The notice about the project appeared on the official U.S. government website for contract opportunities, SAM.gov. Its description states: “The minimum needs of this contract are that the contractor provide all personnel, equipment, facilities, supervision, and other items necessary to conduct studies that demonstrate modeling of nuclear warfare on a global scale that would lead to destruction of the agriculture systems such as farms.”
The project will fall under the umbrella of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center, who are looking to model how food production systems could be affected by a nuclear disaster. Although it could yield potentially valuable information, one has to wonder why they suddenly feel the need to carry out such a project.
The prolonged military conflict between Ukraine and Russia is almost certainly behind this concern, and it’s worth noting that Secretary of State Antony Blinken has insinuated that the White House may be poised to lift restrictions on Ukraine using the long-range weapons it has received from Western nations inside of Russia.
In other words, it seems likely that the DoD is preparing for the potential fallout of what could be a dramatic change to the way the conflict is currently playing out there. There are also concerns that the pursuit of these types of projects could indicate changing military priorities are on the horizon.
The Colorado data modeling firm Terra Analytics has been awarded the contract, which will also entail optimizing a software suite simulating the fallout of nuclear warfare on infrastructure related to agriculture. Aerial mapping and other approaches will be used to explore how food supplies and farms in former Eastern bloc countries could be affected.
Another component of this study is the development of a better model simulating the effect that radioactive materials would have on agriculture in an unspecified “non-destructive nuclear event.”
The fact that the contractor working on the project must be able to adapt the software to meet the specifications of classified Department of Defense computing systems would appear to indicate that the project may be linked to national security concerns.
Putin has hinted at a nuclear response if West allows Ukraine to use long-range weapons inside Russia
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if the West does change its stance to allow Ukraine to use weapons it has supplied them inside of Russia, it will be directly fighting Russia and the nature of the conflict would change considerably. He promised to launch an “appropriate” response but did not provide details. However, he said earlier this summer that one option was arming enemies of the West with Russian weapons so they could strike Western targets abroad.
Some analysts, like University of Innsbruck security specialist Gerhard Mangott, believe that Russia might send a nuclear signal.
“The Russians could conduct a nuclear test. They have made all the preparations needed. They could explode a tactical nuclear weapon somewhere in the east of the country just to demonstrate that (they) mean it when they say we will eventually resort to nuclear weapons,” he stated.
Meanwhile, Russian’s ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia warned that NATO will “be a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power” should it permit Ukraine to use its long-range weapons against Russia.
He cautioned: “You shouldn’t forget about this and think about the consequences.”
Sources for this article include:
]]>Moscow considers any expansion of NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangement as “deeply destabilizing” in nature, “and in fact threatening” Russia, Ryabkov was quoted as saying by TASS on Thursday. This applies to joint missions, where non-nuclear members of the US-led bloc are trained to use American hardware, and even more so to the permanent stationing of such weapons “which hotheads in Warsaw are talking about,” he said.
In follow-up, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stipulated that “any nuclear weapons deployed to Poland would be legitimate targets in the event of war with the alliance.” Russian media translations said Moscow would see this as a “priority target”.
All of this was in response to words issued by Polish President Andrzej Duda in a Monday interview. He said his country is “ready” to host nuclear weapons should NATO decide to do so as reinforcement of its eastern flank. It remains that the United States chiefly supplies and oversees NATO’s nuclear-sharing program, thus any possible future nukes in Poland would be supplied by Washington.
“Russia is increasingly militarizing the Königsberg oblast (Kaliningrad). Recently, it has been relocating its nuclear weapons to Belarus,” Duda continued, apparently wanting to match and mirror Russian moves. Indeed Belarus is now believed to host possibly dozens of Russian tactical nukes.
“If our allies decide to deploy nuclear weapons as part of nuclear sharing on our territory as well, in order to strengthen the security of NATO’s eastern flank, we are ready for it,” the Polish president had added.
Duda additionally said while discussing the topic of NATO’s nuclear sharing program in the interview that Warsaw and Washington have been in talks “for some time.” He emphasized: “I’ve already talked about it several times. I must admit that when asked about it, I declared our readiness.”
But the reality is Brussels and Washington are likely to be deeply hesitant based on the nuclear threats emanating from Moscow of late. Moving NATO warheads to Polish soil would most certainly greatly intensify the already somewhat high nuclear tensions, and at a moment the proxy war in Ukraine shows no sings of abating.
