Tehran has warned of immediate retaliation to any attack following US President Donald Trump’s threat of new strikes
Iran has vowed a swift and harsh response to any act of aggression following renewed military threats from the US and Israel.
On Monday, US President Donald Trump, standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened to “knock the hell” out of Iran if it tries to rebuild its nuclear or ballistic missile projects.
In response, Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared on X that Iran’s defense doctrine dictates that “some responses are determined long before threats reach the stage of execution.” He warned that any aggression would be met with an “immediate” and “harsh” response “beyond the imagination of its planners.”
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed the warning on Tuesday, stating that “Iran’s response to any tyrannical aggression will be harsh and regrettable.” Earlier, he also framed the tensions as part of a broader conflict, stating that Iran is in a “full-scale war with the US, Israel and Europe.”
The verbal exchange comes months after a 12-day air war in June, when the US and Israel conducted a joint airstrike campaign against Iranian nuclear sites, claiming, without evidence, that Tehran was developing a nuclear weapon. Iran denied the accusations and responded with its own strikes on Israel.
Russia, meanwhile, has called for de-escalation. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Tuesday that Moscow believes it is necessary to “refrain from any steps that could lead to an escalation of tension in the region” and that “dialogue with Iran” should be the priority.
Russian President Vladimir Putin also held a phone call with Pezeshkian on Tuesday during which the two leaders discussed bilateral ties, strategic cooperation, as well as the situation around Iran’s nuclear program, according to the Kremlin.
The Russian central bank is making constant liquidity injections, but this isn’t quite the harbinger of doom some Western analysts would like to think
Western pundits have developed a pastime for predicting the collapse of the Russian economy, particularly since 2022. Alas, prognosticating success has so far eluded them.
But as the old disclaimer states, past performance does not guarantee future results. Being wrong ten times in a row does not ensure they’ll be wrong the 11th. The arguments have to be evaluated on their own merits.
Generating a bit of attention on social media is a thread by analyst Oliver Alexander that paints a dire picture of the Russian economy. It starts with the assertion that “Russia’s economy hasn’t collapsed, but it is suffering immensely. It still runs, but only because the central bank keeps it alive with constant repo liquidity. What was once emergency support is now the daily operating system.”
The author goes on to assert that “repo usage shows the stress clearly. Trillions of rubles are borrowed week after week by the banks with no unwind. Banks aren’t smoothing short-term shocks anymore. They are refinancing theirs and the economy’s survival on a rolling basis.”
Let’s stop and understand the claim being made. Repo, short for repurchase agreement, is part of the plumbing of any modern financial system and is usually a tool to manage liquidity. It entails selling securities (such as government bonds) with a promise to buy them back later at a slightly higher price.
There is nothing unusual about banks using repo, which they do for various reasons: to smooth short-term liquidity mismatches, deal with temporary payment flows, or even to arbitrage small rate differentials. However, what Russian banks are doing is using repo not to smooth funding but as a core source of liquidity. The banks just don’t have much free cash lying around.
Facilitating this is a tool called monthly repo auctions, which were reintroduced after a hiatus in November 2024 and moved to a weekly basis the following April, clearly a sign that liquidity pressures were growing. These auctions are not about smoothing funding gaps but are a policy of direct and structural liquidity management (rather than ad-hoc crisis lending to banks). Use of this facility has been very high of late. For example, the Russian central bank (CBR) allotted a record 3.6 trillion rubles (about $46 billion) in repo on December 23.
What this means in practice is that there is a closed loop. The Finance Ministry issues government bonds (called OFZs), which are bought (primarily) by large Russian banks, which are essentially compelled to buy these bonds whether they want to or not. But the banks do not hold all of these OFZs as investments but rather ship many of them off to the CBR in exchange for ruble liquidity.
The rubles they get in return are what keeps the lights on at the banks and provides liquidity to the economy. Normally, repo deals mature and are unwound, thus draining liquidity out of the system. But in Russia, this repo is constantly being rolled over and volumes are rising.
