Nuclear waste at center of testy Nevada Senate race

 Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sam Brown is under fire from Democrats for 2022 remarks in which he expressed support for plans to store federal nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

Nevada lawmakers from both parties have strongly resisted a federal plan to turn the isolated southwest Nevada mountain — about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas — into a nuclear waste storage facility since the idea was first proposed in the 1980s.

But Brown has expressed support for the idea in the past, and he can be heard in a new recording from his 2022 campaign saying the state risked losing out on an opportunity if it blocked the plans.

“If we don’t act soon, other states … are assessing whether or not they can essentially steal that opportunity from us,” he said in the recording, first obtained by The Los Angeles Times.

Brown, who is seen as a favorite in Nevada’s GOP Senate primary this June, said in a statement to The Hill he was not actively calling for the reopening of Yucca Mountain, but that future proposals should be considered.

“I am not strictly committed to opening Yucca Mountain at this time,” Brown said. “However, I will consider all thoroughly vetted future proposals, with the safety of Nevadans being my top priority, while ensuring the proposals are substantially economically beneficial.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who is running for reelection, quickly seized on the comments. Rosen is seen as vulnerable this fall in a state where former President Trump is up in polls. The Cook Political Report lists her seat as a toss-up.

“For decades, Nevadans across party lines have been clear that we will not allow our state to become the dumping ground for the rest of the nation’s nuclear waste,” Rosen said in a statement. “I’ve been fighting against Washington politicians trying to force nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain since Sam Brown was still living in Texas, and his extreme support for this dangerous and unpopular project underscores how little he understands the needs of our state.”

Brown campaign communications director Kristy Wilkinson in a statement to The Hill accused Rosen of “continuing the Harry Reid machine’s dirty political tactic of fear-mongering for votes — just in time for her struggling reelection bid.”

Reid, the longtime Nevada senator and Democratic leader who died in 2021, made Yucca Mountain a national political issue, organizing resistance after Congress passed legislation to fund the project in 2002. Former Secretary of State John Kerry added his opposition to the idea to his 2004 presidential campaign platform thanks to pressure from Reid, and the Obama administration halted work on the repository completely in 2010.

Former President Trump supported Yucca Mountain funding early in his presidency, but he backed off the promise in 2020 under pressure from Republicans in the state. Trump has not discussed Yucca Mountain policy since the 2020 race, though the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan does support construction.

The Biden administration has repeatedly stated it has no plans to move forward with the Yucca Mountain repository.

Brown’s openness to restarting work at Yucca Mountain is backed by public officials in Nye County, a sparsely-populated area directly surrounding the Nevada Test Site.

In 2019, county commissioners wrote to Congress in support of the project, writing they have “favored a full and fair review of the science by the NRC for years.”

“We want decisions to be made on Yucca Mountain to be based on facts and science, and not empty rhetoric and fear mongering,” they wrote.

Backers have generally brushed off concerns from environmentalists, citing extensive geological studies finding that Yucca Mountain is one of the safer options for waste storage nationally.

The issue rose in Congress again last month, when House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) brought up an effort to advance the Yucca Mountain project after years without work.

“Opposition has inhibited congressional appropriations and driven the executive branch to dismantle what has otherwise been a technically successful program,” McMorris Rodgers said in a hearing. “We must continue this committee’s work to update the law and build state support for our permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.”

“For years, I have been fighting to prevent Nevada from becoming the nation’s dumping ground for nuclear waste,” Rosen said in a statement responding to McMorris Rodgers’s comments. “Nevadans have made clear that they don’t consent to this nuclear waste being shipped to or stored in our state, and I’ll continue working to make sure it doesn’t happen.”

The comments from Brown and House members have sparked a new wave of Yucca Mountain opposition from Nevada lawmakers.

“We feel like that the science is not good,” Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) told The Hill. “There’s a fault out there, the water table, you got to transport [nuclear waste] through Las Vegas because there aren’t many roads or railroads there. One little accident would destroy our economy.”

“We don’t use nuclear power, we don’t make it. So why are we the dumping ground,” she continued.

Titus blamed the resurgence in conversation over Yucca Mountain on what she dubbed “Yucca fatigue,” a drop in opposition enthusiasm over time. She doesn’t think the fatigue will last.

