Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The Fed’s preferred inflation measure rose 2.8% in March from a year ago. This is the core personal consumption expenditures price index, excluding food and energy, which should be less volatile than the consumer price index and a better indicator of the real process of disinflation.

This figure is not only concerning, considering the propaganda that repeats that the fight against inflation is nearing its conclusion, but it becomes even more so when we observe the upward trend over the last three and six months. Inflation has accelerated on a quarterly and half-year basis.

As E.J. Anthony, PhD economist, points out, “there was never any indication we were heading to the 2.0% inflation target, let alone the pre-pandemic 1.8% average; we’ve arrived at 3%+ with no indication we’re going significantly lower anytime soon, not with the current levels of Treasury borrowing and Fed allowing money supply growth.”

We need to understand why inflation is not falling as promised and announced.

There is no such thing as cost-push inflation

Fiscal policy has been reckless, and enormous deficit spending is fueling inflationary pressures through unnecessary government consumption of newly created currency.

Government spending is printing new units of currency and inflation is caused by issuing more than what the private sector demands, thus making the purchasing power of money decline.

There is no such thing as cost-push inflation, greedflation, or commodity inflation.

None of those factors can make aggregate prices rise, consolidate, and continue increasing on an annualized level.

Furthermore, if cost-push or supply chain disruptions were the cause of inflation, we would have deflation today, not rising aggregate prices every month.

Governments created the inflation burst of 2021 and have not only ignored fiscal responsibility but, in the case of the United States, maintained a completely unhealthy and unrequired budget deficit

Governments are destroying the purchasing power of money and perpetuating inflation. They created the inflation burst of 2021 and have not only ignored fiscal responsibility but, in the case of the United States, maintained a completely unhealthy and unrequired budget deficit.

“An upsurge in money growth preceded the inflation flare-up, and countries with stronger money growth saw markedly higher inflation,” concluded Claudio Borio in a scholar paper in 2023 (“Does money growth help explain the recent inflation surge?”, BIS Bulletin No. 67, January 26, 2023).

Doctors Juan Castañeda and Tim Congdon already warned as early as June 2020 that “the policy reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic will increase budget deficits massively in the world’s leading countries. The deficits will largely be monetized, with heavy state borrowing from both national central banks and commercial banks. The monetization of budget deficits, combined with official support for emergency bank lending to cash-strained corporates, is leading to extremely high growth rates of the quantity of money,” and these “will instigate an inflationary boom” (Inflation: The Next Threat? Institute of Economic Affairs, Briefing 7, June 2020).

Inflation is a policy

Inflation is not a coincidence or a fatality; it is a policy. Governments tend to announce large-scale spending programs to combat inflation.

These policies accelerate money velocity in a recovery, particularly after a shutdown like the one of 2020, as well as the quantity of money in the system.

Thus, inflation rises rapidly. The only way to contain the inflation burst is to cut spending and reduce the quantity and growth of money. However, although central banks have announced so-called restrictive policies, reality has shown the opposite.

The quantity of money in the system has not been reduced. Money supply measured as M2 has declined, and the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve has diminished, but these forces have been entirely offset by net liquidity and money market funds.

As government spending and deficit have not fallen at all, but rather the opposite, the economy has been flooded with the post-waves of the first money growth impact (2020), its market and net liquidity effect, and rising public expenditure with annual deficits close to $2 trillion.

The quantity of money has not been reduced

The Federal Reserve has increased rates, but that only helps moderate the growth of money, not eliminate inflationary pressures.

Furthermore, as markets immediately discounted large rate cuts in 2024, the real effect on money growth has been just to postpone the inevitable future monetization of such enormous deficits. It has become a Call option on a forthcoming new quantitative easing program.

We cannot forget that the quantity of money has not been reduced due to another relevant factor.

The Federal Reserve has multiplied its support for the troubled banking sector via the discount window, which offsets the modest reduction in the Fed balance sheet.

Instead of attacking inflation, the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” has perpetuated the destruction of the value of the currency issued

By purchasing the sovereign bonds in the banks’ balance sheets at par despite the collapse in price, the Fed was inadvertently printing new money and sabotaging its own restrictive measures.

The misguided Keynesian policies implemented by the US government have cancelled out the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet reduction and rate hike efforts.

The Treasury injected more than $2 trillion per annum in liquidity, creating new money, counteracting the net $1.6 trillion that the Fed retired in three years from its balance sheet.

Therefore, the impact on the purchasing power of the currency through inflation has been negative. Instead of attacking inflation, the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” has perpetuated the destruction of the value of the currency issued.

The impact on markets

The impact on markets has been phenomenal. The yen, once a stable currency perceived as a haven for investors, has fallen to a 35-year low versus the US dollar.

The Bloomberg index of globally expanded major currencies and the emerging markets indicator have both fallen.

The result of the 2020–2024 “free money” wave was a very expensive destruction of real wages and deposit savings.

Furthermore, bonds have been obliterated and the latest data shows that the aggregate US and euro area bond indices have not recovered from the past years’ slump, and even going back to 2020, the indices are showing negative returns.

Only the high yield index has shown a positive performance in the past four years, albeit a meager 4.5%.

Governments are destroying the currency that they issue in all possible ways. Through persistent inflation, making wage earners and middle-class deposit savers poorer, with rising taxes to try to reduce a budget deficit that was bloated by unnecessary spending in a recovery, and through the destruction of the safest asset, bonds, that have become a bad investment for the most conservative investors, pension funds.

The only way in which inflation will be reduced will be if the Federal Reserve abandons its decision to cut rates and starts to take measures that drain net liquidity.

Without the support of the Treasury, this is impossible because it floods the market with new money even if monetary policy is restrictive and investors simply discounts that all those newly issued currency units will be monetized somehow in the future.

It does not matter if Powell promises restraint when Yellen pushes excess. The most conservative bondholders will only start to see positive returns when the Treasury stops destroying the currency’s value. It does not seem likely anytime soon.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Despite the fact that the world is teetering on the edge of global conflict, US college campuses being trashed by radical occupiers, and criminal illegals are still overwhelming the border, Joe Biden spent Friday afternoon awarding other Democrats medals.

Biden, who was incapable of saying ‘Presidential Medal of Freedom,’ awarded one each to Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg, and Rep. Jim Clyburn.

Crooked Joe's brain is friedhttps://t.co/8TGrYdQFd0

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 3, 2024

It was just a big back-patting session for Democrats.

