THE NEWS

President Trump branded a US ground invasion in Iran a “waste of time” and said Iran has “lost everything” – after Tehran’s foreign minister claimed the regime was “waiting” for American and Israeli forces. Trump downplayed Abbas Araghchi’s claim as a “wasted comment” on Thursday night, telling NBC News, “They’ve lost their navy. They’ve lost…

Penny Harris felt something was wrong when her husband didn’t answer his phone and tracked his location to alert ski patrol.

DENVER — Lakers star Luka Dončić was confused as to why he was assessed a technical foul during the second quarter of Thursday’s 120-113 road loss to the Nuggets at Ball Arena on Thursday night, which was his 15th technical of the season. If Dončić is assessed one more technical foul over the Lakers’ final…

The Planned “NATO Bank” Is Expected To Finance Europe’s Impending Arms Race With Russia

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The Russian-Polish security dilemma will likely serve as the impetus for fully unleashing and properly managing the capabilities of European NATO as a whole per the US’ National Defense Strategy.

RT drew attention in late January to a report by Izvestia about the West’s alleged plans to launch a “Defense, Security, and Resilience Bank” (DSRB) by 2027. Their article relies on in-depth research by the Atlantic Council, which came up with the idea of what was at first called the “NATO Bank”. The purpose is to provide “low-interest loans for defense modernization”, thus facilitating the goal of NATO members spending 5% of GDP on defense without significantly curtailing social and infrastructure spending.

Instead of slashing such programs to redirect funds to defense at the risk of helping populist-nationalists during the next elections and/or provoking unrest, they’d only spend a fraction of the principal each year servicing their DSRB loan instead of paying the cost upfront as if it was part of their annual expenditures. The Executive Summary of the Atlantic Council’s in-depth research hyperlinked to above also notes that “An additional critical function of the DSR bank would be to underwrite the risk for commercial banks”.

This would then “enabl[e] them to extend financing to defense companies across the supply chain.” The supplementary purpose is to finance large-scale orders that these companies themselves are unable to afford on their own and most member states can’t finance either without potential populist pushback. Defense companies can then expand production, pump out the requested military-technical equipment at scale, and then sell it at a much more affordable price for accelerating NATO’s planned militarization.

The bloc’s Eastern Flank, which largely overlaps with the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative”, is expected to benefit the most. Poland is already poised to receive €44 billion in loans from the EU’s €150 billion “Security Action For Europe” program (SAFE, which is part of the €800 billion “ReArm Europe Plan”). This should help modernize its embarrassingly underdeveloped military-industrial complex and thus enable Poland to serve as the regional core of associated processes across the rest of the Eastern Flank.

The aforesaid role would become much more likely if it and Lithuania succeed in creating a defense-centric cross-border economic zone across the Suwalki Corridor/Gap like the latter just proposed. The US National Defense Strategy assessed that “European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power.” This potential just needs to be fully unleashed and properly managed. Poland could pioneer the way if it allows the US to advise it on the optimal use of SAFE and DSRB loans.

It was already assessed that “Poland Will Play A Central Role In Advancing The US’ National Security Strategy In Europe” so it therefore naturally follows that it’ll play a central role in the National Defense Strategy too. Poland already spends more of its GDP on defense than any other NATO member at 4.8%, however, so anything much more might result in curtailing social and infrastructure spending, but therein lies the importance of the DSRB for enabling Poland to avert that trade-off as was explained.

Poland’s debt-to-GDP is 55.1%, which is far below the EU’s 80.7%, so it could take on more debt through these means without too much socio-political discomfort. This is feasible after Poland just became a $1 trillion economy. Any additional military spending fueled by the DSRB would further accelerate Poland’s unprecedented militarization, which has led to it having the EU’s largest army at over 215,000 troops, with plans to reach 300,000 by 2030 and half a million by 2039 (200,000 of which would be reservists).

From Russia’s perspective, this poses a serious threat to Kaliningrad and allied Belarus, ergo why it’s expected to correspondingly bolster its forces there in response. That could also include the deployment of more strategic arms to Belarus like tactical nukes, hypersonic Oreshniks, and/or whatever else it might develop by then. Such responses are in turn expected to be portrayed by Poland as the reason for its unprecedented militarization that policymakers might then demand to be sped up even further.