While three NATO members are officially nuclear weapons states – the United States, France and the United Kingdom – others are authorized to host nukes (typically ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons). They are Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
Apparently Poland is now throwing its name in the hat for NATO’s nuclear-sharing program, which would expand Western nuke placement right up to Russia’s backyard. The Kremlin would no doubt deploy more of its strategic assets near Eastern Europe in such a scenario.
]]>(Natural News)—EU government officials recently convened with food security experts to devise a plan to handle a potential food crisis. The question no longer appears to be whether such a scenario will come to pass but rather how soon Europeans can expect it.
The possibility that Europe might experience a major food crisis has become so likely that 60 EU and government officials gathered to carry out a simulation of what could occur and work on policies that can help respond to such a crisis. With videos depicting floods, droughts and civil unrest to drive home what is at stake, experts were warned to “expect a level of chaos.”
We are seeing signs of an impending food crisis around the world, with a series of geopolitical and weather events all piling up to create the perfect storm for a major food crisis. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s war on Gaza and the coronavirus pandemic have caused disruptions to crucial shipping routes that have sent food prices through the roof and impacted supply chains. Meanwhile, extreme and unpredictable weather has been having a big effect on farming and crop yields, from droughts in the Mediterranean to weather patterns impacting soy output in Latin America.
As part of their simulations, the government officials envisioned a scenario where there are numerous harvest failures in 2025 that affect the prices of animal feed, stunting the production of livestock and fish, while ships bringing crops eschew Europe in favor of higher bidders in other parts of the world. At the same time, limits on palm oil exports in Asia could reduce the supplies of a range of daily staples, including bread.
The simulation also noted how such a scenario could sow civil unrest, particularly as hungry and fed-up Europeans push back against corporate greed. Eventually, they envisioned thieves starting to loot supermarkets later in 2025, with police struggling to keep rioters under control, livestock farmers going bankrupt and German shoppers unable to find meat or fish in grocery stores.
How do they envision getting out of such a scenario? They used role-playing activities to workshop policies related to building reserves of food, crisis management and food provision. Their activities also raised some important questions, such as how to reduce Europe’s over-reliance on crop imports such as soy for feeding the dairy and meat industry.
Europe’s food security is on a dangerous downward trend
Centre for Systems Solutions Science Director Piotr Magnuszewski pointed out that government-led exercises like this one are very uncommon, particularly when it comes to topics such as food. Indeed, Europe has long been considered one of the world’s biggest supplier of foods ranging from olive oil and pork to dairy and grains, while enjoying some of the world’s lowest levels of food insecurity.
The Global Food Security Index has long ranked European nations among the world’s most secure when it comes to food, and the percentage of household spending devoted to food is relatively low compared to other nations. For example, in 2021, only 14 percent of household spending there went to food, compared to 40 percent in Egypt and 60 percent in Nigeria.
However, its position as a relatively food-secure part of the world is now in doubt as weather and climate events cost Europe more than $54 billion in economic losses in 2022. Meanwhile, the costs associated with the energy and fertilizers needed to grow crops have been skyrocketing since Russia invaded Ukraine.
One of the workshop’s organizers, retired U.S. diplomat Chris Hegadorn, warned that few European governments are prepared to manage a future food crisis. He said: “There’s a lot more to be done on every level. Crises are only going to come faster and harder.”
Sources for this article include:
]]>
(DCNF)—President Joe Biden’s administration has refrained from pressing the European Union (EU) about its new law weighing heavily and disproportionately on American tech companies, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) officially came into effect Thursday and imposes penalties of up to 20% of a company’s yearly revenue for repeated violations. The DMA is antitrust regulation primarily targeting dominant platforms in the EU, mostly American companies like Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft; but the Biden administration did not firmly challenge the EU to mitigate potential detrimental impacts of the legislation on U.S. firms, according to the Post.
Industry groups sent a letter to the White House warning about the law, asserting “the DMA’s regulatory cudgel is pointed squarely at five leading American companies.” The Biden administration reportedly sent two letters to the EU expressing worries but it did not take a tough stance against it, individuals familiar with the situation told the Post.
The DMA targets “gatekeepers,” which are platforms that “provide an important gateway between businesses and consumers in relation to core platform services,” according to the European Commission. The DMA prohibits companies from operating in the EU in a way that gives their products and services special advantages, such as in app stores, search engines and web browsers. For instance, the DMA makes it illegal to compel companies to use a platform’s payment system to be on its app store, according to the EC.