Old Joe Biden is so confused he thought he was supposed to nominate the most financially successful politicians. Or something. Hard to believe some of these folks deserve a medal of any kind. Al Gore, Climate Grifter, John Kerry, Climate Grifter, Nancy Pelosi, Stock Market… https://t.co/mhz8CAIA81

— Brother Eric (@01IOTA) May 3, 2024

Al Gore and John Kerry were seemingly given medals for losing elections, with Biden stating that Gore “accepted the outcome of a disputed presidential election for the sake of our unity.”

These Democrats like standing behind each other.

— Jungle Ball (@JungleBall_) May 3, 2024

While Pelosi was given a medal for her actions on January 6th, which amounted to locking herself in a room, threatening to punch Donald Trump, and calling it an insurrection.

Freedom to make over $150,000,000.00 in insider trading while in congress.

— Nick Koutrakos (@NickKoutrakos) May 3, 2024

Is that Medal for facilitating the setup for January 6th or assisting the in Committee in disposing of evidence? pic.twitter.com/5EsUUci2Pb

— Bennetta Elliott (@belliott123) May 4, 2024

Bloomberg and Clyburn got medals for…something or other, but being pivotal in Biden’s election campaign was just pure coincidence.

BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. pic.twitter.com/uA1LUPuy0d

— The Pink Elephant in the Room (@PEITRblog) May 4, 2024

I want to congratulate one of our own, Mike Bloomberg, on receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom!

Although he wasn’t as great a mayor as DeBlasio and Adams, he was fiercely opposed to guns and sugary drinks.

Thank you President Biden. We in New York are celebrating today. pic.twitter.com/BXstjq4NkK

— Kathy Hochul Press Release (Parody) (@NY_Gov_PR) May 3, 2024

Hahaha of course you woke joke snowflakes think only democrats should get participation trophies ?? ??

— Doug Osborne (@DougOsb70438101) May 4, 2024

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

A health crisis has emerged for Democrat officials in Long Beach, California, following a tuberculosis outbreak linked to a hotel housing 'homeless' people, according to Fox News. 

On Thursday, health officials declared a public health emergency after an alarming tuberculosis outbreak was reported at an unnamed hotel housing. 

The city has so far confirmed 14 cases of tuberculosis in people "associated with a single room occupancy hotel." Nine of them were hospitalized with one fatal case. Another 170 people were "likely exposed" to the deadly bacteria. 

"The outbreak is currently isolated to a distinct population and the risk to the general public is low," the city said, adding, "The population at risk in this outbreak has significant barriers to care, including homelessness and housing insecurity, mental illness, substance use and serious medical comorbidities."

The reason health officials declined to name the hotel or its location is to comply with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. 

One X user said, "I believe the name of the hotel SHOULD BE DISCLOSED in the interest of traveler safety. OR does this mean the hotel is used to house illegal aliens invading our border? Long Beach declares public health emergency after deadly tuberculosis outbreak." 

I believe the name of the hotel SHOULD BE DISCLOSED in the interest of traveler safety. OR does this mean the hotel is used to house illegal aliens invading our border? Long Beach declares public health emergency after deadly tuberculosis outbreak https://t.co/jTe7fpuR2R

— Judy Holiday (@msjudyholiday) May 3, 2024

The question now becomes if Long Beach officials were housing illegal migrants in the hotel... 

If so, this isn't the first time unvaccinated and undocumented illegal aliens have sparked infectious disease outbreaks in hotels and shelters nationwide. 

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute,

Russian forces are advancing in several places across the 600-mile frontline in Ukraine, straining Kiev’s ability to build rear fortifications. Some in the Ukrainian military fault the country’s leadership for not building stronger second and third-line defenses last year while Russian troops were stalled. 

According to a dozen Ukrainian soldiers, government officials, and construction company directors who spoke with the Associated Press, Kiev is struggling to set up new defensive lines as its forces retreat. The officials cited several issues including decision-making last year, bureaucracy in doling out military contracts, and ammunition shortages. 

A deputy infantry commander fighting near Avdiivka explained that the defensive line needed to be built last year during Ukraine’s offensive. "There was an absence of responsibility. … People didn’t understand that fortifications can save your life if you do it in advance," he stated. "Many people thought we … wouldn’t need to prepare such lines. They didn’t expect a new Russian offensive."

Last summer, at Washington’s insistence, Kiev launched a counteroffensive that failed to retake much territory due to deeply entrenched Russian defensive lines. Ukraine lost a significant number of troops and military equipment during the failed assault. 

The AP notes that "Ukraine’s lack of adequate defensive lines has helped Russia make significant military gains, and constant enemy fire hinders building."

In a Telegram post on Sunday, Kiev’s Commander in Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi said the situation at the front had "escalated," adding, "Trying to seize the strategic initiative and break through the front line, the enemy has concentrated its main efforts in several directions, creating a significant advantage in forces and in means."

In the battle for Chasiv Yar, a city in Donetsk, a Ukrainian soldier said the lack of fortified positions allowed Russian forces to prevail, with over 100 men killed or missing after a major withdrawal from the area.

"We lost department commanders, platoon commanders, company commanders, and sergeants. That is, we lost the entire skeleton of the brigade," the soldier explained to the AP. 

2/ Ukrainian intelligence officials also identified three Russian efforts to destabilize Ukraine and achieve victory.

Details in the Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment for May 2, 2024: https://t.co/p2XVK93bUy pic.twitter.com/OEvKmsYaoH

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) May 3, 2024

Rather than use military engineers to complete the projects, Kiev elected to pay construction companies to build third-line defenses. Ukraine awarded the contracts without following the typical bidding process, raising fears of corruption. Additionally, one contractor said the reported progress on the fortifications has been exaggerated to satisfy the government’s demands.

Special Counsel Jack Smith's team admitted on Friday that key evidence in Trump's classified documents case was altered or manipulated - leaving two different chronologies; one that was digitally scanned vs. what's in the actual boxes.

Smith also misled the court, after originally telling U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the boxes remained "in their original, intact form as seized," when in a footnote they conceded that they removed classified documents and left placeholder sheets, which prosecutors acknowledged has created an "inconsistent" record - in which some of the documents are no longer in the same order as they appear in digital scans made in the fall of 2022.

"The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court," the footnote reads, according to Just the News.

The finding comes after Cannon ordered a review into whether the FBI may have seized legally privileged records in response to a request from Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta.

"Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants' review of the boxes," wrote Smith's team in the Friday filing.

"There are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans," the filing continues.