Separately, and not to be confused with liquidity management, OFZ-to-repo schemes have also been used on a couple of occasions to ensure absorption of fiscal deficits (in 2022 and 2024). Because Russia has no access to foreign borrowing and selling government bonds at scale into the market is not viable given current interest rates, this is a key channel where the gap can be covered.
This may all sound ominous – and that is clearly the impression Alexander is trying to convey – as if Russia is resorting to desperate and unprecedented financial engineering. But is it really so exotic? It’s actually just a harsher, more concentrated version of the same playbook that has been widely used across the G7 – but without the reckless speculation that has made these regimes so hard to exit elsewhere. Russia’s policy mix of high rates but regular liquidity provision through repo is unusual, but in its essentials it is not fundamentally different from the frameworks we have seen in developed economies.
There is a technical difference between repo-based liquidity provision and the G7-style central-bank bond purchases (known by the fancy name of quantitative easing, or QE). Repo is formally a loan against collateral and is typically a liquidity-management tool. QE involves the central bank buying government bonds outright, removing them from the market, and injecting reserves directly into the banking system.
QE is framed as stimulus, while Russia’s repo is framed as plumbing support under tight policy. QE in the G7 was designed to lower long-term yields and encourage risk-taking, whereas Russia is explicitly not trying to lower rates through its repo operations. But in Russia’s case, the repo scheme is now semi-permanent and structural, and is often being rolled over rather than unwound, so the line is a bit blurred. Russia is not doing QE, but at scale the economic effect is functionally similar.
In both cases, the state comes to rely on the domestic banking system, banks become structurally dependent on central-bank liquidity, and public debt is absorbed within a more or less closed financial circuit under the long shadow of the central bank. The plumbing shifts from decentralized private intermediation toward central-bank balance sheets. Both regimes are inflationary.
This arrangement can’t be called healthy and has its own risks, but it is not necessarily unstable – as long as inflation remains under control. Furthermore, for all of the imbalances being created, Russia may actually have an easier time later unwinding it because it hasn’t resorted to inflating asset prices as a transmission mechanism (a classic QE pathology). It is thus avoiding the large speculative asset bubbles that later have to be protected or managed during normalization.
This is one reason why G7-style QE has proven so hard to exit. The US has failed at quantitative tightening and is now quietly restarting QE (though not calling it that). By maintaining high interest rates and discouraging speculative risk-taking, Russia trades the asset-price excesses typical of QE regimes for a system that is more insulated from external shocks.
Skeptics will argue that Russia’s isolation concentrates the risk in particularly dangerous ways. Alexander says as much: “Russia is funding its budget almost entirely from inside its own financial system, with no external shock absorber left.” This is true to an extent: in the unlikely event the CBR mismanages policy or if some unforeseen shock occurs, things could go south real quick. But the exact opposite is also true: Russia’s enclosed system takes a whole host of risks off the table.
And this leads us to an aspect of the situation that often goes overlooked. Because Russia has almost no foreign debt, the Russian state and banking system owe almost everything in rubles, to themselves. All liabilities can be serviced in a currency controlled by the Russian state. There is no forced interaction with global capital markets and no immediate rollover risk tied to exchange rates (think debt crises in Türkiye or Argentina). The main “textbook” crisis channels are neutralized: Russia owes almost everything in rubles, and can compel banks to absorb debt rather than rely on finicky foreign investors not to fire-sale the stuff; it can roll over repo indefinitely; and it controls capital flows. Russia’s commodity exports, even sold at discounts, also serve as a backstop. Those hoping for a big 1998-style meltdown are bound to be sorely disappointed.
In general, financial systems heavy on central-bank involvement can be stable for far longer than critics expect. Just look at Japan, the inventor of QE, which has been keeping the jig going for decades. The Bank of Japan has long been the dominant buyer of government bonds, while in the 1990s, following the asset bubble collapse, many banks were structurally reliant on the BoJ to maintain liquidity. A similar circular loop emerged, complete with chronic deficits and enormous debt. This regime has done little to revive growth, but it has proven remarkably stable and durable.
Europe followed a similar path after the sovereign debt crisis. For years, the European Central Bank was the largest buyer of euro-area government bonds, at times holding roughly a third of outstanding sovereign debt. Interbank markets fragmented, particularly in the southern periphery, and banks relied heavily on ECB liquidity. The system functioned – awkwardly and imperfectly – but it did not collapse.