“The Biden administration has made an intentional decision, and concerted effort, to work with the European Union,” Jorn Fleck, Europe Center senior director at the Atlantic Council, told the Post. “Not just ‘Europe’ writ large, not just through NATO which is the traditional go-to, not just through the bilateral relationships with key countries in Europe, but specifically also with the E.U.”
One letter notes the Biden administration’s opposition to the law targeting American companies, but does not contain warnings about it, based on the contents reported by Politico.
“We oppose efforts specifically designed to target only U.S. companies,” it states.
The Biden administration prioritized collaborating with the EU on the war in Ukraine over safeguarding American tech companies, according to the Post.
“The Ukraine situation has sucked the oxygen out of the room,” a U.S. industry executive told the Post. “The Biden administration has worked very hard to get the Europeans and the U.S. on the same page when it comes to national security type issues.”
Democratic lawmakers advocated for the president to enable the EU to enforce the DMA on American companies because it aligns with the Biden administration’s antitrust agenda, according to a December letter.
The White House and EU did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>The warning shots of this showdown between policymakers and farmers had already been fired on 1st October 2019, when more than 2,000 Dutch tractors caused traffic mayhem in the Netherlands in response to an announcement that livestock farms would have to be bought out and shut down to reduce nitrogen emissions. Early last year, Polish farmers blocked the border with the Ukraine demanding the re-imposition of tariffs on Ukrainean grain.
But it was not until early this year that an EU-wide protest was ignited. German and French protests and tractor blockades made international news, and the blockades were soon replicated in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, and Ireland. Major highways and ports were blocked and manure was poured over government buildings, as farmers across Europe expressed their frustration at rising farming costs, falling prices for their produce, and crippling environmental regulations that made their products uncompetitive in the global market.
It seems the farmers have European elites rattled, which is hardly surprising, given that EU elections are just around the corner. While the European Commission announced Tuesday it was still committed to achieving a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2040, it conspicuously omitted any mention of how the farming sector would contribute to that ambitious target. Even more tellingly, the Commission has backed down or fudged on key climate commitments, at least temporarily.
According to politico, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Tuesday that “she was withdrawing an EU effort to rein in pesticide use.” The climbdown on this and other Commission proposals relating to farming was rather embarrassing for the Commission but politically inevitable, given that the protests were spreading rapidly and farmers were showing no signs of going home until their demands were met. As reported by politico,
A note on the possibility of agriculture cutting down on methane and nitrous oxides by 30 percent, which was in earlier drafts of the Commission’s 2040 proposal, was gone by the time it came out on Tuesday. Similarly excised were missives on behavioral change — possibly including eating less meat or dairy — and cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, many of which go to farmers to assist with their diesel costs. Inserted was softer language about the necessity of farming to Europe’s food security and the positive contributions it can make.
The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040, while fudging on the fact that a 90% emission cut in 16 years would have drastic implications for farming.
It is clearly politically expedient, especially in an election year, to put out this fire of farming discontent as soon as possible, and buy some peace ahead of June’s European elections. But there is no avoiding the fact that the Commission’s long-term environmental goals, as currently conceived, almost certainly require sacrifices that farmers are simply not willling to accept.
Independently from the merits of EU climate policy, two things are clear: first, EU leaders and environmental activists appear to have vastly underestimated the backlash their policies would spark in the farming community; and second, the apparent success of this dramatic EU-wide protest sets a spectacular precedent that will not go unnoticed among farmers and transport companies, whose operating costs are heavily impacted by environmental regulations like carbon taxes.
The Commission’s embarrassing concessions are proof that high-visibility, disruptive tactics can be effective. As such, we can expect more of this after June’s EU elections if the Commission doubles down again on its climate policy goals.
About the Author
David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society in Pamplona, Spain, and a recipient of the prestigious Ramón y Cajal research grant (2017-2021, extended through 2023), awarded by the Spanish government to support outstanding research activities. Prior to his appointment to the University of Navarra, he held several research and teaching positions in the United States, including visiting assistant professor at Bucknell and Villanova, and Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Princeton University’s James Madison Program. Dr Thunder earned his BA and MA in philosophy at University College Dublin, and his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame.
]]>Other victories are starting to appear regarding diesel subsidies and other changes that would destroy farmers’ ability to produce and sell food. But the farmers aren’t backing down. They’re still suffering from previous “green” initiatives as the globalists continue reimagining how to take full control of the food supply.
Similar pushes are being made by the federal and state governments in the United States. Will farmers and other citizens follow the lead of their European brothers and sisters? We will see. Here’s the news from Discern Reporter generated from corporate media reports…
The European Commission has decided to shelve its plans to cut pesticide use in agriculture as farmers across Europe continue to protest for higher product prices and relaxed environmental regulations.
