »


Gustave Courbet The village maidens 1852

 

• Europe Unveils Rival Ukraine Peace Plan (ZH)
• UK, France, Ukraine Agree To Work On Cease-Fire Plan To Present To US (ZH)
• We Won’t Give Kiev Money Until Zelensky Seeks Peace – Lutnick (RT)
• US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz Suggests Zelensky May Need To Go (RT)
• Trump, Vance, and the New New World Order (Soukup)
• Musk Backs US Withdrawal From UN and NATO (RT)
• Without The US There Is No NATO And No Ukraine (ZH)
• NATO Chief Urges Zelensky To Make Peace With Trump (RT)
• Hollywood Celebrities Were Paid Millions To Back Ukraine – Orban (RT)
• Ukraine’s Future Now Rests With A New President, After White House Fiasco (Jay)
• US Approves New Russian Ambassador As Part of Major Reset Underway (ZH)
• Trump Impressed By Vance’s Handling Of Zelensky – WSJ (RT)
• Putin Ally In Secret Talks With Trump Admin To Restart Nord Stream 2 (ZH)
• Top DOJ Attorneys Involved In Biden-Era Prosecutions Demoted (JTN)
• Exposing Elite Degeneracy – Mr. and Mr. Macron (Karganovic)
• The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust (Turley)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1896167156863381762

Rubio

Schiff

Kolomoisky

Georgescu
https://twitter.com/i/status/1895891169407877562

Rogan Elon

Mearsheimer 2015

Sachs

 

 

 

 

For three years, Europe has done nothing to establish peace in Ukraine, quite the opposite. They want to keep the war going. But now that Trump acts, they do too. Or they at least want to give that impression. Still, they don’t want peace, they want the fight to continue. That’s why they inject their voice at this point in time, when Trump threatens to get results. They call it a peace plan, but it’s a war plan. Given a chance, they will simply add some point(s) they know Putin cannot accept. That’s all it takes to provide a forever war. The idea of boots on the ground might be enough.

Perhaps the only way out for Trump is to leave NATO.

• Europe Unveils Rival Ukraine Peace Plan (ZH)

Is the UK trying to pull Trump into starting WW3? During Sunday’s security summit of European leaders to find an alternate peace plan to Washington’s, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a “coalition of the willing” to step up efforts in support of Kiev. Starmer said he hopes this coalition will gain support and leadership from the Trump White House. “We are at a crossroads in history today,” Starmer said after the summit of 18 leaders – which included Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Starmer unveiled a four point agreed-to ‘peace plan’ (..though not agreed to by the US):
• to keep military aid flowing into Ukraine, and to keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia
• that any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and security and Ukraine must be present at any peace talks
• in the event of a peace deal, to boost Ukraine’s defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion
• to develop a “coalition of the willing” to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee peace afterwards

But one crucial line in his remarks detailing the plan caught many people’s attention – the expressed willingness to put Western/NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine: “The UK are prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air,” Starmer said. He also announced a £1.6bn missile deal for Ukraine, saying this “support for Ukraine is unwavering.” His rationale was that “We have to learn from the mistakes of the past, we cannot accept a weak deal… which Russia can breach with ease, instead any deal must be backed by strength.” He further in the wake of the disastrous Trump-Zelensky meeting said Europe will have to do the “heavy lifting” – and that’s when he said it would be backed by boots on the ground:

The PM said his coalition “will intensify planning now, with real urgency” and reiterated that the “UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air”. He said: “Together with others, Europe must do the heavy-lifting but to support peace in our continent and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing. We’re working with the US on this point.” Speaking to journalists after the summit, the PM said he did “not accept that the US is an unreliable ally”, and that the discussions formed a plan that would see the US as allies. Of course, being this antagonistic to Russia – at the very moment the US is trying to forge ahead on peace – is in reality a scenario that eventually forces Trump’s hand to react. It also appears a deliberate effort by Europe to keep the US on a hawkish path, and to sabotage US-Russia talks in the process.

***
After essentially being kicked out of the White House on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went to London where British Prime Minister Keir Starmer immediately offered a warm embrace: ‘we stand with you’ – was the message after the major public clash with President Trump and Vice President Vance in the Oval Office. “You have full backing from the United Kingdom and we stand with you with Ukraine for as long as it may take,” Starmer, who was also just at the White House on Thursday, said in a presser with Zelensky on Saturday. “And I hope you’ve heard some of that cheering in the street, that is the people of the United Kingdom coming out to demonstrate how much they support you, how much they support Ukraine, and our absolute determination to stand with unwavering determination,” the UK leader added.

Zelensky is also meeting with the UK’s King Charles on Sunday. CNN and other are presenting this moment as a consolation of sorts after the “nightmare Trump meeting”. Currently, European leaders are meeting at Lancaster house, hosted by the UK’s Starmer, reportedly to work with Ukraine on a peace plan. The leaders in attendance include NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, French President Emmanuel Macron, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. Starmer said Sunday before the meeting that Kiev and Europe will work together toward a plan to “stop the fighting” with Russia before presenting it to the White House.

The British PM told BBC: “We have agreed that the UK, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting. Then we will discuss that plan with the US.” The fact that these European leaders are now talking about urgently drawing up an official new peace plan is without doubt due to the pressure of the Trump presidency as well as the controversial mineral deal and Zelensky’s apparent rejection of it. While these leaders may still not actually be interested in peace, given many of them have urgently called for the West to keep transferring weapons to Ukraine’s military, they are at least making a show of it as an alternative approach to Washington. This older interview clip of Zelensky is making the rounds again after Friday’s fireworks at the White House…

https://twitter.com/i/status/1891830368459792863

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has bluntly acknowledged that the Western allies appear weaker and more divided than ever at this point, per FT: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has warned that fractures in the traditional transatlantic alliance will “leave us all weaker”, while suggesting that the UK and Italy can together “play an important role in bridge-building”. “We are all committed to the goal that we all want to achieve — which is a just and lasting peace in Ukraine,” Meloni told Starmer at the start of a bilateral meeting before the summit. “It is very very important that we avoid the risk that the west divides.”