Russia’s situation is obviously not an exact parallel. Capital controls stabilize liquidity but mute price signals, while sanctions shut off access to foreign capital. Wartime spending compresses time horizons. As a result, the central bank’s role is more explicit and more direct. Yet the underlying logic is not alien. The financial system pivots around the central bank and liquidity is continuously backstopped.
There’s another important point to be made. Russia is basically running a war economy. Western analysts love to needle the Russian government about calling its actions a “special military operation” and not a “war” but then proceed to analyze the Russian economy by peacetime standards. To be fair, Russia has tried to have it both ways and has actually been quite successful in that regard. It is running a war economy that maintains much market flexibility.
But hybrid or not, it’s still fundamentally on a war footing. And war is inflationary. War explodes government spending and changes time priorities – resources are needed now. Yes, war-relevant sectors of the economy become politically protected and overfunded, while civilian sectors get the short end of the stick (temporarily). There is nothing shocking about this, nor are the excess demand and labor shortages that Russia is facing somehow abnormal.
Debt issuance becomes less about price and more about absorption capacity. Banks stop looking to maximize profits and become allocation channels instead. When Alexander pointed out that the Finance Ministry “quietly changed OFZ targets” to emphasize not “how many bonds are placed,” but “how much cash is raised,” he was merely stating the obvious for any country at war.
If anything, Russia has engaged in less financial repression than might have been expected and certainly far less than has been seen in the past. In 1942, the US Treasury needed to finance deficits exceeding 25% of GDP. The Federal Reserve agreed to cap Treasury yields and buy unlimited amounts of government debt. This was pure money printing. Like Russia, the US imposed capital controls and forced banks to hold government debt. But it also set ceilings on deposit rates, preventing banks from competing for funds and effectively forcing savers into government bonds – all to keep borrowing costs down.
Those bondholders then watched as the real value of their holdings went up in smoke due to inflation (remember: war means inflation) and they got little more than a pat on the back and a “thank you for taking one on the chin for your country.”
None of this means that the Russian economy isn’t in a state of stress. The OFZ-repo loop isn’t the precipice it is being portrayed as, but it isn’t free and, ultimately, isn’t sustainable. The main outlet is inflation, which is what absorbs the shocks and what remains the biggest risk. I live in Russia and I can confirm that inflation is real. But it’s not out of control and even subsided later in 2025. Moreover, rising wages are offsetting some of the pain.
The high interest rates necessary to keep inflation subdued are clearly hurting businesses. This is no secret and it is widely admitted that rates need to come down for investment to recover. Germany, meanwhile, which isn’t fighting a war, is facing 24,000 company bankruptcies in 2025.
The Russian economy has been remarkably resilient, but it is clearly operating under strain and with heavy government intervention. However, the conditions that typically trigger a sudden, acute crisis are nowhere to be found, and people who think otherwise misunderstand what actually causes financial crises.
Those still hoping to impose a strategic defeat on Russia look with expectant eyes upon the tantalizing signs of strain in the Russian economy. But this mirage always ends up being just a bit too far over the horizon.
Masonic leaders say the Metropolitan Police’s new requirement is discriminatory
Freemasons have asked the UK High Court for an emergency injunction to block the Metropolitan Police’s new requirement that officers and staff must declare if they are members of Freemasonry or similar groups, according to media reports.
The policy is part of ongoing investigations into alleged masonic influence within the department.
The move seeks to halt enforcement of the rule while a full judicial review is prepared, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) reportedly said on Monday.
UGLE, which represents Freemasonry in England, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, has opposed the policy, arguing that classifying Freemasonry as a “declarable” association amounts to religious discrimination.
Under the policy introduced in December, officers and staff must disclose current or past membership in any organization that is “hierarchical, has confidential membership and requires members to support and protect each other.”
In its court filing, UGLE said Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley “is making up the law on the hoof” and accused the force of “whipping up conspiracy theories” about Freemasons’ influence.
