Zerohedge

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Failure to do so risks another “forever war”, an Afghan-like debacle for the US, or World War III.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent reaffirmation of his country’s goals in the Ukrainian Conflict signal that the Kremlin regards the US’ reportedly finalized peace plan as unacceptable. Ukraine must withdraw from the entirety of the disputed territories, at least partially demilitarize and denazify, and Western troops mustn’t deploy there afterwards for Russia to agree to a ceasefire. 

Here are the five benefits that the US would reap from coercing Ukraine into these and other concessions to Russia:

1. Swiftly & Sustainably End The Ukrainian Conflict

Another “forever war” or Afghan-like debacle would be averted upon swiftly ending the conflict via these means, which would lead to a sustainable peace since Russia’s security interests would be ensured. The Trump Administration thus wouldn’t have to worry about getting dragged into another quagmire via mission creep if peace talks collapse or having its reputation tarnished by a defeat. Coercing Ukraine into the required compromises for ending the conflict would be an effective and face-saving way to move on.

2. Shock NATO Into Spending 5% Of GDP On Defense

NATO’s Western European members are expected to procrastinate on Trump’s demand that they spend 5% of GDP on defense unless they’re shocked by the proposed US-coerced Ukrainian concessions. They’d jolt them into prioritizing this without further delay due to their paranoid fear of a Russian invasion. This would in turn lead to Western Europe finally shouldering more burdens for its own security and correspondingly complementing its Central European members’ existing efforts in this regard.

3. Turn Central Europe Into The EU’s Center Of Gravity

In that scenario, the Central European countries’ role as NATO’s frontline states would be reinforced, which could lead to them becoming the EU’s center of gravity if the US helps the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” implement its dual military-economic integration projects. These anti-Russian countries are expected to cling even closer to the US after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, thus enabling the US to drive a wedge between Western Europe and Russia afterwards, thereby perpetuating US influence over the EU.

4. Enter Into A “No-Limits” Resource Partnership With Russia

Expanding the nascent Russian–US “New Détente” into a “no-limits” resource partnership in the post-conflict era would lead to them jointly managing the global oil and gas industries while also unlocking valuable rare earth opportunities. Potential US ownership of Russia’s Nord Stream and trans-Ukrainian gas pipelines to Europe could further perpetuate US influence over the bloc as well as deter Russia from violating the Ukrainian peace deal. The economic and strategic benefits would truly be unprecedented.

5. Accelerate The “Pivot (Back) To Asia” For Containing China

Quickly extricating the US from the financial and military commitments that the Ukrainian Conflict entails would accelerate its “Pivot (back) to Asia” for containing China and comprehensively add to the pressure being put upon the People’s Republic by Trump’s global trade war/“economic revolution”. This outcome would advance the US’ grand strategic goal of reshaping the emerging Multipolar World Order more to its liking within the realistic limits posed by the global systemic transition.

These five benefits would be lost if the US doesn’t soon coerce Ukraine into more concessions to Russia. 

The conflict could continue indefinitely in that event, during which time the US might either largely abandon Ukraine and thus cede its influence over the EU while accepting an historic defeat or punish Russia by “escalating to de-escalate” at the risk of World War III, neither of which is preferable.

The best way to end what Trump rightly described as “Biden’s war” is therefore through the proposed means.

It’s the end of an era at America’s largest hedge fund/private equity/insurance float-cum-rollup conglomerate, whatever you want to call it: Warren Buffett just announced during the Berkshire annual pilgrimage to Omaha that he is stepping down as CEO of Berkshire at the end of the year, and that Greg Abel, the vice chairman for non-insurance operations who has been groomed over the past decade for just this moment, will take over the conglomerate. The news was greeted with a standing ovation by the thousands of Berkshire shareholders who were present at Omaha’s Convention Center.

I’m not crying; you’re crying.

No standing ovation has ever been more well-earned… pic.twitter.com/9xfgoLezKZ

— Compound248 💰 (@compound248) May 3, 2025

Buffett – whose track record cemented him, along his long-time sidesick Charlie Munger, into a celebrity billionaire renowned for his investing acumen and witticisms – built Berkshire Hathaway into a business valued at more than $1.16 trillion, generating compounded annual returns to shareholders at double the rate of the S&P (19.9% vs 10.4%), since 1965, and a staggering 5,502,482% overall gain on BRK stocks since 1964, vs “only” 39,054% for the S&P. His investing success gave him the power to move stocks and helped him strike lucrative deals with Goldman Sachs and General Electric during times of crisis.

The announcement stunned the board and even Abel, who, while long signaled as Buffett’s successor, was unaware that the news was coming as the annual meeting drew to a close.

“That’s the news hook for the day,” Buffett said. “Thanks for coming.”

Berkshire grew aggressively over the decades with Buffett as chairman and CEO, as he chose acquisitions and stocks for the company portfolio alongside trusted adviser and vice chairman, Charlie Munger, who died in 2023 at 99. As Bloomberg notes, “the conglomerate acquired a bewildering assortment of businesses, which Buffett often said mirrored the US economy as a whole. A bet on Berkshire, he said, was a bet on America.”

Buffett started managing money when he was young, a disciple of Benjamin Graham’s investing style. He moved more into the corporate world when his Buffett Partnership Ltd. bought shares of Berkshire. In 1965, he took control of the rest of the business.

Composed mostly of struggling textile operations that would eventually fade away, Berkshire became the foundation for Buffett’s modern-day giant. Piece by piece, he built and acquired operations into a varied set of industries, including insurance — which gave him cash, or “float” — to help his investing strategy. 