The original proposal aimed to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade as part of the bloc’s green transition. However, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday that the proposal had “become a symbol of polarization” and would be withdrawn.
Farmers in Spain and Italy have joined the protests, with Spanish farmers using WhatsApp groups to stage informal protests and block major roads. Italian farmers, too, have begun converging on Rome from various agricultural regions, with their tractors displaying the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.”
The protests have led individual member states to take steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies and France scrapping a planned diesel tax increase.
With little progress made in the European parliament or the European Council, the task of drafting new proposals on pesticide legislation will likely fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen acknowledged that farmers “deserve to be listened to” but stressed that Europe’s agriculture “needs to move to a more sustainable model of production” that is more eco-friendly.
Unions in Spain have announced more widespread protests to begin on Thursday and last until 22 February, while Italian farmers are demanding the reinstatement of an income tax exemption that was scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget.
In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways and started fires in protests that began late on Monday and continued on Tuesday, resulting in several traffic accidents and injuries.
As the European Commission prepares to announce more measures on how to reach its ambitious targets to counter climate change, it remains to be seen how the new commission, formed after the June European parliament elections, will address the concerns of farmers while balancing the need for a more sustainable agricultural model.
]]>(Daily Caller)—The European Union’s (EU) regulatory agenda will largely hit U.S. technology companies and will impact Americans’ speech and lifestyle by stifling innovation, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The EU laws consist of content moderation regulation, antitrust enforcement and artificial intelligence (AI) model rules, all carrying massive financial penalties for violation. The laws apply to platforms that have large user bases in the EU, which are mainly American companies, with the EU recently launching a formal investigation into billionaire Elon Musk’s X and bipartisan lawmakers pushing President Joe Biden to ensure the regulation does not harm U.S. firms unfairly, according to Reuters.
“The EU views industry regulations as aspirational, which means there’s an element of selective enforcement and only require industry to put good-faith efforts when complying,” Joel Thayer, president of the Digital Progress Institute, told the DCNF. “It’s why they are far more strident. … Therein lies the problem, the EU can turn the dial up or down on how fervently they will regulate. Given how broad all of these laws are—particularly the AI Act, this means that every company that either creates software, distributes software, or has it in their devices are implicated. The EU’s laws now encompass everything from social media to children’s toys.”
The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) went into effect in August, and it punishes “very large online platforms” for hosting content like “illegal hate speech” and “disinformation” with fines of up to 6% of their annual global revenue.
The EU defines “hate speech” as “public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin,” according to its law. Hate speech is not illegal in the United States under the First Amendment.
The DSA could lead to censorship of Americans because companies are incentivized to enforce the same rules worldwide.
“The European Union isn’t hiding the ball here,” James Czerniawski, senior policy analyst at Americans for Prosperity, told the DCNF. “Given the global nature of the internet, coupled with their blatant targeting of American tech firms under the DSA and DMA [Digital Markets Act], these proposals are going to impact the online experience of millions of Americans.”
Czerniawski noted the investigation the EU launched into X for not censoring content adequately as an example of how this law impacts Americans. The EU is examining X’s lack of suppression of “illegal content” and “disinformation,” as well as its advertising practices, according to a European Commission (EC) announcement.
Germany enacted the Network Enforcement Act in 2017 to censor hate speech and false news, imposing large financial penalties, according to the Library of Congress. This law was the precursor to these newer laws leading to American censorship, Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, told the DCNF.
“This is not a new or hypothetical event,” Benz asserted. “Mass censorship in the US began with European censorship laws in 2017, notably Germany’s NetzDG censorship law that functionally required AI censorship technology to comply with. This forced YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to begin adopting AI censorship techniques across the board for continuity with global markets, boomeranging back on Americans.”
Stanford Cyber Policy Center Platform Regulation Director Daphne Keller praised the DSA because of the effects it will have globally, not just in the EU, in a November 2022 article. Stanford Internet Observatory is part of the Cyber Policy Center and participated in the Election Integrity Partnership that worked to censor Americans during the 2020 elections.
“These EU censorship laws are … also designed to force platforms to hire more censors, who in turn will focus on US affairs,” Benz added. “This is why the Stanford Internet Observatory is salivating over the EU censorship laws: they know it will rig the game here in the US.”
However, the EC has denied that the DSA is about censorship in previous comments to the DCNF, stating that it maintains freedom of expression.