UGLE grand secretary Adrian Marsh said the police decision to add Freemasonry to the force’s declarable association list was made without adequate consultation and risks impugning members’ integrity.
“There is a contradiction between the Met acceptance of our request for fuller consultation… but then refusing to suspend the decision pending the outcome of that consultation,” The Guardian quoted Marsh as saying.
He previously stated that there are 440 Freemasons among the Met’s 32,135 officers, asserting that it is “inconceivable” for this small number to exert any influence on the force.
The Metropolitan Police has said it will “robustly defend” the policy, which it views as part of efforts to restore public trust and confidence. A spokesperson said the changes were made to ensure there is “no opportunity for secret loyalties” to affect policing.
The requirement follows a recommendation from the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which examined police handling of the unsolved 1987 murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan. The panel’s 2021 report said officers’ links to Freemasonry had been “a source of recurring suspicion and mistrust” during investigations and followed decades of inquiries that raised allegations of corruption.
A deal with Russia would be “a catastrophe” for Kiev’s foreign backers, Stanislav Krapivnik has told RT
Ukraine’s backers in Western Europe are against a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev because it would be a “catastrophe” for them, according to former US Army officer and military commentator Stanislav Krapivnik.
Krapivnik made the remarks following the attempted Ukrainian kamikaze drone attack on the residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The incident came shortly after US President Donald Trump indicated that the Ukraine peace process was approaching a conclusion, following his meeting with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and a phone call with Putin on Sunday.
Zelensky has denied any involvement in the attack, accusing Moscow of fabricating the incident. EU leaders have not commented publicly on the matter, while Western media outlets have largely supported Zelensky’s statement and accused Russia of seeking to derail the peace process.
“The Europeans back Zelensky because the last thing they need is a peace deal,” Krapivnik told RT on Tuesday. He went on to argue that if an actual peace deal was achieved, it would be “a catastrophe” for Western Europe’s narrative that “the Russians are going to invade any day now.”
Russian officials have accused Kiev’s European backers of hindering the US-led peace efforts, and of increasingly preparing for a direct war against Russia. Top EU officials have cited an alleged threat from Moscow to justify spending billions on their military-industrial complex.
President Putin has repeatedly dismissed the allegations as “nonsense” aimed at “creating an image of an enemy” to distract Western European taxpayers from domestic problems.
As the US-led military bloc divides, a pro-war cabal has been shouting loudest but changing little
A year of anniversaries – and alarms
While 2025 marked 80 years since the end of the Second World War, in which up to 40 million people died, it seems that NATO members and executives are dangerously keen for a repeat. Senior bloc officials, generals, and EU political leaders repeatedly warned their publics to prepare for war with Russia – including the possibility of sacrificing their children, rationing civilian life, and accepting permanent militarization.
This surge in rhetoric came as the West polarized. US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic push for a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine conflict exposed the division and democratic deficit in the EU as much as it revealed polarization in NATO led by a coalition pushing maximalist, war-ready messages.
Western Europe has produced no coherent strategy, only a noisy, megaphone diplomacy that spiked in inverse relationship to the group’s ability to actually influence the course of events.
The ‘coalition of the willing’
At the center of this shift was the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ – an informal grouping of NATO members, mostly from Western and Northern Europe, that positioned itself as the moral and military vanguard of confrontation with Russia.
It operates through political signaling and rhetoric. Its members talk more than they deploy, warn more than they plan, and issue ever-graver statements about existential threats while insisting they are independent of Washington for any actual military escalation.
As NATO, the EU, and individual member states found themselves increasingly misaligned in 2025, this group filled the vacuum with rhetoric – megaphone diplomacy and posturing substituting for strategy.
In December, Britain’s most senior military officer, Richard Knighton, publicly warned that citizens must be prepared to sacrifice their sons and daughters in a future war with Russia. The statement was not tied to any imminent threat or declared operational plan. Seriously.
Weeks earlier, France’s army chief, Fabien Mandon, delivered a similar message to local officials, declaring French people should be prepared to lose their sons in a war with Russia.