Now, Berkshire owns businesses ranging from railroad BNSF to auto insurer Geico, sprawling energy operations, and even retailers such as Dairy Queen and See’s Candies. Its collection of companies generated $47.4 billion of annual operating earnings in 2024. Buffett also built up the stock portfolio — populating it with giant bets on the likes of Apple Inc. and American Express — and offering Berkshire another way to participate in the gains of businesses that it didn’t fully own.

* * *

Ahead of today’s annual meeting with Berkshire’s faithful, the company reported Q1 results that showed a steep drop in operating earnings from the year-earlier period: operating earnings, which include the conglomerate’s fully owned insurance and railroad businesses, fell 14% to $9.64 billion during the first three months of the year. In the first quarter of 2024, they totaled $11.22 billion. On per share basis, operating earnings were $4.47 last quarter, down from $5.20 a year ago, and below the $4.72 consensus forecast.  

Much of the company’s decline was driven by a 48.6% plunge in insurance-underwriting profit, which came in at $1.34 billion for the first quarter, down from $2.60 billion a year prior, and was mostly due to the Southern California wildfires which led to a $1.1 billion loss in Q1.

Berkshire’s bottom line also took a hit from the dollar losing value in the first quarter. The company said it suffered an approximate $713 million loss related to foreign exchange. This time last year, it benefited from a $597 million forex gain. The dollar index fell nearly 4% in the first quarter. Against the Japanese yen, it lost 4.6%.

The company’s overall earnings plunged nearly 64% year over year, as Buffett’s portfolio of publicly traded names took a hit to start the year. As is well-known, Berkshire always advises investors to look past these quarterly changes: “The amount of investment gains (losses) in any given quarter is usually meaningless and delivers figures for net earnings per share that can be extremely misleading to investors who have little or no knowledge of accounting rules,” Berkshire’s release said.

Berkshire said Donald Trump’s tariffs and other geopolitical risks created an uncertain environment for the conglomerate, owner of BNSF railway, Brooks Running and Geico insurance. While the firm said it’s not able to predict any potential impact from tariffs at this time, it warned that tariffs may further hit profits.

“Our periodic operating results may be affected in future periods by impacts of ongoing macroeconomic and geopolitical events, as well as changes in industry or company-specific factors or events,” Berkshire said in the earnings report. “The pace of changes in these events, including international trade policies and tariffs, has accelerated in 2025. Considerable uncertainty remains as to the ultimate outcome of these events. We are currently unable to reliably predict the potential impact on our businesses, whether through changes in product costs, supply chain costs and efficiency, and customer demand for our products and services” it said.

During the annual meeting, Buffett also addressed Trump’s tariff policies at the company’s annual meeting in Omaha, saying trade “should not be a weapon.” 

“You can make some very good arguments for the fact that balanced trade is good for the world,” Buffett said in response to a question about trade barriers. “There is no question that trade can be an act of war.” He added that the US “should be looking to trade with the rest of the world.” Which, obviously is what Trump is trying to do, just on far better terms than effete US leadership had accepted gradually over the past few decades.

“Balanced trade is good for the world. And the more balanced that trade is, the better.”

– Warren Buffett…

…distinguishing between his idea for Import Certificates vs standard Tariffs, which he believes can be destabilizing and war-like antagonism. pic.twitter.com/DFWPPGoORz

— Compound248 💰 (@compound248) May 3, 2025

Continuing a familiar trend, in the first quarter, Berkshire’s cash hoard ballooned to a fresh record, rising to more than $347 billion from around $334 billion at the end of 2024, as the company now holds a record $305.5 billion in Treasury Bills, which to CNBC showed “that Buffett did not use the first-quarter drop in the stock market to deploy the money.” Which, of course, was to be expected since the stock market dropped sharply only at the start of the second quarter.

Buffett on markets, cash, portfolio management, and opportunism.

“ I wouldn’t do anything nearly so noble as to withhold investing myself just so Greg can look good later on.”

– Warren Buffett…

…on the conspiracy that he’s built $330 billion of cash to give a blank sheet… pic.twitter.com/Bty6OdP5Qs

— Compound248 💰 (@compound248) May 3, 2025

During the pandemic, Buffett was stymied on the dealmaking front due to high valuations for good businesses, leaving a swollen cash pile and few attractive opportunities to put money to work. Instead of deals, Buffett aggressively leaned into share buybacks to deploy capital, though he broke with that trend by completing a $11.6 billion acquisition of Alleghany Corp. in 2022.

Last year, he decried a lack of meaningful deals that would give the firm a shot at “eye-popping performance” as Berkshire’s cash pile hit yet another record. The few US companies capable of moving the needle at Berkshire had already been “endlessly picked over by us and by others,” he said. Since then, as the billionaire cut his stakes in Apple and Bank of America while refraining from making major deals, Berkshire’s cash pile kept piling up, reaching $347.7 billion as of March 31.

Meanwhile, Berkshire continued to be a net seller of stocks for a 10th quarter in a row, although at a far slower pace, selling just a net $1.5BN in stocks, down sharply from the $6.7BN in Q4 and from the record $75.5BN in Q2 2024.

The report comes as Berkshire enjoys a stellar year-to-date performance, while the broader market languishes. In 2025, Class A shares of Berkshire are up nearly 19%, while the S&P 500 is down 3.3% as uncertainty from tariffs pressures tech and other sectors. Not surprisingly, with the stock surging to a new all time high, for the third quarter in a row, Berkshire did not repurchase any of its  own stock.

Despite Buffett’s large following, his day-to-day management of Berkshire was simple. He long favored a decentralized management approach, allowing the heads of Berkshire’s various businesses to run the operations how they deemed fit and checking in on the operations every now and then.

Buffett considered one of his more important roles to be a capital allocator for Berkshire, figuring out where the money should go, and reportedly spent a lot of time reading in his corporate office in Omaha. That office had just 27 employees as of last year.