The DMA is antitrust regulation specifically targeting platforms with dominant market positions in the EU that are “gatekeepers,” meaning they “provide an important gateway between businesses and consumers in relation to core platform services,” according to the EC. These “gatekeepers” include American companies like Alphabet, Meta, Apple and Amazon; the DMA could limit their influence in the EU by prohibiting them from operating in a way that gives their products and services special advantages, such as app stores, search engines and web browsers.
For instance, it makes it illegal to force companies to use a platform’s payment system to be on their app store, accordingto the EC.
Democratic lawmakers recently advocated for Biden to allow the EU to enforce the DMA on American companies because it aligns with his administration’s agenda, according to a December letter.
“The criteria for the designation of gatekeepers are clearly set out in the DMA: they target companies that have a significant impact on the EU internal market, that operate as an important gateway for business users to reach end users and that have – or will have in the near future – an entrenched and durable position for their core platform services,” EC spokesman Johannes Bahrke told the DCNF. “All companies active in the EU are subject to EU rules, including the DSA and the DMA, irrespective of their place of establishment.”
The DMA includes penalties of up to 10% of a company’s annual global revenue, according to the EC.
“The EC can use the law to be retaliatory. Keep in mind that Article 4 allows the EC to reconsider each company’s ‘gatekeeper’ designation,” Thayer told the DCNF. “The EU can negotiate with Google to keep it off the EC’s gatekeeper list provided that it combats ‘misinformation.’ Or arbitrarily designate X as a ‘gatekeeper’ (not currently listed) simply because they don’t like Elon Musk’s decision to allow more offensive content on its platform. Frankly, there’s a strong case that the DMA can lead to more government jawboning in the EU.”
The AI Act is the newest tech regulatory development, as EU lawmakers reached a landmark agreement on it in December, according to The New York Times. It is sweeping regulation on AI, which is yet another U.S.-dominated industry.
The law contains ethical and safety standards that AI models must adhere to, including being “non-discriminatory.” It also states that “AI used to exploit the vulnerabilities of people (due to their age, disability, social or economic situation)” is considered a “banned application,” according to the agreement; the law contains penalties of up to 7% of annual global revenue.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>Early in November, Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny admitted in an interview with The Economist that the war is at a stalemate. He stated frankly that Russia has three times as many men as they do, and that their technology is too similar for a huge breakthrough unless the Ukrainians are given some kind of massive technological advantage.
President Zelensky has always been insistent that Ukraine can beat off Russia, and for a long time, General Zaluzhny was, too. After the slow counteroffensive this spring, rather than admitting any difficulties within the Ukrainian military, he was quick to blame Americans, saying we were not giving him enough advanced weaponry.
But Ukrainian men are leaving as fast as they can.
General Zaluzhny also blames the huge amount of Ukrainian men avoiding conscription. Ever since the beginning of the Russian invasion, men between the ages of 18 and 60 have been forbidden from leaving the country. However, many men have taken advantage of the chaos to leave anyway. The BBC estimates that 650,000 Ukrainian men within this age group have left for Europe since the fighting began.
This data came from Eurostat, which did not specify whether those 650,000 men had legal or medical exemptions. But authorities do know that at least 20,000 eligible men have evaded conscription.
Draft dodging had been facilitated by Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt government. In August, it was announced that dozens of Ukrainian officials would face criminal charges over helping conscripted men leave Ukraine.
This firing of officials has effectively stopped recruitment. The average age of Ukrainian soldiers is 43. They have 60-year-old men fighting already and are now considering removing all age limits for military personnel. Ukraine already had an old and unhealthy population. The massive loss of young life in the war is leaving the population even older and sicker. They have gotten so desperate for personnel that pregnant women are serving.
The US wants Ukraine to negotiate with Russia.
Given these dire personnel shortages, NBC reported that a group of Americans and Europeans met with Zelensky early in November to discuss what they would be willing to give up in negotiating with the Russians. Biden administration officials are openly worried that the Ukrainians are running out of forces. All the weapons in the world won’t make a difference without people on the ground to use them.
For now, Zelensky still doesn’t want to hear it. He insists that no one can make him negotiate.
However, Zelensky cannot fight the war alone. In fact, he hasn’t been fighting at all. He’s been jetting around the world drumming up money. And the man who has been managing the battlefields, as Zelensky and his wife stock up on yachts, is done.
Just this week, Ukrainian National Defense, Security, and Intelligence member Mariana Bezhula said that General Zaluzhny should resign after he refused to submit a battle plan for 2024. Bezhula is now at risk of losing her job because she publicly complained about the general.