Warmonger-in-chief, the Netherlands’ Mark Rutte, has had an extraordinary year, demonstrating a sycophantism above and beyond duty. Rutte’s opportunism to call for sacrificing social benefits in order to hit that NATO 5% target is both unsurprising and sad. In December he announced that the people of Europe should be ready for a war akin to that fought by their grandparents (Rutte’s father lived in Indonesia, a Dutch colony, didn’t fight, and was interned by Japan).
This from the man whose obsequious posturing inured him to “Daddy” Trump, following the US president’s F-bomb-laden remarks over Middle East ceasefire failures.
French President Emmanuel Macron warned of a threat to European liberty greater than at any time since the 1940s, while Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen declared that Europe faced its most dangerous moment since the war’s end.
What united these statements was not intelligence disclosures or new strategic realities, but timing.
Despite the intensity of its language, Western Europe’s war posture in 2025 was marked by limited material capacity and increasingly shrill statements. EU states struggled to meet existing weapons production goals, failed to force through a move to steal Russia’s assets frozen in the bloc, and remained dependent on US to put its money where their mouths were.
The shrill, ahistorical, war-hungry rhetoric was ratcheted up across the ‘coalition of the willing’ in the aftermath of a devastating corruption scandal involving Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle and the US move to suddenly launch a peace initiative that sidelined Western Europe in an extraordinary weekend of diplomacy.
On October 1, Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen stated that Europe faces its most dangerous situation since WWII. You’d think she’d be more worried about the US taking Greenland and training her security forces on what an actual drone threat is and why warning of one when there is none is counterproductive.
The largely impotent European Commission, the very group that failed to steal Russia’s assets despite months of wrangling, got in on the act by issuing guidance for citizens to stockpile 72 hours’ worth of supplies in the event of war with Russia. Imagine we are back to “climb under the table” rhetoric.
Corruption scandals inside Ukraine further undermined confidence in the sustainability of prolonged escalation. Yet rather than prompting reassessment, the graft scandals and failures coincided with louder calls for sacrifice and confrontation.
War talk as political insurance
By mid-2025, escalation rhetoric had begun to serve a secondary function. As the Trump administration pushed diplomacy and signaled reluctance to bankroll an open-ended proxy war, parts of the European establishment appeared to hedge against peace itself.
Military Keynesianism – sustaining economic activity through defence spending – became an unspoken assumption. So did the political utility of external threat narratives, which helped deflect attention from economic stagnation, institutional weakness and leadership failures within the EU.
In this context, warnings of war did not reflect momentum toward conflict so much as anxiety about losing relevance if peace arrived on American terms.
The louder NATO and European leaders warned of war in 2025, the clearer it became that rhetoric was compensating for a lack of control. As Washington explored diplomatic exits and Moscow waited for concrete proposals, Western Europe’s most vocal hawks found themselves shouting from the sidelines.
In general, we can assume that NATO and the EU have a vested interest in war – they have bet on military Keynesianism to keep their ailing economies turning over, and fill the hole left by Trump’s refusal to pursue a war Biden sold to Brussels.
The closer to peace the Trump-led initiative can bring Ukraine and Russia, the more we should expect toxicity from NATO, the EU, and the ‘coalition of the willing’.
Targeting the Russian president while seeking Donald Trump’s help with a peace deal is too blatant, Larry Johnson has told RT
The Ukrainian drone attack on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence earlier this week may have been staged by elements of the government in Kiev to undermine Vladimir Zelensky, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson has told RT.
Moscow said the attempt to strike the state residence in Novgorod Region occurred overnight from Sunday to Monday, coinciding with Zelensky’s US visit to negotiate with President Donald Trump. Johnson called the timing suspicious.
“I don’t think he [Zelensky] is that stupid to launch that kind of attack while meeting with Trump,” he argued in an interview on Tuesday. Johnson said he would not be surprised if Ukrainian intelligence personnel, possibly acting on orders from Kirill Budanov, head of the military espionage agency HUR, were involved.
“To do something so outrageous and so blatant while you are sitting there with Trump and your entire delegation to talk peace… There are clear elements in Ukraine that do not want peace, that are profiting too much from this war, and that were trying to sabotage [American mediation],” he added.