The Kremlin will meanwhile likely bypass engaging these European leaders altogether, in preference of continuing to deal with Trump on the cause of achieving ceasefire in Ukraine. Russian leadership also understands that Europe will ultimately fall in line based on whatever Washington finally achieves on the peace negotiations front, as has been the historic pattern, and given the US shoulders the bulk of defense funds and hardware for NATO. The US has continued to pursue bilateral talks with Moscow, yet without European or Ukrainian representatives in the room.

Read more …

Note: all these guys have terrible polling numbers domestically. Scholz, Macron, Starmer, Trudeau, Zelensky. The only one who does not is Trump.

• UK, France, Ukraine Agree To Work On Cease-Fire Plan To Present To US (ZH)

[..] perhaps in response to the latest toothless European summit, which Poland’s PM summarized best as follows…
*TUSK REITERATES POLAND WON’T SEND ITS TROOPS TO UKRAINE
*TUSK: SECURITY GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE NOT DISCUSSED IN SUMMIT
… or in other words, once again nothing of significance was agreed upon, Donald Trump posted in his Truth Social account a quote from Gartner analyst Michael McCune, according to whom Zelensky now has “no choice but to back down and accept Trump’s terms” suggesting that Trump clearly is content with the outcome of the Friday debacle in the White House.

Earlier, from Jacob Burg of the Epoch Times:

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on March 2 that Europe must continue to provide funding for Ukraine to sustain its position during peace negotiations, while also committing to roughly $2 billion in export financing to supply Ukraine with 5,000 air defense missiles. Starmer hosted a security summit in London on Sunday with other European and world leaders as Britain, France, and Ukraine work on a cease-fire plan to present to the United States as an effort to end the Russia–Ukraine war. Starmer emphasized that despite the breakdown in talks at the White House on Feb. 28, the United States remains an important ally to Britain. “The U.S. has been a reliable ally to the U.K. for many, many decades and continues to be,” Starmer said. “There are no two countries as closely aligned as our two countries.” Starmer said he is working on a Ukraine peace plan intended to receive U.S. backing and warned that Europe must do the heavy work of defending itself.

Starmer’s March 2 summit of leaders stands in contrast to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s meeting in the White House on Feb. 28, during which U.S. President Donald Trump scolded him for not being ready for peace and not being grateful for America’s support in his nation’s defense against Russia’s three-year-long invasion. Starmer said he’s working on restoring discussions of peace and is using the breakdown on Feb. 28 as an opportunity to reengage with Trump, Zelenskyy, and French President Emmanuel Macron rather than “ramp up the rhetoric.” “We’ve now agreed that the United Kingdom, along with France and possibly one or two others, will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, and then we’ll discuss that plan with the United States,” Starmer told the BBC, adding that he and Macron have both spoken to Trump since the latter’s meeting with Zelenskyy.

At the Feb. 28 summit, European leaders will look toward shoring up the continents’ defenses in defending Ukraine, including discussions to create a European military force to send to the war-torn country to cap a cease-fire. Starmer suggested the military force would include a “coalition of the willing.” While he does not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin, Starmer said he trusts Trump. “Do I believe Donald Trump when he says he wants lasting peace? The answer to that is yes,” he said. Starmer added that “intense discussions” to obtain a security guarantee from the United States are one of the three components of lasting peace. “If there is to be a deal, if there is to be a stopping of the fighting, then that agreement has to be defended, because the worst of all outcomes is that there is a temporary pause, and then Putin comes again,” Starmer said. “That has happened in the past. I think it is a real risk, and that is why we must ensure that if there’s a deal, it is a lasting deal, not a temporary pause.”

The summit, which will be held at Lancaster House—a 200-year-old mansion near Buckingham Palace—will also include leaders from France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Canada, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, and Romania. Other attendees include the Turkish foreign minister, NATO secretary-general, and the presidents of the European Commission and European Council. Zelenskyy received support from European leaders after the contentious Feb. 28 meeting at the White House in which a rare earths deal was abandoned and Trump told Zelenskyy to come back when he was ready for peace. After the Ukrainian president arrived in Britain on March 1, Starmer embraced him. “As you heard from the cheers on the street outside, you have full backing across the United Kingdom,” Starmer said. “We stand with you, with Ukraine, for as long as it may take.”

Starmer also pledged to boost military spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027. Other European nations might follow suit. On Saturday, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said European countries must increase military spending to at least 3 percent of GDP as the continent faces a historic test in defending itself. “If we don’t increase our effort fast enough and let the aggressor dictate its conditions, we won’t end up well,” he said. In calling for unity among his European neighbors, Macron embraced more defense spending after saying it was legitimate for the United States to shift its military focus to China and Asia. “We should have woken up earlier,” Macron said. “I’ve been saying for years that we need a more sovereign, more united, more independent Europe.”

Read more …

“Zelensky needed to hear it directly from the funding mouth of the United States of America: We’re not going to give you money unless you’re here for peace..”

• We Won’t Give Kiev Money Until Zelensky Seeks Peace – Lutnick (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky was given a clear message during his meeting with US President Donald Trump on Friday, that further financial support hinges on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate peace, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said. His comments follow Zelensky’s heated confrontation with Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Zelensky visited the White House on Friday, intending to finalize a minerals agreement. However, the discussion deteriorated when he insisted that Trump back Kiev rather than act as a neutral mediator in talks with Moscow. In response, Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War III” and showing reluctance to pursue peace with Russia, portraying him as ungrateful despite the billions in US military assistance.