The organization of the documents in storage boxes at Mar-a-Lago is likely to be an important part of Trump‘s defense. His team is expected to argue the documents were stored in the White House in chronological order on the days that Trump received them, and that staff simply boxed them up and sent them to his home without him accessing them or knowing they contained classified information.

Smith’s team tried to downplay the problem and argued it’s not a reason for a delay in Trump’s case.

But several legal experts told Just the News the court filing essentially is an admission of evidence tampering, and could be problematic. -Just the News

"Prosecutors and investigators should never tamper with or alter evidence in their possession, including the order of documents in a box because one never knows what may become relevant or crucial to a court or jury later in a case," Alan Dershowitz told Just the News.

"This admission is stunning on multiple levels," said defense attorney Tim Parlatore, who worked on Trump’s team earlier in the classified documents case but no longer is involved, adding that the revelation "reinforces the incompetence" of prosecutors "in conducting basic criminal investigations and prosecutions that I observed when I was on the team.

"But at a deeper level, the loss of specific document locations is a destruction of exculpatory evidence," Parlatore added. "I went through all of the boxes at NARA and the document order was important because it was clear to us that the boxes had been untouched since leaving the White House.

"For prosecutors who are trying to prove that the defendants knowingly possessed these documents to then destroy the evidence that would undermine that claim is a very serious violation," he said.

In response to the filing, Trump said on Truth Social that "Deranged Jack has admitted in a filing in front of Judge Cannon to what I have been saying happened since the Illegal RAID on my home ... that he and his team committed blatant Evidence Tampering by mishandling the very Boxes they used as a pretext to bring this Fake Case."

Smith's Excuses

The prosecution offered several explanations for the manipulated evidence.

"There are several possible explanations, including the above-described instances in which the boxes were accessed, as well as the size and shape of certain items in the boxes possibly leading to movement of items," reads the filing. "For example, the boxes contain items smaller than standard paper such as index cards, books, and stationary, which shift easily when the boxes are carried, especially because many of the boxes are not full."

That said, Just the News also notes that altered evidence has featured prominently in previous political scandals.

Erasure of an 18 1/2 minute segment of Richard Nixon’s White House tapes became a very important aspect of the Watergate scandal.

The Iran-Contra scandal exploded during the Reagan years with the revelation that documents were shredded before they could be obtained by investigators.

The Hillary Clinton classified email scandal became more complicated in 2015 with the revelation that her team used a "Bleach Bit" program to erase emails on her secret computer server, and had email devices destroyed. 

As Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton suggests, this is "Yet more reason to throw out this sham prosecution."

EVIDENCE TAMPERING? Biden DOJ/Jack Smith just admitted they messed with boxes supposedly containing "classified" documents they seized from Trump and can't be sure the order or placement of the documents as originally found has been maintained -- which is contrary to what they…

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) May 3, 2024

And as the Epoch Times notes, the case was brought against President Trump and others over their alleged violation of federal law in handling documents marked classified. Defendants have pleaded not guilty.

Neither Mr. Nauta nor other defendants in the case have responded yet to the new filing.

Mr. Nauta’s request for an extension is one of many documents that are under seal, or unavailable for perusal.

In another recent filing, President Trump’s team said that the case should be dismissed because prosecutors are motivated by “improper political animus,” pointing in part to how White House lawyers worked with the National Archives and Records Administration on its referral to the Department of Justice and how President Joe Biden has said that he was “making sure” President Trump “does not become the next president again.”

Prosecutors opposed the dismissal request but their opposition was filed under seal.

Read the filing below (via Just the News): 

Traders and shipping companies have ensured millions of barrels of Russian crude and crude products flow around the world despite European Union sanctions against Moscow for its 'special operation' in Ukraine. One method to ensure the flow has been cargo switching at sea, known by traders as ship-to-ship or STS transfers. 

One of the hottest STS transfer spots for Russian crude and crude products was in Greece's Laconian Gulf, a gulf in the south-eastern Peloponnese. Now, research firm TankerTrackers reports that Russian oil transfers in the area have "completely vacated" the area this week. 

"For reasons unknown, the Laconian Gulf in Greece, used as a transshipment point for Russian oil; was completely vacated of major tankers on the afternoon of 2024-05-01. The STS transfers are now taking place directly south of the gulf," TankerTrackers wrote on X. 

For reasons unknown, the Laconian Gulf in Greece, used as a transshipment point for Russian oil; was completely vacated of major tankers on the afternoon of 2024-05-01. The STS transfers are now taking place directly south of the gulf. Maritime data by @MarineTraffic, a @Kpler… pic.twitter.com/9WUPircXTi

— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) May 3, 2024

STS Russian transfers from the Laconian Gulf have ended up thousands of miles away in Asia. However, according to the Black Sea Group, some of it ended up at European ports because of Brussels' poor sanction management: 

"68% of the oil was brought to the Laconian Gulf in Greece for transshipment, while the rest was directly exported to the EU ports amid poor sanctions management," researcher Bohdan Ben wrote in a note. 

TankerTrackers pointed out that the STS transfers in the Laconian Gulf have shifted just south. The firm used maritime data from Marine Traffic and satellite imagery data from Kpler.

Bloomberg notes STS transfers of Russian crude could be shifting to the Red Sea: 

There are other signs of change in how Russian oil is moving. One tanker also flipped a cargo of crude onto another vessel in the Red Sea last month. The Panta Rei 1 transfered its cargo onto the Odysseus, which then transported its consignment to India. That's the first ever switch observed in that location in ship tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.

What is evident is that, despite Western sanctions on Moscow, Russian crude oil and crude products continue to circulate globally. The puzzling thing here is why the abrupt shift away from the Laconian Gulf region? 

Publicly traded telehealth company Hims & Hers Health, Inc. tumbled into a correction at the end of last week when the CEO said he and other executives were "eager" to hire anti-Israel student protesters. 

"Moral courage > College degree," Palestinian-American CEO Andrew Dudum wrote on X. 

Dudum said, "If you're currently protesting against the genocide of the Palestinian people & for your university's divestment from Israel, keep going. It's working." 

"There are plenty of companies & CEOs eager to hire you, regardless of university discipline," he noted. 

Substack author Jordan Schachtel responded to Dudum's post on X by indicating his activism is a "violation of fiduciary duty..." 

Violation of fiduciary duty in support of Hamas. Bold move, Cotton.

— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) May 2, 2024

"What does this have to do with your business? why does this belong at a public company? Marshall Wace isn't paying you to play politics," Martin Shkreli wrote.

what does this have to do with your business? why does this belong at a public company? Marshall Wace isn't paying you to play politics

— Martin Shkreli (e/acc) (@MartinShkreli) May 2, 2024

Here's what other X users said:

Real moral courage doesn’t involve joining a mindless mob, chanting anti-US and other woke pablum, following instructions not to debate or discuss your positions at all yet being indignantly righteous, while large numbers in the mob chant for violence and block Jewish students.

— Joe Lonsdale (@JTLonsdale) May 1, 2024

Translation: $HIMS hires antisemites

If there was ever a sell signal, this is it.

— Jordan Fried (@JordanFried) May 1, 2024

Job offers for pro-terror students at a soon to be bankrupt company. #BoycottHims

— Ellie Cohanim (@EllieCohanim) May 3, 2024

What does this have to do with selling boner pills

— Sam Rosenthal, Award Winning Online Safety EXPERT! (@SirSardonic) May 2, 2024

Following the CEO's activism post, shares of Hims & Hers tumbled into a correction. 

Other X users said they were "selling" the stock, while others said they were "shorting" it. 

Selling all my $HIMS ??

— Terry Cheng ?? ???? (@Bat_tery) May 2, 2024

Cue the $HIMS selloff ??

— Jonathan Snow, DMD (@drjonathansnow) May 2, 2024

SHORT $HIMS, got it ????

— Prestige Worldwide (@jayhawk_73) May 2, 2024

Soo you prefer to hire the students who aren’t in class, aren’t in jobs, easily susceptible to propaganda, larping as terrorists, harassing jews, and generally wreaking havoc over a list of demands that aren’t even achievable?

Easiest short of my life

— Rho Rider (@RhoRider) May 2, 2024

I would never join this company whose leader supports terrorists. And if you’re looking to hire encampment activists instead of students who are studying for finals - I’ll short this company in a heartbeat.

— Paul S (@paulscolnick1) May 2, 2024

Meanwhile, Palantir CEO Alex Karp said anti-Israel protesters causing chaos across colleges and universities should be shipped off to North Korea as part of an "exchange program" to give them perspective. 

"We're gonna do an exchange program sponsored by Karp," he said, adding, "A couple months in North Korea, nice-tasting flavored bark. See how you feel about that."

The problem with some of these college protests is their artificial nature, funded by the Soros group and other non-governmental organizations, with the goal of sparking chaos in a Marxist takeover of America. 

An extremist on the mic says: "There’s only one solution, intifada revolution. We must have a revolution so we can have a socialist reconstruction of the USA."

This isn’t just about Israel/Palestine. It's an attempt of the Marxist takeover of America. Our colleges have become… pic.twitter.com/2IEqRyuorB

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) April 30, 2024

CEO Dudum reminds us of the virtue-signaling days of mega-corporations who jumped on the BLM movement, which only turned out to be a bunch of Marxists wanting to destroy capitalism and the US. 

Ukraine's President Zelensky has reportedly told his top military commanders that Ukraine must win against Russia if it hopes to one day be admitted into NATO.

Russian state media has captured and translated key lines of the speech. "I believe that we will be in NATO only if we win. I don’t think that we will be admitted [...] during the war," Zelensky had said during a meeting with officers. Ukrainian sources also confirmed the remarks.

He admitted that as things currently stand, NATO leaders "feel the risks" while "others are simply skeptical." The Ukrainian president continued, "Therefore, for Ukraine to be accepted into the alliance, we need victory."

He further described that Ukraine's independence can ultimately be permanently guaranteed by eventually becoming a full member of NATO.

From Brussels and Washington's perspective, the idea of NATO membership for Kiev has been put on hold, despite the enthusiastic rhetoric of some hawkish officials in the West, given NATO's Article 5 common defense treaty would mean it would trigger automatic war with Russia. 

NATO as a matter of policy does not admit nations in a state of active war, or with a hot conflict on their border - given it would automatically force the whole alliance to militarily intervene. 

In this case, admission would lead to nuclear-armed confrontation with Russia basically overnight. However, given the continued escalation of the West, that's still where things may eventually be headed.

This also as the world is constantly being told that the tens of billions in Western funds and aid already sent is never enough...

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is busy this week chastising members of the alliance for the slow pace of weapons delivery at a moment Ukraine has admitted getting beaten back along some key frontline positions. Earlier this week Ukraine's defense chief admitted that a tactical retreat is underway.

"I know that serious delays in support have meant serious consequences on the battlefield," Stoltenberg said Monday alongside Zelensky at a joint press conference. "For months, the US was unable to agree on a package. And European Allies have been unable to deliver ammunition at the scale we promised."

Meanwhile, the arguments out of Kiev are getting more and more creative:

???????? "If you can't give enough weapons to Ukraine, how are you gonna win against China" - Kuleba pic.twitter.com/edrz6subfU

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) May 2, 2024

Zelensky is hoping for aircraft next: "I am confident that we will have modern aircraft that will also be a part of this system," Zelensky said of future aid packages from the West. He is also urging that more Patriot systems be sent, while Russia continues pounding Odessa in the south, and cities in the north.

The UK has committed to what might be called 'forever aid' in Ukraine's defense, with British Foreign Secretary David Cameron newly promising $3.74 billion of annual military aid for Kiev for "as long as it takes".

He unveiled the plan Thursday, and it marks the biggest commitment in foreign defense aid rollout for Britain thus far in the war (and perhaps in all of history), coming on the heels of the Biden administration also seeking to erect a 10-year plan to assist Ukraine which theoretically would lock in future US presidents as well.

"We will give 3 billion pounds every year for as long as is necessary. We've just really emptied all we can in terms of giving equipment," Cameron told Reuters in an interview on a visit to the Ukrainian capital.

"Some of that [equipment] is actually arriving in Ukraine today, while I'm here," he said. Alarmingly, he openly stated that the British government has no problem with Ukrainian forces using UK weapons to strike at targets inside Russian territory.

"Ukraine has that right. Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it's defending itself," Cameron said.

"It's absolutely crucial, not just in terms of the weapons it will bring, but also the boost to morale that it will bring to people here in Ukraine," the UK top diplomat continued in the remarks given upon his second visit to the war-ravaged country as foreign secretary.

Cameron was at one point asked whether a potential future Trump administration could negatively impact the flow of aid to the Zelensky government.

He responded: "It's not for us to decide who the Americans choose as their president. We will work with whoever that is." NATO officials have reportedly been attempting to "Trump-proof" any future aid.