Johnson suggested that if Zelensky were behind the raid, it would give Trump more reason to withdraw support permanently. He said a more likely scenario is that domestic political opponents staged the attack to pressure Zelensky out of power, potentially paving the way for former top general Valery Zaluzhny to take over.
Moscow described the incident as a failed attempt to derail peace talks by provoking a Russian overreaction. Kiev denied any attack on Putin’s residence, with Zelensky claiming Moscow was preparing to strike the government district in Kiev.
Zelensky holds presidential powers under martial law after his term expired last year. Opinion polls consistently show that in a hypothetical election, Zelensky would lose to Zaluzhny in a second round, or possibly to Budanov if Zaluzhny declined to run. Neither military official has publicly expressed presidential ambitions.
One of the chief suspects is reportedly linked to a long-time business partner of Vladimir Zelensky
Western-backed anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine have disclosed information concerning an alleged bribery scheme in the Ukrainian parliament, with media reports previously linking a suspect in the corruption ring to a long-time business partner of Vladimir Zelensky.
On Monday, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) announced charges against five lawmakers they claim were part of a broader group that sells their votes for bribes. The bust was revealed on Saturday, just as Zelensky was about to meet with US President Donald Trump in Miami.
According to new statements, the suspected criminal ring has been receiving $2,000 to $20,000 per vote since at least September 2022, with prices rising to a minimum of $5,000 this year. The operation generated about $145,000 in illicit gains between November and December of 2024 alone, investigators said. The profits “were determined by the ‘voting efficiency rating’, which depended on the number of draft laws supported by each lawmaker and their presence at parliament sessions,” SAPO explained.
Ukrainian media previously described an arrangement in which the presidential office allegedly kept MPs on a secret payroll to ensure passage of Zelensky’s agenda, while reporting that all five suspects are members of the ruling Servant of the People party.
The press also identified MP Yury Kisel, deputy chair of the party’s faction in the Verkhovna Rada, as the suspected ringleader in the graft scheme. Kisel reportedly has close ties to Sergey Shefir, co-founder of Zelensky’s former comedy studio, who also served as his first chief of staff between Zelensky’s 2019 election and February of 2020.
Shefir’s son Nikita is Kisel’s aide, Bihus.info reported in 2021. Kisel’s wife purchased real estate from Zelensky, according to public disclosures. Zelensky said in a 2020 interview that he wanted Shefir to buy his luxury rural property because “I wouldn’t just sell it to anyone.”
Anti-graft agencies earlier charged Zelensky’s associate Timur Mindich with running a multimillion-dollar kickback scheme at the state-owned nuclear energy monopoly Energoatom. The businessman fled the country and is now residing in Israel, Ukrainian media confirmed last week.
The investigation comes after a YouTuber claimed to have uncovered a massive Somali-run scam to steal taxpayer money
US federal agents kicked off a large-scale investigation in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Monday after a massive fraud scheme involving Somali-run childcare centers appeared to have been uncovered in a viral video, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced.
The probe follows an expose posted by YouTuber Nick Shirley last week, in which he visited facilities like the Quality Learing Center – notable for its misspelled sign – showing tinted windows and empty parking lots, but no children. He alleged that these centers have received millions in taxpayer dollars for non-existent services, saying his crew had uncovered over $110 million in fraud in just one day. The video caught the attention of US Vice President J.D. Vance and billionaire Elon Musk.
In response, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced a “massive investigation on childcare and other rampant fraud,” posting videos of agents questioning business operators. FBI Director Kash Patel said resources had been “surged” to Minnesota, warning that these cases were just “the tip of a very large iceberg” and that perpetrators could face “denaturalization and deportation.”
DHS is on the ground in Minneapolis, going DOOR TO DOOR at suspected fraud sites.
The American people deserve answers on how their taxpayer money is being used and ARRESTS when abuse is found. Under the leadership of @Sec_Noem, DHS is working to deliver results. pic.twitter.com/7XtRflv36b
A federal prosecutor estimated half or more of the $18 billion in federal funds sent to Minnesota since 2018 may have been stolen. The overwhelming majority of defendants in recent years have been of Somali descent, including in the ‘Feeding Our Future’ case, where $250 million were reportedly stolen through a COVID-19 food aid scam.