“They have to be reminded, ‘Hey, this is just down the road, don’t forget about it,’” she said. “It’s a statewide feeling. You had Democratic and Republican governors, Democratic and Republican senators, members of the House, all united on this.”

Local environmental organizations, meanwhile, have also long expressed concerns about the prospect of using Yucca Mountain for waste storage, in particular pointing to concerns around the prospect of waste seeping into aquifers.

“As the driest state in the nation, Nevada knows our water resources are precious and need to be protected, not put at greater risk,” Nevada Conservation League’s executive director, Kristee Watson, told The Hill in an email.

Taylor Patterson, executive director at Native Voters Alliance Nevada, described Yucca Mountain as an issue where Western Shoshone tribes in particular have been vocal for years.

“It’s crazy that we still have to re-address this after years and years and years,” she told The Hill.

Nuclear energy experts have been skeptical about the idea of a deal on Yucca Mountain as well.

In an op-ed for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published Tuesday, David M. Kaus, who served as a deputy undersecretary at the Department of Energy during the Obama administration, called a Yucca Mountain deal a “fantasy.” 

Kaus noted the logistical hurdles that would be involved in the process at the state level even if a federal agreement emerges in an interview with The Hill.

No matter the long road to project work at Yucca Mountain, just the talk of funding could rile the Silver State Senate race.

A The Hill/Nexstar poll of the Nevada Senate race released Tuesday found Rosen with an 8-point lead over Brown, taking 45 percent of the vote to Brown’s 37 percent. The senator also leads fundraising by a large margin, raising $23.6 million over the course of the campaign to Brown’s $5.3 million.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4642131-nuclear-waste-at-center-of-testy-nevada-senate-race/

Conservative courts poised to block new transgender student protections

 More than a dozen Republican-led states have sued the Biden administration over new Title IX regulations that add protections for transgender students, setting up a legal battle with the White House over enforcement of the decades-old civil rights law and increasing the likelihood that the measures will be blocked in court before taking effect this summer. 

The Education Department last month unveiled a final set of sweeping changes to Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in schools and education programs that receive government funding, after more than a year of delays. The new regulations, slated to take effect Aug. 1, also cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Fifteen Republican-controlled states sued the department last week in four federal lawsuits that argue the new regulations are “plainly illegal” and undermine protections meant for cisgender students. The regulations would also prevent states from enforcing laws that bar transgender student-athletes from competing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity, the suits argue, though the administration has yet to finalize a separate proposal governing athletics eligibility. 

Texas on Monday filed the first challenge to the new regulations, which Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote are built on a misinterpretation the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. It found that employees are protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Louisiana, Montana, Idaho and Mississippi followed, filing jointly in the Western District of Louisiana. 

On Tuesday, West Virginia, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Virginia filed a similar suit in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina sued Wednesday in the Northern District of Alabama. 

“The timing and the sheer number of courts that have been invoked here sort of stack the odds against the Biden administration because there are just so many hoops to jump through,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. 

“You have to basically beat every single one of them to win,” he said. “And if any one of them vacates the rule, under the general understanding today, that vacates it nationwide.” 

The administration’s Title IX revamp would also bolster nondiscrimination protections for pregnant students and change how schools handle claims of sexual harassment and assault.  

The proposal — first unveiled by the Education Department in June 2022 on the landmark law’s 50th anniversary — drew immediate criticism from conservatives, primarily for its intent to extend protections to transgender students. In July 2022, Florida’s top education official brushed off the guidance as an attempt by the federal government “to impose a sexual ideology” on students and instructed schools not to follow it. 

“I’m sure they were ready for it,” Blackman said of the Biden administration’s anticipation of legal action against the new regulations. “They knew this was coming; it wasn’t a surprise.” 

A White House spokesperson referred The Hill to the Education Department when asked for comment on the lawsuits. An Education Department spokesperson declined, saying the department does not comment on pending litigation. 

The spokesperson emphasized, however, that schools “are obligated to comply with these final regulations” by August as a condition of receiving federal funds. 