Last Sunday, Zelensky himself signaled as much in a nightly video address, saying that he's working with Washington on a bilateral security agreement which would last ten years. "We are already working on a specific text," Zelensky said in his nightly video address. "Our goal is to make this agreement the strongest of all."

"We are discussing the specific foundations of our security and cooperation. We are also working on fixing specific levels of support for this year and the next 10 years."

"If you can't give enough weapons to Ukraine, how are you gonna win against China" - Kuleba pic.twitter.com/d3sCiB4Tgz

— War Intel (@warintel4u) May 2, 2024

He indicated it will likely include agreements on long-term support centering on military hardware and joint arms production, as well as continuing reconstruction aid. "The agreement should be truly exemplary and reflect the strength of American leadership," Zelensky added.

But as we've been detailing, Ukraine's problem currently is not fundamentally a question of funding or weaponry, but of manpower. Soon it may not have enough troops to operate the sophisticated weaponry being shipped in by the West, given the daily bad news from the front lines.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Scientists with close ties to China and the U.S. government is now saying that risky experiments he proposed—which some experts believe could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2—may have been done, deviating from earlier statements.

Another scientist involved in the proposal also says he doesn’t know if the work was done.

“To the very best of my knowledge ... the work hasn’t been done,” Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, told a congressional panel this week.

Mr. Daszak, however, admitted that he doesn’t know whether scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China have done the proposed experiments.

“Do you know if the WIV started this work?” he was asked during a U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing in Washington.

“No,” Mr. Daszak replied.

“Then you can’t say that the work was not done,” Mitch Benzine, the staff director for the panel, said.

“There is no evidence of the work being done. There is no evidence that WIV started it,” Mr. Daszak said.

Has he ever asked Shi Zhengli, a top scientist at the WIV, whether she carried out the proposal?

“No,” Mr. Daszak acknowledged.

The proposal in question, dubbed Project DEFUSE, was submitted in 2018 to the U.S. government as EcoHealth and its partners, including WIV, sought to take viruses from bats, reverse engineer them, and add features. Some outside scientists say the proposed work could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) declined to fund the proposal, expressing concerns that adding features to coronaviruses could create a dangerous virus.

After the proposal was leaked to the public in 2021, Mr. Daszak and EcoHealth have said definitively that the proposed experiments never took place.

“The DARPA proposal was not funded. Therefore, the work was not done. Simple,” Mr. Daszak told The Intercept in 2022.

“The proposed research was never done,” EcoHealth added in a recent statement.

Ralph Baric, a University of North Carolina virologist who was also listed in the DEFUSE proposal, also said in newly disclosed testimony that he did not know whether the proposed experiments were conducted.

“Certainly not by my group,” Mr. Baric told the subcommittee. “I don’t know what China did.”

Mr. Baric and Ms. Shi have created chimeras, or combination viruses, among other work together.

“There was no evidence that they were doing this kind of work,” Mr. Baric said. “Well, there was evidence that they were building chimeras using WIV1 as a backbone, so they were doing some discovery work about the functions of spike genes of zoonotic strains that they discovered later on, but I don’t know if they did any of the engineering or anything.”

WIV1 is a bat coronavirus that was found in China.

Mr. Baric also claimed he had forgotten about DEFUSE so he didn’t discuss it while meeting with Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top U.S. government official, on Feb. 12, 2020.

Mr. Daszak said Wednesday that DARPA later returned to EcoHealth “to try and fund portions” of DEFUSE, but no lawmakers pressed him on that disclosure.

‘They’ve Always Been Truthful’

EcoHealth separately for years funneled grant money from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Wuhan researchers, including money that funded experiments that increased the virulence of a bat coronavirus.

Asked how his group verified information about those experiments, Mr. Daszak acknowledged it relied on statements from the WIV. “I have no other way to verify,” he said.

The scientists in Wuhan “have always been honest with us,” he added later. “They’ve always been truthful. There’s never any untoward, underhand things going on. I have no reason to think that they were under pressure to lie. There’s no indication of that.”

After the pandemic started, WIV researchers refused to hand over laboratory notebooks and other files to EcoHealth after the U.S. government asked for the records, resulting in the government debarring WIV from receiving U.S. grant money.

“Nearly two years have passed since the NIH first requested that WIV provide the requested information and materials, and yet WIV has still failed to do so,” a debarment official wrote to Ms. Shi.

In comments on a draft of the DEFUSE proposal, Mr. Daszak said that some of the work would be done at the Wuhan lab.

“If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Mr. Daszak wrote in one comment. “Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well.”

Mr. Daszak told Mr. Baric in a May 27, 2021, email released by the subcommittee that Ms. Zhengli said culturing of animal viruses was being done under biosafety level two conditions, or one level below that applied in many other countries.

“We checked with Zhengli, who let us know that she used ‘BSL-2 with negative pressure and appropriate PPE.’ I also know that they are stricter now on SADS-CoV... ever since you showed it was able to infect human airway epithelial cells,” he wrote.

Mr. Baric responded by saying Mr. Daszak was “being told a bunch of [expletive].”

“BSL-2 w[ith] negative pressure, give me a break,” he wrote, adding later, “You believe this was appropriate containment, if you want but don’t expect me to believe it. Moreover, don’t insult my intelligence by trying to feed me this load of [expletive].”

How much do you trust the government, and its various institutions?

It’s likely that your level of confidence probably depends on a wide range of factors, such as perceived competency, historical context, economic performance, accountability, social cohesion, and transparency.

And for these same reasons, trust levels in government institutions also change all the time, even in the world’s most developed countries: the G7.

Confidence in Government by G7 Countries (2006-2023)

This chart, via Visual Capitaist's Nick Routley, looks at the changes in trust in government institutions between the years 2006 and 2023, based on data from a multi-country Gallup poll.

Specifically, this dataset aggregates confidence in multiple national institutions, including the military, the judicial system, the national government, and the integrity of the electoral system.

What’s interesting here is that in the G7, a group of the world’s most developed economies, there is only one country bucking the general trend: the United States.

Across most G7 countries, confidence in institutions has either improved or stayed the same between 2006 and 2023. The largest percentage point (p.p.) increases occur in Italy and Japan, which saw +13 p.p. and +11 p.p. increases in trust over the time period.

In the U.S., however, confidence in government institutions has fallen by 13 p.p. over the years. What happened?

Key Figures on U.S. Trust in Institutions

In 2006, the U.S. was tied with the UK as having the highest confidence in government institutions, at 63%.