“Buffett’s decision to limit his activities to a few kinds and to maximize his attention to them, and to keep doing so for 50 years, was a lollapalooza,” Munger said in an annual letter. “Buffett succeeded for the same reason Roger Federer became good at tennis.”

Amid all the distractions offered by smartphones, social media and the constant stream of information we’re all inundated with these days, it’s sometimes hard to focus on the truly important things in life. 

But what are those things? 

While the answer to that question is highly individual, Statista’s Felix Richter reports that there are some core values that unite many people.

 

You will find more infographics at Statista

According to Statista Consumer Insights, Americans largely agree on family and health being among the most important things in life, while making money, personal growth and a career are also high on the list of thing Americans value most in life.

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Over the next decade, the US government plans to spend nearly $1 trillion on its nuclear arsenal — with the actual cost certain to run even higher than that. The huge outlay is driven in part by the sheer size of America’s doomsday-weapon collection, which comprises an estimated 3,700 deployed or stockpiled nuclear warheads, not counting another 1,500 that are purportedly “retired” and awaiting dismantlement.

Though Americans have been conditioned to think it’s reasonable to maintain such a large arsenal, the idea that thousands of warheads are required to deter nuclear aggression rests on flawed thinking about the nature of deterrence. While defense contractors and military bureaucracies enriched by the status quo will tell you otherwise, the truth is that an adequate arsenal of nuclear warheads can be measured not in thousands, but mere dozens.

During the Cold War, two successive doctrines guided nuclear war strategy. First came Massive Retaliation, which rested on the threat of a disproportionate, devastating nuclear response to either conventional or nuclear aggression. That gave way to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), in which any nuclear attack was guaranteed to escalate to the point where both countries are completely destroyed.

Both doctrines shared a cornerstone premise — that effective, credible deterrence requires the capability to completely destroy the opposing country. That’s the wrong yardstick. Deterrence is achieved by the ability to impose an intolerable level of retaliatory destruction on a country that’s contemplating a nuclear first-strike — a threshold far lower than border-to-border annihilation.

For perspective, in World War II, Russia and China each suffered roughly 20 million total civilian and military deaths. The same unfathomable fatality counts that spanned several years in World War II can be achieved in mere minutes with only 20 modern nuclear warheads — 15 striking Russian cities and only five hitting the more densely-populated cities of China, according to calculations by University of Maryland professor Steve Fetter.

If the United States chose to opt against the morally-repugnant targeting of population centers with little military significance (that is, cities similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki), a second-strike could instead vaporize the enemy’s economy, targeting power generation, refinery complexes and vital ports (though even these nuclear attacks would inflict civilian death on a huge scale, not only from the blasts but also the economic destruction). Here, Fetter calculates 100 detonations would suffice.

The fatalities and destruction associated with either of those two targeting scenarios that pursue some level of societal devastation — so-called “countervalue targeting” — are well beyond what any foreign ruler would consider tolerable, suggesting that the anticipation of even one or two second-strike warheads would be sufficient to deter an adversary from striking first.

Note, this approach to deterrence, which focuses on the power to retaliate and inflict “intolerable” destruction, does not require adversaries with high moral character. It matters little whether an opposing ruler regards his citizens with loving empathy or depraved indifference. Rulers are ultimately driven by self-interest — and no leader can expect his hold on power to survive a nuclear gamble that brings about the vaporization of cities or irreplaceable economic assets in his own country. (Indeed, there may be no “power” to hold on to.) As political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote in a milestone 1990 paper that promoted the peacekeeping value of nuclear weapons while making the case that small arsenals are sufficient, “Rulers like to continue to rule.”

Given these realities of deterrence, the size of an adversary’s nuclear arsenal has no bearing on the appropriate size of America’s. “So long as two or more countries have second-strike forces, to compare them is pointless,” wrote Waltz. “If no state can launch a disarming attack with high confidence, force comparisons become irrelevant…beyond a certain level of capability, additional forces provide no additional coverage for one party and pose no additional threat to others.”

In contrast to countervalue targeting, “counterforce targeting” aims to inflict military defeat by destroying a large, diverse array of military targets, such as missile silos, bomber and submarine bases, command and control facilities, and conventional forces.

Counterforce-targeting is what led both America and Russia to amass far larger arsenals than that of any other nuclear-armed country. Beyond the elevated general risk associated with securing, transporting, maintaining and training with these large volumes of warheads, the mutual targeting of nuclear weapon delivery platforms pursuant to counterforce doctrine encourages first strikes — launched out fear that an opponent’s first strike would render one’s own weapons unusable.

Aside from the heightened risk of miscalculations during crises and accidental explosions during peace, America’s outsized nuclear arsenal threatens national security in a way that has nothing to do with mushroom clouds — by nudging the United States further along its path to financial catastrophe. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen warned in 2010, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” His statement came when the national debt was only about a third of its current $36.8 trillion.

Of the trillion dollars to be spent on nuclear weapons through 2034, $460 billion will be spent on a “modernization” program that encompasses warheads, missiles and silos and submarines. Of that, the Pentagon expects to spend $120 billion to replace the current generation of land-based, Minuteman III ICBMs with Sentinel ICBMs made by Northrop Grumman. Last year, the Air Force notified Congress that the Sentinel program would cost 37% more than the previous estimate, and take two years longer to implement. If the history of Pentagon weapon procurement is any guide, we can count on more such announcements in the coming years.