Since the cases challenging them were filed in largely conservative courts, it’s possible that the administration’s Title IX rules will be blocked before they can take effect, said Sarah Warbelow, the Human Rights Campaign’s legal director. 

“It’s clear that the decision was made to file these lawsuits in more conservative jurisdictions,” she said, “not only with respect to the district courts, but also the circuit courts.” 

She pointed to Virginia, which joined Kentucky’s lawsuit. Cases filed in Kentucky are appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while Virginia cases are appealed to the 4th Circuit, which has already determined that Title IX prohibits discrimination against transgender students. 

Meanwhile, Texas’s lawsuit, filed in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas, will almost certainly be heard by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who hears 95 percent of cases filed in Amarillo. Kacsmaryk, the division’s only federal judge, has voiced opposition to the passage of LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws including the Equality Act, federal legislation that would make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes. 

In 2016, Kacsmaryk, then deputy counsel for the Christian conservative legal organization First Liberty Institute, wrote in a brief that “the term ‘sex’ in Title IX must not be read to include gender identity.” 

Three of the four lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s new regulations were filed in the 5th Circuit, the nation’s most conservative federal appeals court.

“It’s important to note that who is in the U.S. Department of Justice and in the White House and at the Department of Education will all also influence those decisions,” Warbelow said. “And so, elections have consequences for the long-term trajectory of any litigation on this matter.” 

Preventing the new regulations from taking effect would deal a significant blow to LGBTQ students, especially in the South, where most of the lawsuits were filed, said Brian Dittmeier, director of public policy at GLSEN. 

In a 2021 report from the group, which works to end anti-LGBTQ discrimination and bullying in schools, LGBTQ students in states like Alabama, Texas and Louisiana reported disproportionately high rates of victimization based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Overall, more than 80 percent of LGBTQ students surveyed said they felt unsafe at school.

“That goes to show that there is a lot of room for state officials and school administrators to adopt policies and practices that actually ensure safer schools for their students,” Dittmeier said.

“By bringing these lawsuits, what you see is the opposite. You see state officials who are actively working to avoid compliance with nondiscrimination law that would ensure a safer environment for their students.” 

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4642185-conservative-courts-title-ix-transgender-protections/

Rand Paul slams Biden, McConnell for spending “borrowed” money on Ukraine aid

 Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went after President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in an interview airing Sunday over spending “borrowed” money on Ukraine.

“My primary reason for opposing sending money to Ukraine is that we don’t have any money,” Paul said in an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable.” “The money has to be borrowed. So basically, you know, we owe China a trillion dollars, they bought a trillion dollars worth of our debt. We have to basically borrow money from China in order to send it to Ukraine”

Paul also said in the interview that McConnell and the Biden administration have been telling the Ukrianians that they would end up in NATO “‘no matter what.’”

“Well, that’s the one thing that, actually, Ukraine has that they could negotiate. If they were willing to negotiate that they would be a neutral country and not allied with the… with the Russians and not allied with the West but be open to trade with both,” Paul continued. “I think what they could do is that could be negotiated for withdrawal of troops. There’s no guarantee the Russians would withdraw troops, but it’d be worth the offer.”

Biden signed a $95 billion last emergency foreign aid package last month with aid for Ukraine and Israel, and called out “MAGA Republicans” for holding up the aid to Ukraine.

“To my desk, it was a difficult path. It should have been easier, and it should have gotten there sooner. But in the end, we did what America always does; we rose to the moment, came together and we got it done,” Biden said.

“For months, while MAGA Republicans were blocking aid,” the president continued. “Ukraine’s been running out of artillery shells and ammunition Meanwhile, Putin’s friends are keeping him well supplied.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4643209-rand-paul-joe-biden-mitch-mcconnell-spending-borrowed-money-ukraine-aid/

‘Free Palestine?’ Or just ‘Hate America’?

 As protestors swarm our country’s top universities, their qualms about Israel’s military actions in Gaza have faded behind a deeper anti-Americanism that is finally showing its true colors.

For example, on the evening of April 19, the American flag that waves above Yale’s World War I memorial was yanked down, eliciting widespread cheers from the protesting crowd. Across the country, demands to “free Palestine” have turned into calls for “universal liberation.”