Redacted discussed this a little more in-depth during their November 27 episode. Between minutes 40:00 and 57:00, they describe how, when General Zaluzhny was pressed for plans for next year, he said that he would need an extra 20,000 men per month simply to not lose ground. He knows this won’t happen and, therefore, didn’t submit a plan.
There are demographic problems in both Russia and Ukraine.
It is worth noting that Russia and Ukraine both have serious long-term demographic problems. In 2005, Russia’s birth rate was 1.3 births per woman, while Ukraine’s was 1.2, both of which are far below the replacement rate of 2.1.
When Putin became president, he prioritized increasing Russia’s birthrate. The government began offering financial incentives to have children. Who knows whether it was the financial incentives or the overall promotion of family values? Either way, during the past 15 years, Russia’s birth rate has gone up to 1.58 births per woman. Of course, Putin is proud of this, but the fact remains that 1.58 is still below the replacement rate. Combine this with the fact that Russia’s average age is 43, and you have an unhealthy long-term demographic situation.
Ukraine’s situation is worse. In 2021, their total fertility rate was still 1.2, unchanged from 2005. In 2022, it dropped to 0.9. While numbers aren’t in for 2023 yet, it’s expected to be 0.7.
The Ukrainians have almost completely stopped having children and I say that without any judgment. I can’t imagine planning a family in their situation either. But with an average age of 40.8, they are facing a demographic collapse.
Europe wants the conflict to end, too.
It seems to me that both sides have every reason to cut the losses of their young men, and perhaps that’s why Putin just moved the world’s most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile, the Yars, closer to Europe. Russia is now able to strike London in less than five minutes. Maybe he hopes this will make the US and EU pressure President Zelensky to negotiate.
The overall desire for Ukraine to end the conflict has been increasing, with or without Doomsday missiles, with or without admission from high-level officials.
Tensions are rising across Europe over the flood of migrants, both from Ukraine as well as other parts of the world. We saw the riots in Ireland over the stabbing of young children this weekend. That particular incident involved an Algerian migrant, but Ireland has been overwhelmed by migrants in general the past few years. The massive amount of Ukrainian refugees that Ireland, a small nation, has been expected to absorb has pushed the country to a snapping point.
And Ireland’s not alone. Polish truckers have blockaded the roads that go between Poland and Ukraine. Truckers in Poland are no longer letting Ukrainians cross because Ukrainian drivers have been undercutting Polish prices. After the war started, the EU lifted all restrictions on Ukrainian carriers. EU bureaucrats think they’re just helping the people of Ukraine, but the reality is that whenever you start messing with trade rules, there are always second- and third-order consequences. Polish truckers are sick of the competitive advantage given to the Ukrainian truckers affecting their livelihood, and they’re making themselves heard.
For all the rhetoric coming from the political class in Europe, the average citizens seem burned out on the endless stream of refugees. Americans are burned out as well; while politicians can’t seem to find the money to secure our own border, they have sent $110 billion to Ukraine for its border, 96% of which has already been spent.
Peace may not be a long-term solution.
Most people, at most times, want to be left alone to enjoy their families and the fruits of their labors. And while I understand this urge to demand that politicians sit down and negotiate some kind of peace treaty, I don’t see a long-term solution. Let me explain.
Ukraine really wants to join NATO, as we all know. Jens Stoltenberg, the president of NATO, has repeatedly said that Ukraine can eventually join NATO and, in fact has even waived some of the normal requirements to make it easier for them. But he says Ukraine cannot join while it is still fighting with Russia.
Putin has made it clear, for years, that he considers NATO expansion into Ukraine to be a red line. If the Russians and Ukrainians negotiate some kind of peace agreement, for now, and then in six months Ukraine is fully accepted into NATO, what happens? Will Russia launch another attack? I don’t think it’s unlikely.
I don’t say any of this to discourage the people actually fighting. But those of us not on the battlefield should at least try to understand what’s going on. Fighting in Ukraine hasn’t stopped just because American legacy media is pushing interest in Israel right now. It’s easy to slap a bumper sticker on your car. It’s less easy to have your community absorb waves of refugees. It’s incredibly difficult to fight in the trenches.
We need to be careful about what kind of promises we make. I don’t see any quick solutions for Ukraine. But I could be wrong!
What do you think? Is the fighting between Ukraine and Russia near an end? Have world governments lost interest in supporting Ukraine? Will one of the countries take desperate steps to keep the fight going? How do you see this turning out?
Let’s discuss it in the comments section.