But here’s where the scores stand in 2023, across various institutions:

Based on this data, it’s clear that the U.S. lags behind in three key indicators: confidence in the national government, confidence in the justice system, and confidence in fair elections. It ranked in last place for each indicator in the G7.

One other data point that stands out: despite leading the world in military spending, the U.S. is only the third most confident in its military in the G7. It lags behind France (86%) and the United Kingdom (83%).

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People who received more than one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to contract COVID-19, according to a new study.

An analysis of data from Cleveland Clinic employees found that people who received two or more doses were at higher risk of COVID-19, Dr. Nabin Shrestha and his co-authors reported.

The risk of contracting COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher for those who received two doses, 1.95 times higher for those who received three doses, and 2.5 times higher for those who received three or more doses, the researchers found. The higher risk was compared to people who received zero or one dose of a vaccine.

Even after adjusting for variables, the elevated risk remained.

“The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity. So, although somewhat protective in the short term, vaccination may increase risk of future infection,” the researchers said in the paper, which was released as a preprint.

Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine researcher who was not involved in the paper, told The Epoch Times that the paper served as “another acknowledgment that the products are not effective or are at very low effectiveness and are contributing to negative effectiveness [down the line].”

He noted that the researchers did not study vaccine safety among the employee population. The COVID-19 vaccines can cause a number of side effects, including fatal heart inflammation, according to the literature and death records.

Earlier studies and data have also suggested that people with more vaccine doses are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, including previous papers from the Cleveland Clinic scientists and a study from Iceland.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has repeatedly declined requests to comment on outside research, recommends virtually all people aged 6 months and older receive one of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of how many shots they’ve received, although a meeting later in May is set to discuss whether to update the vaccine formulations to improve protection.

CDC scientists said in a paper published in February in the agency’s weekly report that the latest version of the vaccines, a monovalent targeting the XBB.1.5 subvariant, provided 49 percent effectiveness between 60 and 119 days later when the JN.1 virus strain was dominant. Supplementary data, however, showed that people aged 50 and older who received the previous bivalent version were more susceptible to symptomatic infection.

Authors disclosed no conflicts of interest and acknowledged at least five limitations, including how they used a proxy for infection with JN.1.

Another study, released ahead of peer review in April, estimated the effectiveness of Pfizer’s updated vaccine as 32 percent against hospitalization from late 2023 through early 2024. The research was conducted by scientists from multiple institutions, including the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer, many authors reported conflicts of interest, and some of the funding came from Pfizer.

People’s immune systems being trained to react to older virus strains at the expense of protection against newer variants is one theory for why the vaccinated might be more prone to infection.

“Multiple vaccine doses may have the effect of antibody-dependent enhancement or ‘original antigenic sin,’ which increase the infection response disproportionally to antibodies generated from the first vaccine dose, rather than from the current vaccine or the current infection, making the antibody response less effective,” Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Epoch Times in an email after reviewing the paper.

Dr. Shrestha, who did not respond to a request for comment, and the Cleveland Clinic researchers aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the XBB.1.5 shots against JN.1, which displaced XBB.1.5 before the end of 2023.

To do so, they analyzed the incidence of COVID-19 among Cleveland Clinic employees from Dec. 31, 2023, to April 22, 2024.

Among approximately 47,500 employees included in the study, 838 tested positive for COVID-19 during that period.

Unadjusted data showed no difference between people who received one of the updated shots and people who didn’t, but after adjusting for age and other factors, the researchers estimated the shots provided 23 percent effectiveness against infection.

Federal and global guidelines consider vaccines ineffective if they provide under 50 percent shielding.

The number of severe illnesses among the study population was too small to estimate effectiveness against severe illness, the researchers said.

Listed limitations included the inability to separate symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. No conflicts of interest were reported and authors said they received no funding.

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former President Donald Trump docketed a brief to support his motion to dismiss the classified documents indictment against him in Florida, citing “selective and vindictive prosecution” on Thursday.

The 43-page filing contends that special counsel Jack Smith’s case against the former president “has been motivated by improper political animus.”

It cites “targeted leaks and public statements” by President Joe Biden, “urging others to prosecute President Trump.” This refers to a New York Times report from April 2, 2022, reporting that President Biden told his “inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.”

President Trump’s lawyers contend that the article amounted to presidential pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland to “act ... more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action.”

The motion details a series of events to support the former president’s arguments of a concerted effort by the Biden administration and federal agencies to target him.

It points to statements from officials at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which is responsible for the preservation of presidential records, that the Biden administration’s “current business” was investigating the 45th president. Among other events, it cites a text message from a NARA official dated Feb. 9, 2022, stating that the classified documents have “consumed all of our discussions” with the Biden White House.

“There is evidence of vindictive political animosity focused on election interference in these proceedings, which is part of the reason why the Special Counsel’s Office is wrong in the claim that President Trump ‘does not contend that the Special Counsel himself was motivated by improper considerations,’” President Trump’s lawyers argue.

Smith Refutes Trump’s Claims

In a March 7 filing, Mr. Smith argues against President Trump’s claims that the prosecution team, influenced by political bias, is selectively targeting him for prosecution.

Prosecutors from the special counsel’s office argue that the former president hadn’t identified anyone in his motion who was engaging in similar conduct without being prosecuted and failed to provide evidence that his indictment was solely retaliatory.

“Trump contends ... that he has been subject to selective and vindictive prosecution,” the prosecution wrote. “But he has not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar battery of criminal conduct and not been prosecuted as a result.

“He has likewise failed to provide any evidence that his indictment was brought solely to retaliate against him for exercising his legal rights, rather than because he flagrantly and repeatedly broke the law,” the prosecution continued.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s legal team has given Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, a list of other former government officials who they say engaged in similar alleged misconduct, including the mishandling of classified information.

Among them are President Biden, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, and the FBI’s former director James Comey.

However, with respect to the alleged misconduct of these officials, President Trump’s team asserted in a February motion that “no one in the government lifted a finger” to prosecute them.

“Collectively, this history of non-prosecution and leniency for similarly situated individuals and others strongly supports President Trump’s motion based on intolerable and unconstitutional selective and vindictive prosecution,” the motion reads.

President Trump’s lawyers argued again on Thursday that, on its face, these specific comparators are enough to establish a case of selective and vindictive prosecution.

The former president’s legal team asked the judge for further investigation through discovery and a hearing to examine the allegations of selective prosecution.