Minnesota’s Democratic Governor Tim Walz has defended his administration, while lauding the state’s diverse makeup and large Somali community. Meanwhile, state officials have disputed Shirley’s findings, claiming the centers featured in his video had been inspected within the last six months with “no findings of fraud.”
However, conflicting reports have since emerged regarding the now infamous Quality Learing Center. State officials have told the media that the center was shut down last week, but the New York Post reported from the scene on Monday that it had suddenly been overrun by children. A local resident told the outlet that they had never seen kids go in there before, while an employee of the daycare center told the Post’s reporter to “get the f**k out of here.”
The nuclear-capable weapon can carry multiple individually targetable warheads that retain control at hypersonic speeds
Russia’s cutting-edge nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile system has entered service in Belarus, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has announced.
In a statement on Tuesday, the ministry said the medium-range system has officially “assumed combat duty.” It also released the first-ever official footage of the system, showing its delivery and installation in Belarus, along with a ceremony marking the commencement of its combat duty.
“All conditions for combat duty and accommodation of Russian personnel were prepared in advance in Belarus,” the ministry noted, adding that crews responsible for launch, communications, security, and power supply “underwent retraining on modern facilities” before entering service. The personnel are now exploring new patrol areas and conducting reconnaissance.
Unveiled in November 2024, an Oreshnik carrying conventional warheads struck a major military plant in Ukraine in what Moscow called a successful “combat test.” It is capable of delivering multiple independently targetable warheads (MIRVs) at hypersonic speeds, with each warhead maintaining guidance and maneuverability even during the final approach, making interception extremely difficult.
Russian officials have likened its conventional destructive power to that of a low-yield nuclear strike, highlighting its dual strategic and tactical potential. By comparison, Western militaries currently lack a directly equivalent hypersonic MIRV-capable system, giving Oreshnik a unique edge in speed, maneuverability, and multi-target strike capability.
Up to ten systems are slated for deployment in Belarus under an agreement reached between Minsk and Moscow shortly after the missile’s initial combat test.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko announced in a parliamentary address this month that the Oreshnik systems had arrived in Belarus on December 17. Deputy Defense Minister Pavel Muraveyko said last week the combat patrol areas are set and the system is fully operational and ready for use.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a mid-December address to the Defense Ministry, said the Oreshnik will also enter combat in Russia before the end of the year. He emphasized that the system is part of Russia’s new weaponry meant to “ensure strategic parity, security, and global positions of Russia for decades to come.”
Ukraine is more interested in money than in sharing energy from Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant
Vladimir Zelensky has pushed back on US President Donald Trump’s comment that Russia has shown “generosity” towards Ukraine, wants it to succeed, and is prepared to share energy resources with Kiev.
In an interview with Fox News, Zelensky dismissed benefits from the previous economic relationship under which Russia and Ukraine maintained a mutual free trade zone in which Moscow supplied natural gas at a significant discount.
Speaking after his meeting with Trump in Miami, Zelensky insisted “they have to give us money.” After that, “we will decide what to do.”
Ukraine’s economy is in dire straits. Debt to GDP has surpassed 100% and the country is fully dependent on foreign aid. Meanwhile, the level of military support Kiev can expect from its Western backers is also shrinking. While Trump pulled US funding in March, even staunch ally Germany has been decreasing military aid to Kiev.
Following a divisive failure to effectively steal Russian assets to prop up Ukraine, the EU (minus three countries that received exemptions) agreed to borrow €90 billion to finance Kiev through 2026
On Monday, Western-backed anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine announced charges against five lawmakers accused of taking bribes ranging from $2,000 to $20,000 for their votes since at least September 2022. Ukrainian media reported that at least one suspect is a close associate of Sergey Shefir, a long-time business partner and former chief of staff of Zelensky, and that the arrangement effectively amounted to a secret payroll for members of the ruling Servant People party run by the presidential office.
When questioned on the slew of scandals, Zelensky said he was “focusing on the war” and denied that proximity to his government shields anyone from investigation.