In a Sunday Fox News interview, Lutnick stressed that US president made clear he “just wants to make peace.” However, he said that Zelensky did not come for that, and made “ridiculous” requests to Trump and Vance. “Zelensky needed to hear it directly from the funding mouth of the United States of America: We’re not going to give you money unless you’re here for peace,” Lutnick stressed. He added that Trump had tried to reason with Zelensky, stressing that the Ukrainian leader can’t say “[Russian Presiden Vladimir] Putin’s a terrorist and then call the guy up and try to make peace with him.” During the Friday meeting, Zelensky insisted on US security guarantees while fighting is still ongoing with Moscow. Trump dismissed these requests as “ridiculous.” The confrontation ultimately led to Trump cutting the meeting short.

Not only did the visit conclude abruptly without signing the minerals agreement, but it also raised concerns about the future of US military assistance to Ukraine. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration is now reconsidering its financial and military commitments to Kiev. US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz also hinted at a possible shift in Washington’s stance, suggesting that Zelensky may need to step aside if he refuses to pursue a diplomatic solution. Speaking to CNN, Waltz stated, “it’s unclear whether President Zelensky, particularly after what we saw on Friday, is ready to transition Ukraine to an end to this war and negotiate a compromise.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that while Washington seeks peace for Ukraine, some European allies seem to prefer prolonging the conflict to further weaken Russia. As of January 2025, the US had provided $65.9 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since February 2022.

Read more …

“Waltz compared Zelensky to an “ex-girlfriend that wants to argue everything that you said nine years ago, rather than moving the relationship forward.”

• US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz Suggests Zelensky May Need To Go (RT)

Washington is unsure whether Vladimir Zelensky is the right man to lead Ukraine at this juncture, the US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has told CNN. The official argued that Friday’s tumultuous spat between the Ukrainian leader, President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance indicated that Zelensky may not be ready to talk peace. When asked by Dana Bash on Sunday to share his view of Zelensky, Waltz said that “it’s unclear whether President Zelensky, particularly after what we saw on Friday, is ready to transition Ukraine to an end to this war, and to negotiate and have to compromise.” He noted that it is President Trump’s conviction that both Kiev and Moscow would have to make concessions in order to stop the bloodshed. According to the national security advisor, during the US president’s meeting with Zelensky on Friday, “it did not appear to us that [he] was ready to go to peace.”

When pressed by a CNN presenter as to whether the White House wanted Zelensky to step down, Waltz clarified that “we need a leader that can deal with us, eventually deal with the Russians, and end this war.” The official added that “if it becomes apparent that President Zelensky’s either personal motivations or political motivations are divergent from ending the fighting in his country, then I think we have a real issue on our hands.” In an interview with Breitbart Radio on Saturday, Waltz compared Zelensky to an “ex-girlfriend that wants to argue everything that you said nine years ago, rather than moving the relationship forward.” Speaking with ABC news on Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he had not “had any contact with [Zelesnky] since Friday.” The diplomat stressed that the Trump administration’s goal is to bring Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table, with the US head of state being the “only person on Earth who has any chance whatsoever” of accomplishing this.

“Don’t do anything to disrupt that, and that’s what Zelensky did unfortunately – he found every opportunity to try to Ukraine-splain on every issue,” Rubio stated, recounting Friday’s shouting match at the White House. Commenting on Zelensky’s demeanor at the White House on Friday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News later that day that his altercation with Trump and Vance represented a “missed opportunity.” Addressing the Ukrainian people, the lawmaker added, “I don’t know if Zelensky can ever get you to where you want to go with the United States. Either he dramatically changes or you need to get somebody new.” The senator, who hailed Zelensky as the “ally I’ve been hoping for all my life” during the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, wrote in a post on X on Saturday that the Ukrainian leader’s “behavior was beyond unacceptable and [his] lectures are wearing thin.” Graham also lauded President Trump for standing up to him in defense of American interests.

Read more …

“Wilson’s goal, of course, was “global governance” under the League of Nations, a goal that the U.S. Senate, mercifully, denied him..”

• Trump, Vance, and the New New World Order (Soukup)

This past week, the venerable Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for The Financial Times, used his column to declare the Trump administration and, by extension, the United States “the enemy of the West.” “Today,” Wolf wrote, “autocracies [are] increasingly confident,” and “the United States is moving to their side.” According to the subhead on the column, “Washington has decided to abandon…its postwar role in the world.” Meanwhile, Wolf cites the (in his estimation) august Franklin Roosevelt, as he complains that the United States “has decided instead to become just another great power, indifferent to anything but its short-term interests.” The ironies here—as well as the historical ignorance—abound.

To start, one would imagine that Wolf, an educated man with two degrees from Oxford, might know that it was his countryman (and two-time Prime Minister), Henry John Temple (i.e. Lord Palmerston), who declared in a speech in the House of Commons that “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Wolf might also be expected to know that this statement was repeated—more famously and more pithily—by Henry Kissinger, perhaps the quintessential American diplomat in the supposedly vaunted postwar order. Kissinger, like Palmerston and Trump (apparently) understood that a nation that pursues anything other than its interests is foolish, faithless, and, in time, doomed.

What bothers Wolf, it would seem, is that American interests are diverging from British and continental European interests. That is unfortunate, but it is also more than likely the case that this divergence is the result of Britain and Europe’s abandonment of the principles, values, and ambitions the allies once shared, rather than the other way around. For example, Wolf criticizes the speech given by J.D. Vance in which the vice president defended the traditional American dedication to free speech and attacked the British and European rejection of that principle. Yet again, Wolf might be expected to know that the American preoccupation with this and all other negative rights is something the nation’s Founders inherited from their British forefathers. If the two nations now differ on the importance of this fundamental right, then that’s hardly Vance’s, Trump’s, or any other American’s fault.

More ironies are found in Wolf’s praise of the now-dying postwar order and his citation of FDR as the architect of that order. While Wolf is correct that Roosevelt was one of two Americans most responsible for the creation of the postwar order, he is wrong in believing that the order was virtuous by design and that it played out precisely as Roosevelt intended. Indeed, he couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.