Considered in the context of second-strike deterrence, the Sentinel program is particularly exasperating. Given their fixed locations in satellite-observable silos, land-based ICBMs represent the most vulnerable leg in the nuclear-arms triad, which also includes bombers and submarine-launched missiles. Put another way, it’s the leg that does the least to convince a nuclear adversary that the United States has a guaranteed second-strike capacity — which is the only strike capacity that matters. At the same time, land-based ICBMs are a magnet for enemy missiles, with one study suggesting nuclear strikes on US ICBMs could kill 300 million people across North America. 

In February, President Trump expressed dismay at the ongoing development of new nukes:

“There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”

Trump’s remarks came as he expressed interest in opening new arms control negotiations with Russia and China. That’s a noble pursuit, but when a second-strike capability is all the United States needs for defense, a case can be made for blazing a unilateral path toward rational and frugal nuclear deterrence — particularly when you consider the dangerously destabilizing nature of a huge arsenal built for counterforce targeting.

“There is no compelling military or strategic rationale for linking the size of U.S. nuclear forces to those of other nuclear weapon states,” wrote Fetter. “As long as the United States has enough survivable warheads to deter and respond to nuclear attacks, it should not matter how many weapons other countries have.” That’s not to discount the risk-reducing value of a far smaller Russian arsenal.

Alas, any move toward a dramatically slimmer US nuclear warhead inventory will face fierce opposition from those who benefit from today’s emphasis on numerical superiority. The status quo is a prime example of the principle of “concentrated benefits and diffused costs.” Via both taxation and inflation, the $1 trillion cost of sustaining and upgrading the arsenal over the next 10 years will be spread across hundreds of millions of Americans, including many who haven’t been born yet. Shuffled into the $90 trillion the US government is projected to spend over that same period, the cost flies under the radar of everyday Americans, precluding major political opposition.

The financial benefits, on the other hand, accrue to a relatively small number of stakeholders, from arms manufacturers to Pentagon and Department of Energy bureaucracies. The enjoyment of concentrated benefits incentivizes these stakeholders to fiercely defend the status quo, deploying a formidable influence arsenal that includes lobbyists, campaign contributions, the promises of jobs in 50 states and hundreds of congressional districts, and financial sponsorship of national security think tanks that steer policy.

While those who are enriched by America’s excessive nuclear arsenal have the upper hand, the status quo is so dangerous and wasteful that Americans of all political leanings should unite in challenging it.

Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Read more and subscribe for free at starkrealities.substack.com  

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge

* * *

Silver is an essential metal for the electronics industry, which is helping fuel an expected rise in global demand over the coming years.

As mining of this crucial metal ramps up to meet demand, a select nation continues to dominate global silver output.

This map, created by Visual Capitalist’s Ryan Bellefontaine in partnership with Vizsla Silver Corp., uses the latest data from Metals Focus in the Silver Institute’s World Silver Survey to show the countries producing the most silver.

Mexico Leads Again

Here are the top silver-producing countries in the world as of 2023:

Country	Millions of Ounces (Oz)
🇲🇽Mexico	202.2
🇨🇳China	109.3
🇵🇪Peru	107.1
🇨🇱Chile	52.0
🇧🇴Bolivia	42.6
🇵🇱Poland	42.5
🇷🇺Russia	39.8
🇦🇺Australia	34.4
🇺🇸U.S.	32.0
🇦🇷Argentina	26.0
🇮🇳India	23.8
🇰🇿Kazakhstan	16.6
🇸🇪Sweden	12.6
🇮🇩Indonesia	10.3
🇲🇦Morocco	8.8
🇺🇿Uzbekistan	7.7
🇨🇦Canada	7.1
🇵🇬Papua New Guinea	4.3
🇪🇸Spain	3.7
🇧🇷Brazil	3.3

Mexico retains its position as the world’s leading silver producer, mining 202.2 million ounces (Moz)—accounting for nearly a quarter of the world’s total supply. The country’s deep-rooted silver mining history, rich reserves, and active mining sector keep it at the forefront of global production.

China followed as the second-largest silver producer with 109.3 Moz. In third place, Peru is closely behind at 107.1 Moz. 

After Peru, South America is home to some of the world’s other most significant silver producers, such as Chile with 52.0 Moz and Bolivia with 42.6 Moz, which round out the top five.

A Historic Industry with a Bright Future

Mexico’s dominance in silver mining dates back centuries, with its reserves continuously tapped to meet growing global demand.

Today, projects like Vizsla Silver Corp’s Panuco project in northwest Mexico demonstrate the country’s vast potential. Panuco alone contains an estimated 201.4 million ounces of silver.

As the world looks toward a future of increased industrial and investment demand for silver, Mexico remains the undisputed leader in production, reinforcing its role as a cornerstone of the global silver supply chain.

Discover how Vizsla Silver Corp. promotes responsible mining practices to support the rising global demand for silver while building a sustainable future.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

The Oversight Project has released a disturbing new findings showing an apparent correlation between the increased use of autopen signatures and Joe Biden’s worsening mental decline.

The group previously found that two different autopens were used, pointing out that Neera Tanden was the White House Staff Secretary when Biden autopenned pardons from a golf course in the US Virgin Islands.

You were White House Staff Secretary when Biden autopenned pardons from the golf course in USVI.

This you? https://t.co/26z9C6cE7m pic.twitter.com/7btD2RTX0N

— Oversight Project (@ItsYourGov) March 17, 2025

The organisation released further analysis finding that Biden’s pardons for family members, Anthony Fauci, General Milley, J6 Committee members, and Gerald Lundergan were all autopenned.

🚨 Autopen Update 🚨
We analyzed Biden’s Jan. 19, 2025 “pardons” for:

-Biden Family Members
-Anthony Fauci
-General Milley
-J6 Committee
-Gerald Lundergan

They all have the same exact Biden autopen signature https://t.co/jc6mkx37il pic.twitter.com/8VeBDwLNv7

— Oversight Project (@ItsYourGov) March 11, 2025

Now a further analysis of Executive Order signatures shows an “increased use of the autopen as President Biden’s mental and physical decline accelerated,” according to the group.