What started as criticisms of the Israeli government have turned into an all-encompassing movement (self-branded as “anti-colonial”) aimed at America’s core institutions and its very existence as a nation.

As co-presidents of Yale’s Alexander Hamilton Society chapter, which advocates for strong American global leadership, we have faced many challenges from fellow students. But never did we expect to see signs in the center of campus claiming that “the United States of AmeriKKKa is a death country” or activists urging listeners to “dismantle the f— out of everything.”

The protests afflicting Yale and many of its peer institutions are permeated by a totalizing, illiberal ideology that demonizes America while demanding that everyone contribute to “liberation.” They urge a complete tear-down of all of our systems.

They hold that American military and law enforcement agencies are forces of evil. As they chalked on the ground during a recent demonstration, the Israel Defense Forces, the Ku Klux Klan and the Yale Police Department “are all the same.” More troubling, they see our democracy and free market not as guarantors of liberty and drivers of innovation, but as the authors of ongoing oppression.

Simply put, these protesters believe that America is fundamentally a bad country, leaving a negative net impact on the world.

Where do these ideas come from? One source is — not coincidentally — university faculty. In the academic buildings that surround the tent cities proliferating across college campuses, professors are teaching students that the U.S. government acts as a force of exploitation rather than liberty. They teach that “decolonization,” broadly defined, requires and justifies violence.

These ideas have gradually become dominant on our campus and others nationwide. The universities have enabled this by hiring, promoting and celebrating professors who cast aside longstanding pedagogical traditions of open debate and critical thinking in favor of an intellectual monoculture.

Today’s college classroom is an echo chamber where conformity is rewarded, ideological diversity is shunned or punished, and America is demonized, all under the guise of promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.

The war in Gaza is only the precipitating event that brought out this long-nurtured anti-Americanism in U.S. academia. Had Hamas not attacked on October 7, and had Israel not responded, some other event would have triggered these campus demonstrations of self-targeted hatred.

By amplifying our universities’ lack of ideological diversity, social media has added fuel to the fire. Just as Osama bin Laden’s letter made the rounds on TikTok last November, students continue to circulate appeals to dismantle America’s core institutions online amongst their classmates. Our adversaries are watching with delight as TikTok’s algorithms promote such divisive and anti-American content.

These trends distinguish today’s protests from past instances of civil disobedience, such as the anti-Vietnam War movement, to which many of our colleagues have been drawing comparisons. Protesters then agreed that America as a concept was worth fighting for, but disagreed with its military policy. Today, we are surrounded by messages that America itself is problematic and should cease to exist.

As a result, we are projecting a divided image abroad. We are the only country in the world that has seen its top educational institutions consumed by protests against our national system and society in such a way. On some campuses, demonstrations have turned violent.

When a nation’s youth stop believing in their country, it bodes poorly for its future. We are living through such a precarious moment. Increasingly, these protests are not about Gaza; they are about America.

Our Gen Z colleagues do not realize what the world would look like without the United States. To combat today’s major threats to freedom and stability, the world needs American leadership. Today’s protests aim to tear that down, just like they did with Yale’s American flag.

Abe Baker-Butler is president of American Jewish Committee’s Campus Global Board. Axel de Vernou is a research assistant at the Yorktown Institute. Both are students at Yale.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4639279-free-palestine-or-just-hate-america/

'Telegraph: Trump Develops 'Detailed' Plan On Achieving Ukraine Peace'

 Trump has long touted on the campaign trail that he can stop the Ukraine war in 24 hours while taking shots a Biden's inability to oversee a negotiation that would ultimately end the war.

The Daily Telegraph is now reporting, citing an unnamed source who is said to be close to the former president and current GOP frontrunner going into the November election, that Trump has developed a detailed plan for achieving Ukraine peace.

"There is a plan, but he’s not going to debate it with cable news networks because then you lose all leverage," the source said.

Below is the section of the Friday Telegraph report which previews the plan: 

A source close to the Trump campaign has told The Telegraph that a detailed Ukraine-Russia peace plan has been drawn up but will not yet be disclosed in any detail before his in an effort to maintain leverage.