Trump ‘The Exception’

Special counsel Robert Hurr declined to press charges against President Biden in February, despite finding evidence that he retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen.

According to Mr. Hur’s report from February, there is no precedent for prosecuting former presidents or vice presidents for mishandling classified documents from their own administrations, with one exception.

“The exception is President Trump,” the February motion reads.

“The basis is his politics and status as President Biden’s chief political rival,” the motion continues. “Thus, this case reflects the type of selective and vindictive prosecution that cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, further discovery and a hearing are necessary, and the Superseding Indictment must be dismissed.”

President Trump’s legal team cited Mr. Hur’s report in a bid to exonerate him from charges. On the other hand, the prosecution claims that the former president was the only one who participated in a “multifaceted scheme of deception and obstruction” to prevent the safe return of those documents.

The former president argues that the special counsel’s office is trying to influence the general election by pursuing “two lawless prosecutions,” which have been initiated at the urging of the Biden administration.

“[T]he Special Counsel’s Office seeks to ‘become a de facto campaign voice for the Democrats in the general election,’ and Jack Smith is ‘probably less concerned now with whether a Trump conviction will survive appeal than with whether Trump can be convicted ahead of the November 2024 election,’” the February motions reads.

“No sitting President has ever successfully pressed for the prosecution of a former President, and his chief political rival, the way that President Biden did—proudly and publicly—in 2022,” President Trump’s lawyers contend. “NARA has never targeted a former President in the way that the agency targeted President Trump. No law enforcement body has ever raided a former President’s home. DOJ has never even used civil remedies against a former President.”

President Trump’s defense had previously sought to have the case thrown out based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), but Judge Cannon rejected this argument on April 4.

Mr. Smith had indicted President Trump and aide Walt Nauta in June 2023, alleging mishandling of over 300 classified documents. The charges against the former president include 31 counts of violating the Espionage Act, along with various other counts related to obstruction of justice, withholding documents, and making false statements.

The Epoch Times contacted Mr. Smith’s office for comment.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

A major intellectual revelation from my youth came from reading Murray Rothbard’s “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” (1963). He includes a passing opinion that private markets are perfectly capable of producing money with no help from government. Under a sweeping monetary reform, private mints could compete in offering this good with full associated services. There is no need for any government intervention here.

It was the kind of claim that, at some point in one’s life, causes the jaw to hit the floor. Investigating this assertion more, I came to see that there was a large literature on the topic. Historically, money originated in the market economy itself, a naturally evolving institution that met the needs of trade. Whatever good was generally valued by everyone, and was as capable of being divided into consistent units with a stable value, could be deployed as money, with no need for government to do anything but watch.

But of course history has not panned out that way. Every government has a strong incentive to monopolize the good called money because this is how they can tax their citizens, reward the most compliant industries, cultivate close relationships with bankers, and inflate the currency at will through a variety of methods depending on the technology of the time.

We can of course imagine primitive tribes or pre-colonial native populations using rocks and shells, but is there a modern case where private coinage became normalized? In a major but often overlooked work of historical scholarship, economist George Selgin has written the most extensive treatment of the private coinage industry in the UK at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

His book “Good Money” is beautifully produced with color photographs of some of the most alluring coins you will ever see. The historical narrative is endlessly fascinating. At the dawn of the factory system, the Royal Mint didn’t care in the slightest bit about small denomination coins of silver and copper to enable small businessmen to pay their workers. The Royal Mint only produced large denominations in gold for big business doing big trade deals.

Frustrated with the inability to pay workers, the entire period from 1700 through 1813 saw the evolution of a sophisticated industry focused on coinage. Old button factories were converted to producing coins of various weights and sizes based on copper and silver. They were used to pay workers and accepted widely by merchants.

The system worked just fine and it could have continued forever. The new industry alleviated the coin shortage and yielded healthy competition among many producers of new money. It was all made to be inflation resistant and verifiable according to standard weights and measures. This was a full industry of private coinage, in operation in one of the most advanced and industrious societies in the world at the time.

Sadly, the Royal Mint eventually became upset about this. Driven by the eternal need of government to control the money in its realm, Parliament passed a series of acts in 1812–1813 to cartelize the function of the mint and make the Royal Mint the only legal producer. The entire industry was destroyed very quickly. So from this one case, we can see that the monopolization of money is not an outgrowth of market forces but imposed by government. It has always been this way.

The digital age birthed new attempts to privatize money, stemming from a very real problem of financial verification (revealed in the 2008 financial crisis) and using money without the need for intermediaries. The result was Bitcoin, which was born in January 2010. It grew in sophistication and value over the course of the year. In the following seven years, adoption exploded and incentivized the creation of new private methods of settling transactions and accepting credit cards. It was a solid competitor to nationalized money.

As in 1813, governments did not much like it. The code of Bitcoin itself was deliberately throttled to prevent the new private money from scaling, prompting a fork in the transaction chain and the birth of general chaos in the industry, even as Bitcoin itself kept growing in value. Government responded by taking control of the on-ramps, the off-ramps, all exchanges, and then put heavy taxation and reporting requirements on all dealings. Right now, the crackdown is full-on, with websites and wallets being shut down and top investors investigated and even subject to criminal trials.

As in 19th century Britain, we see here another tragic case of government intervention strangling a wonderful new industry in the interest of maintaining a monopoly on power, the first condition of which is always to control the money of the realm.

I think back to my own shock at the discovery that free enterprise was fully capable of managing money as a good. It had never occurred to me because it had always been otherwise. And yet, if you think about it, there are all sorts of conditions in which market forces invent money as a method of moving beyond primitive barter arrangements.

Every prison has its own form of money. It used to be cigarettes but now is more commonly canned fish or some other valued good. The only reason this is not common in society at large is that governments do not want it this way.

A feature of government management in modern times has been periodic reforms that always end in making the system worse. We had a government-backed gold standard in the late 19th century that was compromised by a fixed price relationship between gold and silver that was unsustainable. Then we got the Federal Reserve in 1913, with the promise that it would control inflation even as it took off soon after the Fed accommodated the need for war funding.

In 1933, we got another reform that devalued the currency from the center, changing the definition of a dollar from 1/20 an ounce of gold to 1/35 an ounce. That massive devaluation was accompanied by a nationwide gold confiscation that included criminal penalties and jail time for noncompliance. At the close of World War II, a new system called Bretton Woods forbid domestic conversion and only allowed gold for international exchange. This was completely unsustainable because every nation has different fiscal and monetary policies so of course the value of money could not be frozen in place. This led to the end of the gold standard completely in 1971–73, resulting in a disastrous inflation bout.