The Russian-Polish security dilemma, which is due to their millennium-old rivalry and the US’ empowering of Poland as an anti-Russian proxy, will likely serve as the impetus for fully unleashing and properly managing the capabilities of European NATO as a whole per the US’ National Defense Strategy. Any progress in this direction would compel Russia to keep pace with this hostile bloc’s Polish-led militarization, therefore resulting in its own continued militarization and consequently an arms race.

Unlike European NATO members which will have to take out loans to finance this, hence the purpose of the DSRB, Russia can finance everything on its own. This places Russia in a much better financial position than its adversaries, some of whom are expected to struggle with balancing their perceived military priorities with their objective socio-economic ones.

Accordingly, Russia has the edge in this impending arms race with Europe, but the EU’s potential federalization could narrow the gap if it ever happens.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/06/2026 – 03:30

Sheriff Gerald Couch told police he had been drinking since 6 am.

LeBron James said after the Lakers’ loss to the Nuggets on Thursday night that his left elbow was “pretty sore” after his late fall and is day-to-day.

Money is flowing Team USA’s way ahead of their 2026 World Baseball Classic opener against Brazil on Friday. 

Dear Abby advises a woman who’s son won’t pay her back for his education loans she cosigned.

The Roman Empire Peaked In 117 AD

What did Ancient Rome look like at its peak in 117 AD? 

The map below from Visual Capitalist shows the maximum territorial extent ever achieved by the Roman Empire, just after their successful wars in the east, where Emperor Trajan captured Dacia (Romania), Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, and the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon (in modern-day Iraq).

Click on the map to expand…

As Visual Capitalist explains further, although Trajan is rated as one of the best Roman Emperors by historians and was considered one of the strongest military leaders in Roman history, the reality is that the peak he achieved was very short-lived.

We’ll dig into that and more as we explain this map, which covers one of the most interesting periods in history, leveraging classical and modern sources including Cassius Dio, Plutarch, Cambridge Ancient History, Walter Scheidel, Fergus Millar, Adrian Goldsworthy, Anthony Everitt, and Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Trajan: The First Emperor Born Outside of Italy

Trajan was born in Italica, Spain, near modern-day Seville. He was a career soldier and became an extremely competent and respected general. He was adopted as the heir to the childless Nerva, and became emperor after Nerva’s passing in 98 AD.

Once emperor, Trajan was famous for his civic investment and military expansion. He built roads, harbors, aqueducts, and the Forum of Trajan in Rome—but he also conquered distant lands decisively.

The Roman Empire at its Overextended Peak

Various limits—cultural, geographical, logistical, and administrative—seem to prevent historical empires from achieving infinite expansion.

Trajan tested these limits and eventually came upon the breaking point. Dacia (Romania) was arguably his greatest military achievement and remained a Roman province for almost two centuries after. His experiments to the East, however, were less of a slam dunk.

His battles with Parthia (the other Mediterranean superpower at the time) led to quick expansion into Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. However, these vast territorial gains were fragile:

Supply lines were long, exposed, and costly.
Massive revolts broke out in Judea and across the Jewish diaspora, in Libya, Egypt, and Cyprus.
Parthia remained intact as a power, despite symbolic defeats.
In hindsight, the map captures not just Rome’s greatest triumph—but the moment it became overextended.

Could Trajan hold it together as the empire came under strain?

The End of Trajan’s Reign, and a New Imperial Strategy

Conquering territory and holding it are two very different challenges.

With troops diverted across multiple fronts, the new gains quickly started unraveling for Trajan. At the same time, now in his early 60s, his health also began to fail. As he was returning to Rome, he stopped in Cilicia (modern-day southern Türkiye), where he passed away.

Hadrian, the following emperor, immediately recognized that the empire had tested its limits and now needed to consolidate. He built Hadrian’s Wall in the UK, and abandoned most of Trajan’s eastern conquests to focus on stabilization.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/06/2026 – 02:45

Two men whose wives did not return from a hike in Utah’s south-central desert arrived at the trailhead Wednesday to find both women dead and a car missing, spurring a multi-state search that led investigators to a third body before they arrested a suspect Thursday in Colorado.