Almost from the moment the United States entered World War II, Roosevelt was planning how best to achieve the goal he inherited from his former boss and Progressive predecessor, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s goal, of course, was “global governance” under the League of Nations, a goal that the U.S. Senate, mercifully, denied him. Regrettably, Roosevelt shared Wilson’s dream. The political scientist and historian of the Cold War, Amos Perlmutter, wrote that Roosevelt’s “vision for a postwar world was neo-Wilsonian, totally at odds with reality. He would help create a new international order, presided over in an equal partnership by the two emerging superpowers, the United States and the USSR, and buttressed by the newly created world organization, the United Nations.” Like Wilson, Roosevelt sought to fix the world by bringing the whole of it under the control of a handful of its most benevolent and brilliant men—himself included, naturally.

The catch, of course, was that in order to believe that he could effectuate his plan for the postwar global order, Roosevelt also had to believe that it would be received positively by the man who turned out to be the most proficient mass murderer in the war, Josef Stalin. Remarkably, Roosevelt did, in fact, believe just that. He repeatedly told his staff and others that he was convinced that the man he affectionately called “Uncle Joe” would eagerly welcome his friendship and American entreaties to share governance of the world jointly. They would, he believed, be the closest of allies and the best of friends. In 1943, before ever even meeting Stalin, FDR told his first ambassador to the USSR, William Bullit, that “I have just a hunch that Stalin doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world democracy and peace.”

Read more …

First, set the DOGE guys on them?!

• Musk Backs US Withdrawal From UN and NATO (RT)

Billionaire Elon Musk has publicly endorsed the idea of the US withdrawing from both the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Responding to a social media post advocating such a move on Sunday, Musk, who leads the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), commented, “I agree.”US President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers have vowed to reconsider Washington’s participation in the UN, as well as in the US-led military bloc. In February, Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act, proposing a complete US withdrawal from the UN. Lee criticized the UN as a “platform for tyrants” that attacks America and its allies, arguing that despite significant funding, the organization has failed to prevent wars, genocides, human rights violations, and pandemics.

Echoing Lee’s sentiments, Musk wrote on X that “America provides way too much funding to the UN and associated entities.” During his 2016 campaign, Trump described the UN as weak and incompetent, stating it was “not a friend of democracy… freedom… the United States.” Last month, the Trump administration opposed a UN General Assembly resolution demanding Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine. Musk, now a key advisor to Trump, has taken the lead in looking for ways to cut costs and reduce the federal workforce. In February, DOGE released its first savings report, claiming an estimated $55 billion in savings through cost-cutting measures.That same month, Elise Stefanik, Trump’s nominee for US Ambassador to the UN, advocated the global adoption of Musk’s DOGE initiative.

She criticized the UN’s financial practices and called for a “Global DOGE” effort to reform international governance. Stefanik also pledged to push for defunding and dismantling UN-affiliated organizations accused of corruption and antisemitism. Musk has also voiced skepticism about NATO. In February, he labeled the alliance “anachronistic” and called for a full review, questioning its relevance in the post-Cold War era. He also questioned the rationale behind American taxpayers covering a significant portion of Europe’s defense costs, highlighting that the US pays for approximately 67% of NATO’s military expenses, despite spending only 3.5% of its GDP on defense. His position aligns with Trump, who has frequently criticized NATO, urging members to increase defense expenditure and threatening to withdraw, arguing the US bears an unfair financial burden for European security.

Read more …

“The western split over Ukraine is a profound event in history. Some will say it was the moment the US “abandoned their allies” and let Russia win. Those with sense will say that this was the moment the US stopped contributing to the problem..”

• Without The US There Is No NATO And No Ukraine (ZH)

Well before the fireworks at the White House between the Trump team and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky European governments were increasingly discussing the possibility of an “EU army” and a NATO without US involvement. UK officials along with those in Germany and France have been playing with the notion of boots on the ground in Ukraine, an action which would no doubt precipitate WWIII with Russia. Political leaders and media proponents have been flooding social media to show support for Zelensky as the new savior of the EU and many have suggested that Europe can easily fill the void that the US leaves behind. This is dangerous delusion. For example, the US represents around 70% of the entire annual combined defense spending of NATO countries. No other nation comes close.

In 2023-2024, this expenditure amounted to over $860 billion. The closest NATO member in terms of budget for the alliance is Germany with $68 billion. NATO funding is included in America’s total defense spending package. According to RAND Corporation’s Defense Spending Index, the US carries 47% of the burden share, vastly outweighing any other NATO member. While NATO’s official budget is $3.5 billion, this does not represent the burden share if NATO goes to war. Members with the largest armies and spending the most on defense will be expected to expend the most resources in a conflict. The media consistently misrepresents the NATO spending imbalance by comparing NATO fees as a percentage of GDP. This is nonsense. The sheer amount of defense spending is what matters, not the ratio to GDP. When examined in true terms there is no argument to be made – The US is essentially the military cash cow for the entire western world. Without the US there is no NATO.

When it comes to Ukraine the waters are more muddy but the conclusions are the same; the US is expected to bear the brunt of the burden. US aid to Ukraine so far ranges from $120 billion to $180 billion depending on the source. Zelensky claims that $100 billion of this money “never reached Ukraine”. There is no verification of this either way. For now let’s assume Zelensky is misinformed. A graph of total expenditures between the US and other western nations shows the EU with a large amount of aid, but take a closer look at military commitments and it’s clear that the EU has spent a minimal amount on Ukraine’s actual defense. The US is the primary provider of weapons, ordnance and other equipment used to actually fight the war. Without the US, Ukraine’s defenses will suffer an expedited collapse.