Mr Trump will style himself as the only candidate who can end the war, with a simple “bumper-sticker” slogan, they said.

“He wants to stop the killing,” said the source. “That’s the bumper sticker: Trump will stop the killing.”

Last month a Washington Post report claimed that key to Trump's plan would be pressuring Kiev to permanently give up Crimea and part of the Donbas to the Russians.

The Post had cited aides who said the plan is to push for "Ukraine to cede Crimea and Donbas border region to Russia" in return for an end the Russian occupation and invasion.

But the truth is that at the very least Kiev would have to forever relinquish claims of sovereignty over Crimea. Moscow is also never going to let go to the four annexed territories in the east.

But Trump had slammed the apparently premature report as "fake news". At the time a statement from the Trump campaign said "The whole thing is fake news from the Washington Post. They’re just making it up." Spokesman Jason Miller did emphasize, however, that "President Trump is the only one talking about stopping the killing. Joe Biden is talking about more killing."

Meanwhile, things on the battlefield are making it increasingly clear that Ukraine may soon have no other option. The country's military and intelligence leadership also appears to be coming around to the hard reality that it will have to surrender territory, or else continue suffering massive losses and ceded ground. The Telegraph writes in its fresh report:

Ukraine is preparing for peace talks with Russia as there is “no way to win on the battlefield alone”, Kyiv’s deputy spy chief has said.

Maj Gen Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence agency, said both sides were currently vying for “the most favorable position” ahead of possible negotiations in 2025.

As with virtually all wars, negotiations will likely be the final stage of the conflict, he told the Economist.

Yet President Zelensky himself has yet to echo this perspective. Instead he's currently urging the West for more and more advanced weapons, and talking about "ten year defense" plans ensured by the US and Kiev's backers.

He has further recently said that if Ukraine ever hopes to formally join NATO, it must 'win' against Russia - which at this point seems in the realm of fantasy. The White House has so far done nothing to dispel this fantasy, but has instead encouraged it.

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

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-develops-detailed-plan-achieving-ukraine-peace-telegraph

When You Can't Afford the War Any More (The Interlocking Of Strategic Paradigms)

 by Alastair Crooke via the Ron Paul Institute,

Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran’s 13th April swarm drone and missile ‘demonstration’ attack into Israel: A ‘message’, rather than an ‘assault’.

The leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot, has estimated the cost of attempting to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The implications of this single number are substantial.

Professor Postol writes:

“This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this type is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequately armed and determined adversary”.

“The videos show an extremely important fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missiles”, [fired from mostly U.S. aircraft. Some 154 aircraft reportedly were aloft at the time] likely firing AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missiles. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air missile is about $500,000”.

Furthermore:

“The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missiles could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower altitudes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel’s] David’s Sling and the Arrow missile defenses, they were not especially effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that essentially all or most of the arriving long-range ballistic missiles were not intercepted by any of the Israeli air and missile-defense systems”.

Postel adds, “I have analyzed the situation, and have concluded that commercially available optical and computational technology is more than capable of being adapted to a cruise missile guidance system to give it very high precision homing capability … it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missiles and drones”.

“The implications of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missiles and drones will be very high and might well be unsustainable unless extremely inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no one has demonstrated a cost-effective defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles with any reliability”.

Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defense to a potential attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic missile silos across the entire terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, even were central command and communications to be completely lost.

This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The huge physical expenditure on air defense ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeated willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easily persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unsustainable air-defence costs.

But also, as a second important implication, these Air Defense assets are not just expensive in dollar terms, they simply are not there: i.e. the store cupboard is near empty! And the U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity to replace these not particularly effective, high cost platforms speedily.

‘Yes, Ukraine’ … the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has succeeded in destroying so much of the western supplied, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia near complete air dominance over the skies.

Positioning scarce air defense ‘to save Israel’ therefore, exposes Ukraine (and slows the U.S. pivot to China, too). And given the recent passage of the funding Bill for Ukraine in Congress, clearly air defence assets are a priority for sending to Kiev – where the West looks increasingly trapped and rummaging for a way out that does not lead to humiliation.