No question that the next great monetary reform will be to globalize a central bank digital currency with track-and-trace capability and the power to turn money on and off on political whim. In order to make this possible, government now needs to eliminate all the competition, just as they did in 1813.

None of this mucking around with the money is in the public interest. It is in the government’s interest and also its industrial partners in banking and finance. A full denationalization of money is the fix for the whole problem but getting there from here will require dislodging the government of its penchant for controlling the economic forces of the whole realm. It’s an age-old problem and perhaps the greatest challenge of all ages.

https://t.co/z5tfJThm9J

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 3, 2024

ZeroHedge is partnering with Crypto Banter to bring together four top minds to debate one of the most combustible topics of the day: gold or bitcoin?

In the anti-crypto corner is the man whose name is synonymous with “gold”, infamous crypto bear Peter Schiff. Alongside Schiff will be “Dr. Doom”, renowned economist Nouriel Roubini.

Arguing in favor of crypto will be Anthony Scaramucci - wealth manager with over $10 billion in AUM - as well as day-one crypto veteran Erik Voorhees, founder of ShapeShift and torch-bearer for the asset class’s libertarian roots.

The debate will be moderated by Ran Neuner, founder and host of Crypto Banter, one of the largest digital asset news channels on YouTube.

ZeroHedge would also like to thank our sponsors for this debate: Preserve Gold and BITLAYER — “Layer 2. The future of Bitcoin.” Whether you’re a fan of gold or Bitcoin, you probably see the wisdom in diversifying away from U.S. dollars. Do so by visiting their websites and checking out their products. ZeroHedge Goldbugs can access a special offer from Preserve Gold by texting “ZERO” to 50505.

And so, without further ado, let's get ready to rumble. 

Yahya Saree, spokesperson for the Iranian-backed Houthi terror group, declared in a televised speech to supporters at a Friday rally in Al-Sabeen Square, Sana, that they intend to target Israel-linked ships in the eastern Mediterranean. The risk of conflict spilling over from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden remains high. 

"We will target any ship heading to Israeli ports in the Mediterranean, in any area we are able to reach," Saree said. 

Given that the eastern Mediterranean is 1,900 kilometers (1,180 miles) from Yemen, this may indicate that the conflict area is broadening, triggering a new escalation of the multi-month war. 

Fernando Ferreira, energy analyst at Rapidan Energy Group, noted:

"The Houthi nuisance continues, but they are at the limit of their ability to cause disruptions. The real risk of escalation comes from Israeli retaliation on IRGC officers/assets helping the Houthis."

This comes as Houthis have attacked dozens of Western and Israel-linked commercial vessels and military ships across the southern Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, Gulf of Aden, and even the Strait of Hormuz since last November. The group claims these maritime attacks are in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. 

Saree warned if the Israel Defense Forces launched an attack on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are sheltering from the seven-month-long war. They would've no other choice but to impose sanctions on all ships of the companies that are supplying Israel and entering Israeli ports. 

What's clear—and the West won't like it—is that the Houthis appear to be expanding their attack coverage as numerous maritime chokepoints in the region are under constant threat. 

We pointed out Thursday that Operation Prosperity Guardian, the US-led maritime coalition launched by the Biden administration earlier this year, has been largely a failure. 

Maritime traffic data from Bloomberg shows not one single LNG vessel with destinations to Europe and the US was transiting the Red Sea for fear of being attacked by Houthi drones and missiles. 

Conflict spillover risks are mounting in the Middle East. Yet the war risk premium in Brent crude has been subsiding in recent weeks. 

US diplomats and the Pentagon have been in retreat from the West African nation of Niger, while also scrambling to maintain some influence there, following the junta seizing power in a coup in July 2023. Niger's military toppled the US-friendly government of President Mohamed Bazoum, who was taken hostage.

Among the first orders of the junta was to tell US troops in the country to pack up their stuff and get out. The US is commonly estimated to have had 1,100 troops in the country. At the same time the junta is displaying its warmer relations with Russia and its forces, declaring an alliance with 'anti-imperialist' nations. French troops have already exited the country.

On Friday there are widespread reports that Russian troops have actually entered American military bases, with US troops in the process exiting, but some still present. This is said to already be happening at Air Base 101 in Niamey, the capital city.

Amazingly, there's some degree of logistical overlap as the Russians pour in and Pentagon personnel are being pressured out: 

A senior U.S. defense official told Reuters that the Russian forces are not mingling with the American troops at the base, but were instead using a separate hangar.

The official described the situation as being “not great” but “manageable” in the short-term. Sources similarly told CNN that the Russians and Americans are not operating in the same part of the base, but one said “it is not that big of an area.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has sought to downplay the bizarre situation in statements issued from Hawaii.

"The Russians are in a separate compound and don’t have access to U.S. forces or access to our equipment," Austin said. "I’m always focused on the safety and protection of our troops... But right now, I don’t see a significant issue here in terms of our force protection."

Perhaps the rival troops will become drinking buddies and seek to heal the 'new Cold War 2.0'?... 

Amid the pressure from the ruling Junta, and failed efforts to reverse course, the Pentagon has now committed to leaving Niger, but has not issued a timeline on a full withdrawal.

The Russians and heavy equipment, which included at least one air defense battery, began arriving in Niger in greater numbers starting last month, state media reported at the time. There's a likelihood that private military firm Wagner is also present in the country.

Starting last year Washington has moved to restrict what military aid it can give to the country. In short, Washington is on the way out and Moscow is moving in. There are fears this could be happening in other parts of Africa as well, impacting US AFRICOM's operations.

???????????????? In the capital of Niger the flags of Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Russia are flying.

This was done to celebrate the ties of friendship and cooperation that bind Niger with its closest allies.

Two Majors pic.twitter.com/A55vxMWHWE

— dana (@dana916) May 3, 2024

Since the ouster of President Bazoum by military generals, the Biden administration has been scrambling to find influence also as junta has cemented with two neighboring countries also 'unfriendly' to the West: Mali and Burkina Faso, also led by juntas. Among the first major acts that Niger’s post-coup government did was to expel France's some 1,500 troops - all of which finally left in December.

American officials have been especially worried about the major drone base only recently built at a cost of $110 million called Air Base 201, which was crucial for Pentagon drone surveillance operations over the region. Likely it will now have to be shuttered, but without doubt US diplomats are busy begging Niger's post-coup military to allow it to remain.