About Marie Hawthorne
A lover of novels and cultivator of superb apple pie recipes, Marie spends her free time writing about the world around her.
]]>While many have suspected Ukraine and/or the United States of being behind the terrorist attack, initial corporate media and official government sources pointed fingers at Russia. This was ludicrous prima facie, but that narrative persisted until the story died. Only then did evidence begin emerging that Ukraine was behind the attack all along.
Washington Post broke the story Saturday. Here’s a recap generated by Discern Reporter:
According to officials in Ukraine, Europe, and several other sources familiar with the covert operation, a senior Ukrainian military officer with strong ties to the country’s intelligence services played a crucial role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline last year. This officer’s involvement provides the most direct evidence to date linking Ukraine’s military and security leadership to a controversial act of sabotage that has sparked multiple criminal investigations. The attack, which U.S. and Western officials have deemed a dangerous assault on Europe’s energy infrastructure, has strained diplomatic relations with Ukraine.
The officer in question is Roman Chervinsky, a 48-year-old decorated colonel who served in Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces. According to sources familiar with the matter, Chervinsky acted as the coordinator of the Nord Stream operation. He managed logistics and support for a six-person team that used false identities to rent a sailboat and employed deep-sea diving equipment to place explosive charges on the gas pipelines.
On September 26, 2022, three explosions occurred, causing significant damage to the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines that stretch from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. The attack left only one gas link intact as winter approached.
It is important to note that Chervinsky did not act alone nor did he plan the operation. He took orders from higher-ranking Ukrainian officials who reported to General Valery Zaluzhny, the country’s top military officer. Ukraine has been involved in various secretive operations against Russian forces in the past, but the Nord Stream attack targeted civilian infrastructure that provides energy to millions of people in Europe. This attack caused Ukraine to face allegations of undermining a project involving Western energy companies that had invested billions of dollars. The Ukrainian government has not responded to requests for comment on Chervinsky’s participation.
Chervinsky’s role highlights the complex dynamics and internal rivalries within Ukraine’s wartime government. The intelligence and military establishment often clashes with the political leadership in Kyiv. Prior to the Nord Stream attack, Chervinsky was focused on resistance activity in areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia. He reported to Major General Viktor Hanushchak, who communicated directly with Zaluzhny.
Given Chervinsky’s extensive experience in Ukraine’s military intelligence agency and the Security Service (SBU), he was well-suited for the covert mission aimed at concealing Ukraine’s involvement. In his statement to The Washington Post and Der Spiegel, Chervinsky denied any role in the sabotage of the pipelines, attributing such speculations to Russian propaganda. He emphasized that he has dedicated his life to defending Ukraine and described the current charges against him related to a different operation as baseless.
The involvement of Chervinsky in the Nord Stream attack contradicts Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s public denials of country involvement. It appears that the operation was designed to keep Zelensky uninformed, with key planning and execution elements directed by Zaluzhny. Official intelligence reporting suggests that Zelensky was unaware of the operation. Chervinsky has accused Zelensky’s close adviser, Andriy Yermak, of spying for Russia and criticized the administration’s handling of the country’s preparedness for Russia’s invasion.
The U.S. has privately expressed concerns to Ukrainian intelligence and military officials about launching attacks that risk provoking Russia’s escalation of the war. Despite this, Ukraine has proceeded with certain operations. The Netherlands’ military intelligence agency, the MIVD, received information in June 2022 suggesting that Ukraine might be planning an attack on Nord Stream. The CIA relayed to Zaluzhny the U.S.’ opposition to such an operation, and it was believed that the plan had been called off. However, the attack was later carried out, with key elements of the original plan remaining unchanged.
Chervinsky’s supporters have appeared in court to defend him, with some wearing T-shirts featuring his face and the #FREECHERVINSKY hashtag. They view him as a symbol of the Ukrainian military’s willingness to make difficult choices for the country’s survival. However, Chervinsky remains in a Kyiv jail on charges of abusing his power in relation to a separate operation.
The involvement of a Ukrainian military officer in the Nord Stream bombing operation sheds light on the complex dynamics within Ukraine’s military and security establishment. While this affidavit contains new information about the specific role Chervinsky played in the attack, it is important to note that the Ukrainian government has not responded to questions regarding his participation. The ongoing investigations and legal proceedings will determine the final outcome of these allegations.
Sound off about this story on The Liberty Daily Substack.
]]>If they discover something that you have said on a large online platform that they do not like, they can force that platform to take it down, because someone in Europe might see it. So even though this is a European law, the truth is that it is going to have a tremendous impact on all of us.