To be clear, Ukraine is not entitled to US tax dollars or US military aid. Europe insists that the war must continue even without US help, but their ability to fund and fight the war is limited. They would trigger WWIII in the process, and they would lose. The belief that more money or more armaments will prevent a Ukraine loss or land concessions to Russia is irrational. Ukraine’s biggest problem is manpower, not money, and no amount of money is going to triple Ukrainian forces on the eastern front. A peace deal should have been negotiated a long time ago. For now it appears that the European elites are frantically trying to rally public support around extending the conflict and forming a centralized EU military. This will take them years and it will never come close to the same funding levels that the US provided. Not to mention, younger native born Europeans have no interest in joining to fight. The western split over Ukraine is a profound event in history. Some will say it was the moment the US “abandoned their allies” and let Russia win. Those with sense will say that this was the moment the US stopped contributing to the problem and offered a solution while Europe foolishly refused to listen.

Read more …

Too late.

• NATO Chief Urges Zelensky To Make Peace With Trump (RT)

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has called on Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to mend ties with US President Donald Trump following a heated exchange at the White House. The meeting between Trump and Zelensky on Friday, which Rutte described as “unfortunate” in an interview with the BBC on Saturday, was originally set up to finalize a minerals agreement. It escalated into a tense exchange. The Ukrainian leader maintained that Washington should increase its support for Kiev rather than position itself as a neutral mediator with Moscow. Trump criticized Zelensky for what he perceived as a lack of gratitude for American assistance and an unwillingness to make concessions to resolve the conflict with Russia. The confrontation led to the day’s events being cut short, with the US president reportedly dismissing his guest from the White House.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the encounter as a “fiasco,” with Trump telling Zelensky to return when he was “ready to pursue peace.” “I said: I think you have to find a way, dear Vladimir, to restore your relationship with Donald Trump and the American administration. That is important going forward,” Rutte said, referring to a call he had with Zelensky on Friday. He reminded Zelensky of the support provided by the Trump administration, particularly the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons in 2019, which were crucial in Ukraine’s defense when the conflict escalated in 2022. Without the Javelins, “Ukraine would have been nowhere,” Rutte stated. The NATO chief emphasized the importance of acknowledging the assistance from the US, which remains Kiev’s biggest donor. The US has provided $65.9 billion in military aid since 2022, according to a US Department of State posting on January 20, 2025.

“We really have to give Trump credit for what he did then, what America did since then and also what America is still doing,” Rutte said. The heated Trump-Zelensky exchange has drawn diverse international reactions. European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, reaffirmed their support for Ukraine. Conversely, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban endorsed Trump’s stance, praising his peace efforts. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the meeting a “complete political and diplomatic failure” by the Ukrainian side.

Read more …

New Oscars category? “..Jolie had received $20 million for her trip to Lviv in April 2022, and that Penn, Stiller and Bloom were written checks of $5 million, $4 million and $8 million, respectively, by USAID.”

• Hollywood Celebrities Were Paid Millions To Back Ukraine – Orban (RT)

The Hollywood celebrities who visited Ukraine to ‘support’ the country during its ongoing conflict with Russia didn’t do it out of sympathy, but because they were paid millions, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. Stars’ trips to Kiev were paid for with money from USAID, Washington’s primary mechanism for funding political projects abroad, Orban said in an interview with Hungarian broadcaster TV2 on Saturday. “People were given money for their opinions. I am talking about big celebrities and movie stars. They were given money to go to Ukraine, so they did not do it from the heart or out of sympathy for the Ukrainians – which could have actually been the case – but because they were given money,” he said. The payments received by the stars amounted to “millions of euros or dollars,” the prime minister claimed, without providing any names.

Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Orlando Bloom were among the most prominent Western celebrities to have visited Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev three years ago. In early February, reports emerged on social media claiming that Jolie had received $20 million for her trip to Lviv in April 2022, and that Penn, Stiller and Bloom were written checks of $5 million, $4 million and $8 million, respectively, by USAID. Back then, Stiller rejected the accusations, calling them “lies coming from Russian media.” The actor insisted in a post on X that his visit to Kiev was “self-funded.” Penn’s lawyer also said that reports of his client being paid by USAID to meet with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky were “completely false, misleading and reckless.”

Several Western media outlets, including AFP and Reuters, said that their fact checking teams had found that the claims of stars getting USAID money originated from a fabricated video and that there were no available records of the agency paying the celebrities. Shortly after taking office, US President Donald Trump launched a clampdown on USAID, accusing it of widespread corruption and inefficiency. He imposed a 90-day funding freeze on the agency and transferred oversight of its programs to the direct control of the US State Department.

Orban said in his interview that the activities of USAID in recent decades could be “the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the Western world.” “I have never seen anything like this before – when billions of dollars are being transferred from the US budget to foundations and various forms of support, and then they are being distributed around the globe and given to those who represent the ideals, spirituality, programs and specific interests demanded by the Americans, and they receive money for that,” he stressed.

Read more …

“Ukraine needs a new cookie monster.”

• Ukraine’s Future Now Rests With A New President, After White House Fiasco (Jay)

Rarely do we see such a showdown in the White House between a leader of an allied country and the president of the U.S. For many, it was surreal to the point where they questioned its authenticity. But if we were ever looking for a crystalized example of what is wrong with Ukraine and how the West got into this quagmire, it was all there in a tense, live exchange where Trump and JD Vance wanted to essentially use the moment to put Zelensky in his place. But he resisted. He believed he was a player and had many moves ahead of him. “You don’t have enough cards,” Trump exploded. Zelensky responded by “this is not a game.” And yet it is a game and Zelensky just proved himself to be the main, if only obstacle to peace in the country. The arrogance and delusion was stunning but understandable given that a number of western leaders have been rallying even more support for him.

Does Zelensky and his support base actually believe they can just ignore Trump and Putin and continue with their game? When watching the sensational crossfire, all becomes clear. The dictator is pumped up on something which carries him and leads him to believe that he is there to negotiate when in reality he is just there to be Trump’s bitch and sign whatever is given to him. The delusion was amazing. And like so many dictators, you can see the lack of preparation; where are the advisors and media experts to prepare him? Doesn’t need ‘em. The result, which could have worked out for him if he was smarter, was a bloodbath, a slaughter which in many ways made everything now clearer and simpler for Trump. He can’t work with Zelensky and so therefore, he will have to go as he is really the obstacle to anything being achieved in Ukraine. Perhaps the Russians already knew this and were just biding their time for the Trump camp to work it out.