The findings show that Biden used a wet signature on every single Executive Order during his first 18 months in office.

However, this radically changed in late Spring of 2022 when around half of the orders were autopenned. By the Summer, 100 percent of the orders were being signed by autopen.

In 2023, two thirds of the orders were autopenned, and in 2024 that figure rose to three quarters, before again hitting 100 percent in the last days of his presidency in 2025.

The Oversight Project notes:

Our investigation highlights several Executive Orders that are particularly concerning due to their political weight. These orders, all signed with the autopen, address sensitive issues such as national security, public health, and military justice. Below are key examples:

• Executive Order 14097: Combating International Drug Trafficking (April 27, 2023)
  This order authorized the activation of the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to address international drug trafficking, expanding emergency powers to combat a national security threat.

• Executive Order 14098: Sanctions on Sudan (May 4, 2023)
  This order imposed sanctions on individuals destabilizing Sudan, addressing threats to U.S. national security and foreign policy.

• Executive Order 14114: Countering Russian Aggression (December 22, 2023)
  This order expanded sanctions targeting Russia’s military-industrial base and financial institutions, amending prior orders to counter Russian aggression.

• Executive Order 14118: Terminating the Zimbabwe Emergency (March 4, 2024)
  This order revoked a national emergency regarding Zimbabwe, acknowledging ongoing concerns about violence and corruption while lifting sanctions.

• Executive Order 14122: Public Health Preparedness (April 12, 2024)
  Focused on COVID-19 and public health, this order transferred responsibilities to the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR) and revoked COVID-19-related orders.

• Executive Order 14130: Amending the Manual for Courts-Martial (December 20, 2024)
  This order updated the Manual for Courts-Martial to align with legislative changes, including randomized selection of court-martial members.

The new findings come after President Trump called for those who operated Biden’s autopen to be jailed.

Trump has declared that all of the pardons issued by ‘Joe Biden’ in the final days of his fake Presidency should be void because he didn’t sign any of them.

*  *  *

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.

Both Israel and Turkey have long been the major regional players with a “hidden hand” in Syria – with both at times covertly leading the drive to weaken and overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

And now the scramble for the spoils have been on since Assad’s exiting the country to Moscow on December 8. Israeli tanks and ground units have moved up toward Damascus from the South, and Turkey’s “Syrian National Army” proxy fighters have been active in Aleppo province and in northern Syria.

Turkey has also reportedly been involved with the new Syrian government under al-Qaeda linked Jolani (Sharaa), establishing anti-air defense infrastructure at Syrian bases, particularly near Palmyra in the center of the country.

But Israel has since December been busy bombing Syrian military sites and equipment out of existence. Syria once had to most advanced (Russian-supplied) air defense missile systems in the whole region, but now these batteries have been destroyed.

Further, there’s no longer a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) to man or operate sophisticated systems. This means Israel’s air force has had free reign over Syria’s skies. But Tel Aviv increasingly has a rival in Syria: Turkey’s military.

With sectarian fighting this week resulting in dozens of deaths among Syria’s Druze community, Israel has been sending ‘warning’ strikes, including near the presidential palace in Damascus.

Regional reports say Turkey is at the same time quietly engaging in anti-Israel operations:

Turkish fighter jets reportedly issued electronic warning signals and engaged in jamming operations late on Friday in an effort to deter Israeli aircraft operating in Syrian airspace, amid a new wave of airstrikes across the country.

The rare move came as Israeli warplanes launched attacks on multiple sites, including in the Hama and Damascus regions, drawing renewed scrutiny over ongoing violations of Syrian sovereignty.

“Turkish fighter jets issued warning signals and jammed Israeli aircraft during Tel Aviv’s latest deadly bombing campaign in Syria,” The New Arab writes.

The Netanyahu government has already been strongly warning Turkey against getting more deeply involved in Syria, but clearly Jolani and his HTS rulers have found their biggest backer in Erdogan.

There does seem to be confirmation coming from Israeli sources on the Turkish jamming story:

The Israeli Broadcasting Authority confirmed the Turkish interference, reporting that “Turkish aircraft are sending warning signals and jamming Israeli fighter jets to make them leave Syrian airspace.”

Turkish officials have voiced increasing frustration at Israel’s expanding operations in Syria, which Ankara regards as a threat to its interests and to regional stability.

Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned against Israeli strikes late this week. “In this context, Israel must put an end to its airstrikes, which harm efforts toward Syria’s unity and territorial integrity,” a statement said.

Jolani and the “Syrian revolution” destroying Syria’s air defence systems and radars since 2013. https://t.co/To9c4djkZy

— Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) May 3, 2025

As for Israel’s support to the Druze religious minority, many Syrians see this as but a pretext for Israeli invasion and occupation of the south – where most Druze happen to be. The ruling HTS is made up of hardline Sunnis, who consider Druze to be ‘apostates’ and ‘heretics’ – given their outlier and esoteric beliefs. 

Turkey, on the other side, has long supported Sunni interests in Syria. Erdogan has long been accused of ‘neo-Ottoman’ policies, also as Turkey wages war against the Kurds of northern Syria.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

It was once said that possession is nine-tenths of the law, an acknowledgement that the possessor of property generally has the advantage in keeping it. This principle has been taken to absurd extremes in some squatter cases, where people invade homes and then demand the right to stay pending long legal challenges. Today, under both our housing and immigration laws, mere occupation often appears to be nine-tenths of our laws.