From this point forward, nothing will be the same. It is being reported that the DSA literally makes large tech companies “legally accountable for the content posted to them”…
The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) has officially gone into effect. Starting on August 25th, 2023, tech giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and more must comply with sweeping legislation that holds online platforms legally accountable for the content posted to them.
Even though this new law was passed in the EU, we’ll likely see far-reaching global effects as companies adjust their policies to comply.
Initially, there will be 19 giant online platforms that will be forced to comply with this new law…
Ranging from social media platforms to online marketplaces and search engines, the list so far includes: Facebook, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, Amazon, Booking, AliExpress, Zalando, Google Shopping, Wikipedia, Google Maps, Google and Apple’s mobile app stores, Google’s Search, and Microsoft’s Bing.
But starting on February 24th, 2024, the Digital Services Act will start applying to a much broader spectrum of online platforms that have fewer than 45 million monthly users.
We are being told that this new law will establish clear rules that online platforms must follow.
That will include censoring anything that is deemed “false or misleading” under the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation…
So what kind of speech is the DSA expected to police? Last year’s Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation defines disinformation as “false or misleading content that is spread with an intention to deceive or secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm.” The code has already been put to work during elections and to “respond to crises,” such as COVID and the war in Ukraine.
And it really doesn’t matter if material that European bureaucrats consider to be “false or misleading” is actually “false of misleading” at all.
What matters is that if online platforms do not comply with what they are being told to do, they will pay dearly…
Online platforms that don’t comply with the DSA’s rules could see fines of up to 6 percent of their global turnover. According to the EU Commission, the Digital Services Coordinator and the Commission will have the power to “require immediate actions where necessary to address very serious harms.” A platform continually refusing to comply could result in a temporary suspension in the EU.
Big tech companies will be desperate to avoid such penalties, and so they will obey.
And so that means that “hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats” will be in control of speech on the Internet now…
Under this Orwellian regime, a team of hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats will decide what constitutes disinformation and instruct Big Tech firms to censor it. The firms themselves, faced with reputational risk and financial penalties, will have little choice other than to comply. This can be done in all manner of ways: simply by human moderators removing content, by shadow-banning problematic creators to reduce their reach, by demonetising certain content, and by tweaking algorithms to favour or disfavour certain topics. And though, legally speaking, the DSA only applies in the EU, once installed inside Big Tech firms, this vast content-regulation apparatus will surely affect users in the rest of the world, too.
We are being told that these EU bureaucrats will also be working with “trusted flaggers” to help identify content that needs to be censored…
The DSA’s “trusted flaggers” are entities with proven expertise in flagging harmful or illegal content to platforms. The new regulation provides that their content flagging shall be prioritised by platforms when moderating content.
You might be tempted to think that you will be able to avoid all of this censorship because you do not live in Europe.
Unfortunately, that is simply not true.
If you post something that someone in Europe might see, your content comes under the jurisdiction of this horrifying new law.
So you need to brace yourself for a level of Internet censorship that none of us have ever seen before. In addition, most of the large tech companies that must comply with this new law are based in the United States.
And it turns out that the Federal Trade Commission actually sent officials to Europe in March to assist with the implementation of this new law on U.S. soil…
U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today sent letters to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Lina Khan and the head of the European Union’s San Francisco office, demanding answers regarding the degree of coordination between the FTC and the EU to enforce the EU’s Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and Digital Markets Act (“DMA”) on U.S. soil. Both foreign laws were written to weaken American tech companies, particularly in Europe. There are no corollary federal laws to the DSA and DMA, making the FTC’s efforts to conspire with foreign regulators against U.S. businesses unprecedented.
The FTC announced in March that it was sending agency officials to Brussels to assist the EU in implementing these laws, while the EU opened a San Francisco office to pressure U.S tech companies to comply with them.
From this point forward, it is going to become much more difficult to share alternative views on the Internet.
Personally, there will be certain things that I will only be able to share in my books or with the paid subscribers of my Substack newsletter.
I am going to need to be more careful about what I share from now on, because if I say something publicly on the Internet that offends the bureaucrats in Europe, I could get into really big trouble.
And that is going to apply to every other independent journalist as well.
For a long time, the Internet allowed ordinary people like you and ordinary people like me to share truth with a world that was desperate for it.
But now the gatekeepers are exerting a draconian level of control, and the Internet will never, ever be the same again.
Michael’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here. Article cross-posted from End of the American Dream.
]]>