Of course, the resentment was so thick you could cut it with a knife. The way JD Vance spoke to him was like you talk to your 12-year old boy who has been expelled from school. Trump and JD saw Zelensky as a creation of Biden and Obama of course and gave him one last chance to cross a divide and say ‘no, actually I’m with you guys’. But he couldn’t. Europe is of course to blame for making him feel so unique and irreplaceable and no doubt this will just make Trump more determined than ever that a quick fix to Ukraine will simply come in pushing for early presidential elections. Critical now will be how Zelensky’s cabal will stay with him or be peeled off one by one by a sweeter deal offered by Trump. Most likely, Trump and JD are already looking for their own replacement although it may well be that no interfering will be necessary as many Ukrainians will be disappointed with Zelensky’s performance.

Politically within Ukraine, the White House stunt will cost him a lot which he might not understand fully if his European support base is telling him not to worry. We’ve got your back. What Zelensky did in 2022 with Boris Johnson – to reject a very favourable peace deal – was foolish and will go down in history as a mistake which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who were fed into the meat grinder and sent to the front lines. But what he then did in the White House with Trump and JD was stupid beyond belief as not only did it enrage Trump – to the point where he actually asked Zelensky to leave the Oval Office – but it amalgamated support for him from EU leaders even more – the very gesture which will push Trump into an even more belligerent position.

sHe will put Zelensky and the EU in its place and now show the whole world how ineffective Europe is when it wants to play at being a superpower but doesn’t want to pick up the tab. Can Europe go it alone in Ukraine is not the question. The question is whether Trump will let it. This might have been one scenario which could have been bandied about and might have been given some oxygen, but now the EU position has to be tackled head on. Trump will be thinking ‘I have to teach the EU a lesson.’ ‘America is running the show and I call the shots,’ will be Trump’s thinking now. It is hardly a great act of prescience now to predict that Zelensky will now have, at the very least, lost all the U.S. support he had before; and at the very best a new political dynamic which will emerge in the coming weeks which will have a support infrastructure probably more than the puny 5 billion dollars that Victoria Nuland blew on the 2014 elections which installed Poroshenko. Ukraine needs a new cookie monster.

Read more …

I think the restoration of direct commercial flights will be a BIG step.

• US Approves New Russian Ambassador As Part of Major Reset Underway (ZH)

The two rounds of high level US-Russia talks in Riyadh and Istanbul in the last two weeks appear to already be bearing fruit, as Russia’s Foreign Ministry has announced it’s received approval from Washington to send Aleksandr Darchiev as Moscow’s new ambassador to the United States. Current bilateral US-Russia dialogue has been focused on fully restoring relations and putting back in place all embassy staff in Washington and Moscow, respectively. There had been several rounds of hostile mutual booting of diplomats as relations deteriorated under Biden. According to Russian media, “Darchiev, a senior diplomat with more than 30 years of experience, currently heads the Foreign Ministry’s North Atlantic Department. He previously served as Russia’s ambassador to Canada from 2014 to 2021 and has held several high-ranking positions within the ministry, including deputy director of the North America Department and counselor at the Russian embassy in Washington.”

This is no doubt part of the “concrete initial steps” being taken by both sides toward resuming regular contacts and diplomatic engagement, with a higher aim of finding a permanent peace solution to the Ukraine war. Darchiev’s predecessor, Anatoly Antonov, served as Russia’s ambassador to the US throughout much of the Ukraine crisis and the entirety of the war until now. He ran the Russian embassy in D.C. for seven years, and just recently returned to Moscow. Just as Moscow is poised for a reset with the US under the new Trump administration, Washington relations with Ukraine are at a low point after Friday’s Zelensky fireworks in the Oval Office. Russian media has been busy hailing and welcoming these developments, which may soon result in the following:

US President Donald Trump’s administration is considering ending all ongoing shipments of military aid to Ukraine, The Washington Post wrote citing sources. Military supplies could be halted “in response to remarks” by Vladimir Zelensky at a meeting with Trump in the White House and “his perceived intransigence in the peace process,” according to the publication. The decision, if made, would apply “to billions of dollars of radars, vehicles, ammunition and missiles awaiting shipment to Ukraine through the presidential drawdown authority,” an official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic, was quoted as saying. Ukraine frontlines have already been steadily collapsing, so without a future flow of American heavy weapons, this collapse will only accelerate, and the war would likely reach finality within a few months or less.

President Putin has meanwhile been touting the chance for “major” cooperative economic and diplomatic initiatives with the US under Trump, and as bilateral talks progress. Russia has even offered its own minerals access deal as a possibility of closer cooperation, and as Trump floats potentially dropping sanctions in the future. The next step may be the restoration of direct commercial flights between the two countries.

Read more …

JD got himself some new fans, not just Trump.

• Trump Impressed By Vance’s Handling Of Zelensky – WSJ (RT)

US President Donald Trump was impressed with how Vice President J.D. Vance handled himself during a tense Oval Office exchange with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, unnamed administration officials told the Wall Street Journal. The politicians met on Friday in the White House Oval Office ahead of what was expected to be a celebratory signing of a minerals deal between Washington and Kiev. The WSJ dubbed Vance a “MAGA champion” after the confrontation in a piece published on Saturday. Vance sat mostly silent as Trump and Zelensky answered questions. But then a reporter asked the US president if he aligned with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Vance, a critic of US aid to Ukraine, interjected to praise Trump’s diplomatic efforts and criticize past policy under President Joe Biden.