But before leaving the Middle East paradigm shift, the implications for Netanyahu are already evident: He must therefore focus back to the ‘near enemy’ – the Palestinian sphere or to Lebanon – to provide Israel with the ‘Great Victory’ that his government craves.

In short, the ‘cost’ for Biden of saving Israel from the Iranian flotilla which had been pre-announced by Iran to be demonstrative and not destructive nor lethal is that the White House must put-up with the corollary – an attack on Rafah. But this implies a different form of cost – an electoral erosion through exacerbating domestic tensions arising from the on-going blatant slaughter of Palestinians.

It is not just Israel that bears the weight of the Iranian paradigm shift. Consider the Sunni Arab States that have been working in various forms of collaboration (normalissation) with Israel.

In the event of wider conflict embracing Iran, clearly Israel cannot protect them – as Professor Postol so clearly shows. And can they count on the U.S.? The U.S. faces competing demands for its scarce Air Defenses and (for now) Ukraine, and the pivot to China, are higher on the White House priority ladder.

In September 2019, the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was hit by cruise missiles, which Postol notes, “had an effective accuracy of perhaps a few feet, much more precise than could be achieved with GPS guidance (suggesting an optical and computational guidance system, giving a very precise homing capability)”.

So, after the Iranian active deterrence paradigm shift, and the subsequent Air Defence depletion paradigm shock, the putative coming western paradigm shift (the Third Paradigm) is similarly interlinked with Ukraine.

For the western proxy war with Russia centered on Ukraine has made one thing abundantly clear: this is that the West’s off-shoring of its manufacturing base has left it uncompetitive, both in simple trade terms, and secondly, in limiting western defense manufacturing capacity. It finds (post-13 April) that it does not have the Air Defence assets to go round: ‘saving Israel’; ‘saving Ukraine’ and preparing for war with China.

The western maximalization of shareholder returns model has not adapted readily to the logistical needs of the present ‘limited’ Ukraine/Russia war, let alone provided positioning for future wars – with Iran and China.

Put plainly, this ‘late stage’ global imperialism has been living a ‘false dawn’: With the economy shifting from manufacturing ‘things’, to the more lucrative sphere of imagining new financial products (such as derivatives) that make a lot of money quickly, but which destabilize society (through increasing disparities of wealth); and which ultimately, de-stabilise the global system itself (as the World Majority states recoil from the loss of sovereignty and autonomy that financialism entails).

More broadly, the global system is close to massive structural change. As the Financial Times warns,

“the U.S. and EU cannot embrace national-security “infant industry” arguments, seize key value chains to narrow inequality, and break the fiscal and monetary ‘rules’, while also using the IMF and World Bank – and the economics profession– to preach free-market best practice to EM ex-China. And China can’t expect others not to copy what it does”. As the FT concludes, “the shift to a new economic paradigm has begun. Where it will end is very much up for grabs.”

‘Up for grabs’: Well, for the FT the answer may be opaque, but for the Global Majority is plain enough – “We’re going back to basics”: A simpler, largely national economy, protected from foreign competition by customs barriers. Call it ‘old- fashioned’ (the concepts have been written about for the last 200 years); yet it is nothing extreme. The notions simply reflect the flip side of the coin to Adam Smith’s doctrines, and that which Friedrich List advanced in his critique of the laissez-faire individualist approach of the Anglo-Americans.

‘European leaders’, however, see the economic paradigm solution differently:

“The ECB’s Panetta gave a speech echoing Mario Draghi’s call for “radical change”: He stated for the EU to thrive it needs a de facto national-security focused POLITICAL economy centered around: reducing dependence on foreign demand; enhancing energy security (green protectionism); advancing production of technology (industrial policy); rethinking participation in global value chains (tariffs/subsidies); governing migration flows (so higher labour costs); enhancing external security (huge funds for defence); and joint investments in European public goods (via Eurobonds … to be bought by ECB QE)”.

The ‘false dawn’ boom in U.S. financial services began as its industrial base was rotting away, and as new wars began to be promoted. It is easy to see that the U.S. economy now needs structural change. Its real economy has become globally uncompetitive – hence Yellen’s call on China to curb its over-capacity which is hurting western economies.