Obviously, unlawful immigrants are not the same as squatters. Some of these migrants have legitimate asylum and other claims. We have to separate those meritorious cases from the vast majority with no cognizable claims. Yet, our legal system is failing the public by allowing unlawful immigrants with no meritorious claims to game the system for years and then simply vanish into the nation.

In courtrooms across the country, the nation seems trapped in a type of Squatter Syndrome, a macro version of the housing cases. The slowness of the removal process is being used to keep millions in the country indefinitely. It may prove to be President Joe Biden’s most lasting legacy, a de facto residency by simply overwhelming the system by the sheer number of unlawful entries.

For years, residents in some major cities have expressed frustration as officials threw up their hands after their homes were occupied by squatters. Even though the owners could show officers that the squatters are home invaders (including their own family pictures on the walls), they are often told to seek other housing to let the courts sort it out. That can take months or even years and the squatters play out the litigation (often with the help of some public interest groups) – only to move on to another home when they run out of appeals.

There is a sense of the same helplessness in dealing with unlawful immigration. After over eight million unlawful immigrants entered the country under Biden, Democrats are again shrugging and saying that these immigrants must be allowed to remain for years as they raise asylum and other claims that are overwhelmingly rejected.

Most unlawful immigrants immediately seek out border agents after being led across the border by coyotes and gang members. They know that, upon arrest, they would be given “notices to appear” that are years in the future and then released.

They often come across the border with printed instructions on claiming asylum.

It may be the greatest political scam ever pulled on the American people. The polls show that an overwhelming percentage of the public favors the deportation of aliens with criminal records and roughly half support mass deportations of those here unlawfully. According to a new Associated Press-NORC poll, roughly half of the country still approves of Trump’s handling of immigration.

Knowing that the public opposes such unlawful entries, politicians mouth their concerns about open borders while doing nothing to seek any change that might meaningfully increase removals.

For years, the Biden Administration claimed that it could not close the Southern border without immigration reform, including the new pathways to citizenship. Donald Trump then effectively shut down the border in a matter of weeks with the same authority that Biden had for four years. Entries are down a breathtaking 97 percent under Trump.

The record conclusively shows that Biden and the Democrats could have closed the border at any time but chose to keep it open despite daily images of waves of migrants entering the country. These same politicians knew that, once in the country, it would be practically impossible to remove a significant number of these individuals due to a court system that takes years actually to deport an individual. They become de facto resident aliens and Democrats then insist that the length of their time in the country warrants a pathway to citizenship.

After he came into office, Biden fueled this migration by negating the immigration orders of the Trump Administration, including stopping the successful Remain in Mexico policy. (It was later reinstated after legal challenges.) The Administration also resisted every major effort of border states to fill the vacuum left by lax federal enforcement, even cutting state-constructed barriers along the border.

The result was a deluge of unlawful crossings. Some border agents complained that they felt like little more than travel agents asking immigrants where they would like to go on public expense.

Trump was elected to increase deportations and he has sought to use every possible means to do so. He has met opposition at every turn from the Democrats and the courts. I have criticized the Administration in some of these cases. However, Trump is right that we need to create faster and final avenues for removal for the millions who entered during the Biden Administration.

The Congress has sought to expedite removals without such prolonged litigation.

After his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” that ordered the increased use of “expedited removals” under a 1996 law. Prior administrations extended this law to include any apprehended person within 100 miles of the land border who cannot prove they were legally admitted to the country or have been present in the country continuously for more than 14 days.

The Trump Administration has expanded that law to anyone who cannot prove continuous presence for two years. Their removals are generally unreviewable by an immigration judge and dramatically limit judicial relief under asylum claims. These removals also come with a five-year ban on reentry or even a lifetime ban if the individual made false claims to immigration officers.

This same expedited process can be used for those who entered the country legally but overstayed their visa or who have been convicted of certain crimes.

Some 44 percent of removals were accomplished under expedited removal designations by circumventing the standard immigration hearing process. President Obama, who was called by critics “the Deporter in Chief,” expanded the use of this process.

The Trump Administration is also using the administrative removal process of anyone who is not a permanent resident who has been convicted of aggravated felonies. Such offenses actually go beyond such felonies as murder, sexual assault, and firearms offenses. They can include nonviolent misdemeanors as failure to appear in court, burglary, and document fraud.

The benefit of this process is that it does not matter how long the individual has been in the country. Only permanent residents under this system have the right to go before an immigration judge. However, there are still appeals allowed under the system. That is why more immigration judges are needed.

The Administration is also using a process called reinstatement of removal, which applies to anyone who has illegally reentered the United States. Many of these repeat offenders immediately claim asylum. While they are not entitled to an immigration hearing, they can appeal the reinstatement.

The public deserves a better system that can handle a crisis of millions of unlawful immigrants to avoid more expedited reviews and removals.

Otherwise, we become a type of squatter nation where our inefficient legal system is being used to make a mockery of our laws.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage

Ukraine’s President Zelensky has dismissed the Kremlin’s unilateral declaration of a three-day ceasefire for Russia’s World War II commemorations on May 9 as but a “game” and “theatrical performance”.

“This is more of a theatrical performance on his part. Because in two or three days, it is impossible to develop a plan for the next steps to end the war,” Zelensky said, offering instead a fuller 30-day ceasefire. 

We reported earlier that Zelensky days ago went so far as to hint that a Ukrainian attack on Victory Day events could happen. Here’s what Zelensky warned several days ago:

“Now they are worried that their parade is in question, and they are rightly worried. But they should be concerned that this war is still going on. They must end the war,” the Ukrainian president said.

Moscow officials certainly took this as a direct threat. Various world leaders, including President Xi Jinping of China, will be present for the V-Day parade through Red Square and other observances. This year’s will be particularly special given it’s the 80th anniversary since the end of WW2.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova issued a statement Saturday saying that Zelensky “unambiguously threatened world leaders.”