The conversation escalated when Zelensky pushed back. During the intense discussion, Vance highlighted Ukraine’s challenges in conscripting additional troops and said that Zelensky should be “thanking” Trump for efforts to resolve the conflict. Vance criticized his recent public appearances highlighting war devastation, accusing him of hosting “propaganda tours,” and labeled the Ukrainian leader “disrespectful.” The confrontation led to the day’s events being cut short.Trump has reportedly told White House staff that his former vice president “would have never done that.” Former Indiana Governor Mike Pence was vice president during Trump’s first term. Their political alliance ended acrimoniously over the January 2021 riots at the US Capitol, after Pence refused to comply with Trump’s demands to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 US presidential election.

The White House later circulated statements of support from Republican lawmakers and administration officials. “I was very proud of J.D. Vance, standing up for our country,” US Senator Lindsey Graham said. While Senator Mike Lee called Vance the “GOAT,” an acronym for “greatest of all time.”The 40-year-old Vance is the third-youngest vice president in US history. His relationship with Trump has evolved significantly since the president’s first term. Once a vocal critic of Trump, Vance opposed his candidacy in 2016, calling him “cultural heroin” for conservatives and questioning his character. However, he later shifted his stance, securing Trump’s endorsement in his successful 2022 Senate bid, a move that cemented his place within Trump’s inner circle.

Last month, during his first foreign trip as vice president, Vance sent shockwaves with a speech criticizing European leaders at the Munich Security Conference, accusing them of censoring free speech and neglecting public concerns over migration.Vance’s relationship with Trump remains strong, though the president has so far demurred on naming him his successor. Trump told Fox News in February that he considers Vance “very capable” but noted that “there are a lot of very capable people.” However, tech billionaire and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk referred to Vance as “our future President” on Saturday.

Read more …

It’s easy to get confused, but “restart” is not the correct term here. Nord Stream 2 was never activated. Neither of its 2 arms.

• Putin Ally In Secret Talks With Trump Admin To Restart Nord Stream 2 (ZH)

A close friend of Vladimir Putin – and like the Russian president, also a spy – has been engineering a restart of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Europe with the backing of US investors, a once unthinkable move which according to the FT, shows the breadth of Donald Trump’s rapprochement with Moscow. According to the Nikkei-owned publication, the efforts on a deal were the brainchild of Matthias Warnig, an ex-Stasi officer in East Germany who until 2023 ran Nord Stream 2’s parent company for the Kremlin-controlled gas giant Gazprom. Warnig’s plan involved outreach to the Trump team through US businessmenas part of back-channel efforts to broker an end to the war in Ukraine while deepening economic ties between the US and Russia. If this was just some unilateral attempt to get the pipeline that was bombed by Western intelligence agents and assorited Ukrainian hangers-on back online, it would hardly be a surprise.

However, according to the report it appears that at least several “prominent” Trump administration figures are aware of the initiative to bring in US investors, and they see it as part of the push to rebuild relations with Moscow. While there have been several expressions of interest, one US-led consortium of investors has drawn up the outlines of a post-sanctions deal with Gazprom. Meanwhile, senior EU officials have become aware of the Nord Stream 2 discussion only in recent weeks, and leaders of several European countries are concerned and have discussed the matter, although it is unclear what the prevailing sense on the ground within the corridors of Brussels. It is far easier, for example, to guess what Germany thinks about a return of much cheaper and far more abundant Russian energy if virtue signaling and politics were not an issue.

One of Nord Stream 2’s two pipelines was blown up in what now appears to have been a US attack in September 2022 that destroyed both pipelines of its older sister project Nord Stream 1. The other Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has an annual capacity of 27.5bn cubic metres of natural gas, is undamaged but has never been used. The latest plan would in theory give the US unparalleled sway over energy supplies to Europe, after EU countries moved to end their dependence on Russian gas in the aftermath of the invasion. That said, the obstacles are considerable: a deal would require the US to lift sanctions against Russia, Russia to agree to resume sales it cut off during the war, and Germany to allow the gas to flow to any potential buyers in Europe.

“The US would say, ‘Well, now Russia will be dependable because trustworthy Americans are in the middle of it’,’” said a former senior US official, who was aware of some of the dealmaking efforts. The US investors would collect “money for nothing”, he added. The talks come as the Trump administration races to seal a peace deal through bilateral discussions with Russia that have excluded Europe and Ukraine, spooking deep-state apparatchiks in European capitals who fear a US détente with Moscow could threaten the continent. Trump has promised deeper economic co-operation with Russia if a peace agreement can be reached. Putin has talked up the economic benefits he says the US could reap with the Kremlin in the event of a settlement in Ukraine, claiming that “several companies” were already in touch over potential deals.

Nord Stream 2 AG, the pipeline’s Swiss-based parent company, received an exceptional stay on bankruptcy proceedings in January by at least four months. According to a redacted court document, Nord Stream 2’s shareholder — Gazprom — argued that the new Trump administration, as well as the German election in February 2025, “presumably can have significant consequences on the circumstances of Nord Stream 2” to warrant a delay. The submission pointed to “complex geopolitical affairs” and the sanctions regime.

Read more …

“Martin, a Trump ally, previously worked to help Jan. 6 defendants and [DOGE] in their respective legal fights..”

• Top DOJ Attorneys Involved In Biden-Era Prosecutions Demoted (JTN)

Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney in charge of the Justice Department’s Washington office, reportedly reassigned several senior leaders to entry-level positions. Among those demoted were Kathryn Rakoczy, Reuters reported, who secured convictions of several members of the Oath Keepers for their roles in the Jan. 6 riots on Capital Hill. Among those convicted was the founder of the group, Stewart Rhodes, who Trump pardoned along with 13 others previously convicted in the riot.

Elizabeth Aloi, who prosecuted former Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro for defying a congressional subpoena, was another prosecutor demoted in the Justice Department shakeup. Martin told Reuters that he needed to assign attorneys where he believed they could best contribute. The reassignments to misdemeanors, he noted, are not temporary. Martin, a Trump ally, previously worked to help Jan. 6 defendants and the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in their respective legal fights, including by helping to orchestrate the pardons of hundreds of people convicted for their actions on January 6.

Read more …

“Mr. and Mr.” I’ve been following Candace’s latest on X a bit, and it seems she may now be ready for prime time. But who will stand up against Macron/Rothschild with her?

• Exposing Elite Degeneracy – Mr. and Mr. Macron (Karganovic)

It goes almost without saying that the “elite” referenced here is located in the collective West. It would be exceedingly difficult to associate the leading segment of any other society or civilisation, as a class, with degeneracy. Our archetypal case study are the Macrons, the French power couple situated at the apex of their country’s political pyramid. Our French sources assure us that in France anomalies concerning the birth gender of the allegedly female member of that pair have been suspected for a long time. Those suspicions, however, have had to be voiced sub rosa, because of the establishment’s extreme hostility to any speculations on that subject. The few investigative journalists and investigators who had ventured to question those anomalies, many of which are obvious even to the naked eye, have been hounded by the media and persecuted by the French judicial system in a variety of vicious ways.

That plainly gives the lie to what remains of France’s historical reputation of being a haven of enlightened tolerance for diverse views. American journalist Candace Owens has assembled evidence that compellingly (and almost conclusively) demonstrates that the individual passed off to the public under the identity of Brigitte Macron, the official wife of the French President, is neither Brigitte nor a biological woman. Candace Owens’ professional trajectory parallels in many ways that of her colleague Tucker Carlson. Like Tucker, Candace laboured for many years in the ranks of establishment media until her conscience became so conflicted by the constraints on truthful reporting and honest commentary that for her remaining within the system was no longer an option. Like Tucker, Candace was able to parlay the respect and trust that she had built up over the years into an independent investigative journalism platform.

There, without censorship, she can discuss topics and articulate opinions that are off limits in the discourse of the pseudo liberal democratic world of mainline journalism that had expelled her, as it did Tucker, from the ranks of its licenced professionals. Intrigued by the rumours swirling around France’s “first lady,” Candace Owens made the bold decision to dig into the story and share the findings with her audience, which by now numbers in the millions. The result was Becoming Brigitte: Gaslighting the public, a series of investigative reports that for the first time brought to the attention of the Anglophone world the tangled web of lies and misrepresentations surrounding not just the true identity of Emmanuel Macron’s putative spouse, but also his own vertiginous (and it appears unmerited) rise to prominence and ultimately the Presidency of a major European country.

In essence, Candace’s disclosures are that “Mme. Macron” has been, so to speak, misgendered, but by deliberate design, having been born a male and subsequently undergoing surgical procedures to alter her sex. But by degraded contemporary criteria that revelation is standard fare compared to the really sleazy part of the story. It turns out that most of what we have been told about the inception of their relationship is provably false. Even the assertion in the official account that at seventeen Emmanuel was almost of legal age when he and his teacher, the allegedly thirty-six year-old Brigitte, “fell in love” is as false as “Mrs.” Macron’s official gender identity. Meticulous research has revealed that at the critical stage when he succumbed to the charms of his middle school literature teacher, Emmanuel was in fact a child of fourteen, whilst his seductress (or perhaps more precisely, seducer) was thirty-nine.

Not only does that significantly increase the age difference between the lovers, but more importantly it places the affair within the legal ambit of statutory rape, even by the notoriously permissive French standards. That, of course, is just the bare bones of the polemical contentions that Candace Owens corroborates with ample proof, leaving little room for reasonable doubt. No summary of the details can do justice to what Candace calls “a look back at the murky, hidden background of Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron,” so viewing the entire series of six episodes, culminating with the just posted incisive recapitulation, Epilogue, is highly recommended to all wishing to savour the particulars of this sordid tale of debauchery, deceit, paedophilia, and betrayal of the public trust.

Read more …

“Objectivity has got to go.”

• The Press Falls to Another Record Low in Public Trust (Turley)

We have previously discussed polling showing the media at record lows in public trust. Well, the latest survey from Gallup shows that the media hit another all-time low. What is most impressive is that plummeting readers, revenues, and layoffs have done little to convince the mainstream media that the problem is not the public but themselves. The only institution with a lower level of public trust is Congress, and that says a lot. It is like beating Ebola as the preferred communicable disease.Some 69 percent of Americans now say that they have no or little trust in the media. Only 31 percent say that they have a great deal or fair amount of trust. The trending line looks like the sales of buggy whips after the introduction of the Model T Ford. Gallop put it into sharp terms:

“About two-thirds of Americans in the 1970s trusted the “mass media — such as newspapers, TV and radio” either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to “[report] the news fully, accurately and fairly.” By the next measurement in 1997, confidence had fallen to 53%, and it has gradually trended downward since 2003. Americans are now divided into rough thirds, with 31% trusting the media a great deal or a fair amount, 33% saying they do “not [trust it] very much,” and 36%, up from 6% in 1972, saying they have no trust at all in it.” In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how journalists and journalism schools have destroyed their own profession by rejecting objectivity and engaging in open advocacy journalism. The mainstream media has long echoed the talking points of the left and the Democratic Party, particularly in its one-sided coverage of the last three elections.

While Bob Woodward and others have finally admitted that the Russian collusion coverage lacked objectivity and resulted in false reporting, media figures are pushing even harder against objectivity as a core value in journalism. We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. Writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. This movement includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll decried how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation.

In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Stanford journalism professor Ted Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” The Washington Post’s former executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward released the results of their interviews with over 75 media leaders and concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”

Lauren Wolfe, the fired freelance editor for the New York Times, has not only gone public to defend her pro-Biden tweet but published a piece titled “I’m a Biased Journalist and I’m Okay With That.” Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism. Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.” This is why the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant was as much a criticism of the media as President Biden. There is clearly an effort by owners like Jeff Bezos to change this culture rather than bankroll newspapers like the Washington Post vanity projects for the left.

Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake: “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.” The response from staffers was to call for the new editors to be fired. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Malhotra

 

 

Rogan Bill Murray

 

 

Grizzly

 

 

Horsenado

 

 

First steps

 

 

Retriever

 

 

Gong

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.