“After every terrorist attack on Russia’s territory, the Kiev regime, its security services, and Zelensky personally boast that this is their doing, that this will continue. Therefore, the phrase that he ‘does not guarantee security on May 9 in Russia’ as it is not his area of responsibility is, of course, a direct threat,” the diplomat stated.

She and Peskov further blasted Zelensky’s stance as having exposed “the neo-Nazi nature of the Kiev regime, which has become a terrorist cell,” according to TASS.

Lately there’s been assassination bombings targeting top Russian generals, as well as long-range drone attacks which have reached the outskirts of Moscow. Clearly, Ukrainian intelligence and/or its allied Western intel services have made inroads into Russia.

Without doubt, Russian defense and security services will bulk up anti-air systems in an around Moscow for Victory Day events.

Defense officials, heads of state, and foreign ministers from various countries and especially Russia-friendly nations are expected to be present.

Earlier in the Ukraine war, drones were sent across the Russian border and made it all the way to the Moscow Kremlin complex, lightly damaging the top of a dome, in what was a major first at the time. Since then, Moscow area airports have more frequently halted operations during inbound drone attacks.

Authored by Jules Winnfield via CoinTelegraph.com,

What is AGI?

When the lines blur between man and machine, you’re looking at artificial general intelligence (AGI). Unlike its counterpart, artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), which is the use of AI for solving individual problem statements, AGI represents artificial intelligence that can understand, learn and apply knowledge in a way that is indistinguishable from human cognition.

AGI is still theoretical, but the prospect of artificial intelligence being able to holistically replace human input and judgment has naturally attracted plenty of interest, with researchers, technologists and academics alike seeking to bring the concept of AGI to reality. 

Yet another strand of prevailing research seeks to explore the feasibility and implications of AGI vs. ANI in a world increasingly shaped by AI capabilities. 

Indeed, while ANI has already transformed various industries, AGI’s potential goes far beyond. Imagine a world where machines can not only assist humans in their tasks but also proactively understand the drivers behind specific tasks, predict outcomes, and autonomously create innovative solutions to achieve optimal results. This paradigm shift could revolutionize healthcare, education, transportation and countless other fields.

Why is AGI so powerful?

Unlike ANI, AGI is not confined to pre-programmed tasks or predefined responses within a limited domain. Instead, it has the potential to generate and apply knowledge across various contexts.

Imagine a self-driving car powered by AGI. It can collect a passenger from a train station but also personalize the journey with custom recommendations for pit stops, sightseeing avenues or navigating unfamiliar roads to arrive at the desired destination. And because it’s a machine, AGI would not experience fatigue and would continue learning and improving at exponential speeds. 

Here’s a definition of AGI by Vitalik Buterin, who highlights the sheer potential of AGI:

The example highlights some interesting features of AGI, which include:

• Learning capability: AGI can learn from experiences and improve its performance over time without a concerted effort by human programmers to perform additional data set training. This learning is not limited to specific tasks and instead encompasses a broad spectrum of activities.

• Problem-solving skills: AGI can solve complex problems by applying logical reasoning just as a human would. This includes consideration of non-traditional variables, such as emotional impact, which can highlight an even wider range of potential outcomes.

• Adaptability: AGI can adjust to new situations and environments without explicit programming, which means it can thrive in dynamic and unpredictable settings.

• Understanding and interpretation: AGI is equipped to comprehend natural language, abstract concepts and emotional nuance, allowing for sophisticated human-machine interactions.

Did you know? Blockchain timestamps could serve as a legal memory for AGI systems, allowing future audits to determine exactly what an AGI knew — and when.

The pursuit of AGI: Where does it stand as of April 2025?

AGI is currently the science-fiction version of AI. However, while still theoretical, the sheer potential of the concept makes AGI the science fiction equivalent of artificial intelligence. 

While existing models, such as ChatGPT, are constantly evolving and improving with each day, the journey to bringing AGI to life involves overcoming significant technical challenges, such as:

• Defining the tech stack: The purely hypothetical nature of AGI makes it exceedingly difficult, if not altogether impossible, to determine the precise nature of the technological stack required for practical implementation.

• Neural networks: Advances in deep learning have propelled this field forward, but AGI would also require specialist neural networks that mimic the human brain’s structure to process information and introduce a layer of emotion and nuance.

• Natural language processing (NLP): Significant advances are required in the field of NLP to enable machines to better understand and generate human language, incorporating nuance, emotion and complexities. This includes a more complex analysis of language syntax, semantics and context, which is still evolving in traditional machine learning models that leverage NLP. 

• Reinforcement learning: Using reward-based mechanisms to teach machines to make decisions would allow AGI to learn optimal behaviors through trial and error.

Despite advancements, creating AGI that can truly think like a human remains an elusive goal.

Did you know? DeepMind warns that not all AI risks come from the machines themselves — some start with humans misusing them. In its paper titled ‘An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security’, DeepMind identifies four key threats: misuse (bad actors using AI for harm), misalignment (AI knowingly going against its developer’s intent), mistakes (AI causes harm without realizing it), and structural risks (failures that emerge from complex interactions between people, organizations, or systems).

Can AGI think like a human?

The question of whether AGI can think like a human delves into the very core of human cognition. Human thinking is characterized by consciousness, emotional depth, creativity and subjectivity. While AGI can simulate certain aspects of human thought, replicating the full spectrum of human cognition is a formidable challenge.

Several dimensions of human cognition are particularly difficult to emulate:

• Consciousness and self-awareness: One of the defining traits of human thinking is consciousness, the awareness of oneself and one’s surroundings. AGI, as sophisticated as it may become, lacks the intrinsic human ability to introspect. AGI operates on an underlying set of algorithms and complex, learned patterns, without any subjectivity or genuine emotion.

• Emotional intelligence: Humans experience a wide range of emotions that influence their decisions, behaviors and interactions. While AGI can be trained to recognize and respond to such emotions, the lack of genuine emotional experience means that it cannot wholly replicate these emotions. Emotional intelligence in humans involves empathy, compassion and moral considerations, elements that are challenging to encode into machines.

• Creativity and innovation: Creativity involves generating novel ideas and solutions, often through intuitive leaps and imaginative thinking. AGI can mimic creativity by combining existing knowledge in new ways, but it lacks the intrinsic motivation and subjective insight that drive human innovation. True creativity stems from emotional experiences, personal reflections and cultural contexts, which AGI cannot authentically replicate.

Key benefits of AGI

The litmus test for AGI lies in its ability to holistically replicate a human experience. When realized, the potential benefits are enormous and stretch across various industries, spawning various aspects of daily life.

Despite its limitations, AGI is increasingly viewed as a force for good across a range of industries, including:

• Healthcare: AGI can assist in diagnosing diseases, developing personalized treatment plans and predicting customized health outcomes, leveraging a vast body of underlying training data.

• Education: It can provide customized learning experiences, tutoring and academic research support. AGI can adapt to individual learning styles and pace, enhancing educational outcomes.

• Economics: It can optimize financial models, predict market trends, and enhance productivity. It can analyze economic data to forecast market trends and guide investment decisions.

• Environmental Science: AGI can analyze climate data, model ecological impacts, and propose sustainable solutions.

Additionally, AGI’s potential extends to areas such as transportation, communication and entertainment, offering new frontiers for innovation.

Did you know? Some futurists believe AGI systems could eventually negotiate with each other autonomously using blockchain-based smart contracts — forming agreements, trading data or even co-developing solutions without human intervention.

Ethical and societal considerations

The rise of AGI raises significant ethical and societal questions. 

While powerful, AGI requires careful consideration for safe usage, which has prompted the creation of nonprofit societies, such as the AGI Society, as shown in the image below.

Fundamentally, it is crucial to address concerns such as:

• Safety: Ensuring AGI operates within safe and controlled parameters to prevent unintended consequences. This includes robust testing and the introduction of regulatory frameworks to oversee AGI deployment.

• Privacy: Protecting personal data from misuse by AGI systems. As AGI can process vast amounts of data, safeguarding privacy is paramount.

• Bias and fairness: Preventing discriminatory practices and ensuring equitable access to AGI benefits. Developers must ensure that AGI systems are free from biases that could lead to unfair treatment.

• Employment: Addressing the impact of AGI on job displacement and workforce dynamics. As AGI automates tasks, there is a need to consider its impact on employment and provide support for affected workers.

The integration of AGI into society requires a thoughtful approach to its governance, ensuring that it serves the common good and respects social values.

Can blockchain power AGI?

AGI could create computers as smart as humans, revolutionizing fields like cryptocurrency trading or market analysis. But AGI needs trust and fairness to work for everyone. Blockchain, the tech behind Bitcoin and Ethereum, offers a secure, transparent way to make this happen. 

Here’s how blockchain can supercharge AGI with crypto-inspired solutions:

• Clear training records: Blockchain works like Bitcoin’s open transaction log, recording every piece of data (e.g., crypto trading patterns) used to train AGI. This helps ensure the system is fair and free from hidden biases.
• Shared decision-making: Similar to Ethereum’s smart contracts, blockchain will allow developers, traders and users to vote on AGI’s rules, ensuring no single company controls it.
• Safe data sharing: Like crypto wallets safeguarding funds, blockchain could protect sensitive data from crypto exchanges, allowing secure sharing for AGI training without leaks.
• Rewards for fairness: Developers who build unbiased AGI, such as accurate trading predictors, could earn digital tokens, just like crypto mining rewards, encouraging ethical work.

However, ongoing challenges such as blockchain’s slow speed, delays in crypto transactions and limited storage capacity could make it hard for AGI to process data quickly or handle large datasets.

To make blockchain AGI-ready, researchers are already exploring:

• Offchain storage: Decentralized systems like InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) are used to store large files offchain, while the blockchain keeps only verifiable hashes, reducing congestion.
• Sharding and danksharding: Like Ethereum’s scalability upgrades, sharding splits data across multiple nodes, allowing AGI to process more information without slowing down the network. Also, danksharding, an advanced form of sharding being developed for Ethereum, combines rollups and data availability sampling to scale data access efficiently — ideal for real-time AGI applications.
• Data pruning: Advanced blockchain models like Decentralized Artificial Intelligent Blockchain-based Computing Network (DAIBCN) prune old or irrelevant data, keeping the system lean and optimized for high-demand tasks like AGI. DAIBCN also enables secure, distributed AI computing — blending blockchain trust with AI performance.

The future of AGI

Artificial general intelligence represents the pinnacle of AI development, promising capabilities that rival human intellect. 

While AGI can simulate aspects of human thinking, achieving true human-like cognition remains a distant goal. Consciousness, emotional depth and creativity are intrinsic to human experience and pose significant challenges for AGI. 

Nevertheless, the pursuit of AGI continues to drive innovation and reshape our understanding of intelligence. As we advance toward this frontier, it is imperative to navigate ethical considerations and societal impacts to responsibly harness AGI’s potential.

Ongoing research, identifying practical opportunities and technical requirements, and initiating dialogue across society are all essential steps to address the challenges and opportunities posed by AGI. 

The future of AGI holds promise, but it requires a balanced approach to ensure that its eventual integration into society enhances human well-being and respects ethical standards.