But is it realistic to think that Europe can manage a relaunch as a ‘defense and national security-led political economy’, as Draghi and Panetta advocate as a continuation of war with Russia? Launched from near ground zero?

Is it realistic to think that the American Security State will allow Europe to do this, having deliberately reduced Europe to economic vassalage through causing it to abandon its prior business model based on cheap energy and selling high-end engineering products to China?

This Draghi-ECB plan represents a huge structural change; one that would take a decade or two to implement and would cost trillions. It would occur too, at a time of inevitable European fiscal austerity. Is there evidence that ordinary Europeans support such radical structural change?

Why then is Europe pursuing a path that embraces huge risks – one that potentially could drag Europe into a whirlpool of tensions ending in war with Russia?

For one main reason: The EU leadership held hubristic ambitions to turn the EU into a ‘geo-political’ empire – a global actor with the heft to join the U.S. at Top Table. To this end, the EU unreservedly offered itself as the auxiliary of the White House Team for their Ukraine project, and acquiesced to the entry price of emptying their armories and sanctioning the cheap energy on which the economy depended.

It was this decision that has been de-industrializing Europe; that has made what remains of a real economy uncompetitive and triggered the inflation that is undermining living standards. Falling into line with Washington’s failing Ukraine project has released a cascade of disastrous decisions by the EU.

Were this policy line to change, Europe could revert to what it was: a trading association formed of diverse sovereign states. Many Europeans would settle for that: Placing the focus on making Europe competitive again; making Europe a diplomatic actor, rather than as a military actor.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/interlocking-strategic-paradigms

CIA Engaged In "Infinite Race" With China For AI, Other Tech

 The CIA is engaged in an "infinite race" with China when it comes to AI and other top technologies, according to the agency's Chief Technology Officer, Nand Mulchandani, who outlined a strategy that prioritizes technological prowess as crucial to national security.

Speaking at the Hill & Valley Forum's gathering of top technology and government officials in Washington this week, Mulchandani’s made it clear that the agency is aggressively pursuing advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) to bolster both offensive and defensive capabilities, the Washington Times reports.

"We’re looking at transforming every single part of what the agency does," he stated, underscoring the depth of the CIA's commitment to integrating AI into its core operations. The agency's push includes the development of large language models, sophisticated algorithms that are the backbone of generative AI tools, aiming to enhance everything from field operations to analytical and support functions.

This strategic pivot comes as geopolitical rivalry with China is intensifying. The CCP has repeatedly expressed its ambition to dominate the AI sphere, which would present profound challenges and implications for global power dynamics. Mulchandani emphasized the need to rethink the concept of this competition as a "race," suggesting that viewing it as having a definitive end is a misstep. "This is an infinite race. This is not going to stop. It’s going to keep on going," he explained, framing the scenario as a continuous struggle for technological superiority.

The implications of this shift are profound. If the deployment of these new tools escalates to warfare, it will test America's position in the technology stakes, a scenario Mulchandani hopes will never materialize. He predicts the next major conflict will be "primarily a software war," driven by AI, changing the nature of warfare from hardware-dependent to software-driven.

The concerns are not just theoretical. At Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Herbert Lin of the Stanford Emerging Technology Review highlighted the shift in global tech leadership, with the U.S. losing its primacy in certain key areas like AI. Lin pointed out the critical need for a robust talent pipeline and a strategic vision, especially in fields like biotechnology, to maintain competitiveness.

Moreover, the CIA is particularly wary of AI-driven Ubiquitous Technical Surveillance (UTS), which threatens the secrecy of U.S. intelligence operations. In response, the agency is engaged in foundational infrastructure work, which Mulchandani described as the "sewer and plumbing work" necessary to navigate the AI revolution. This involves constant adaptation to rapid technological changes, ensuring that the CIA remains agile in its tech tactics.

"We talk about UTS, which is basically something that’s really, really killing us out in the field in terms of competitively, you know, biometrics, video cameras," he said. "Well, how do we turn it around [and continue] those operations in the face of this much AI being thrown at us is another big area that they’re looking at. So directorate by directorate, we’re rethinking, reshaping every part of what CIA needs to do in the face of using it and deploying it."

The urgency of these initiatives is echoed in the broader governmental plea for collaboration from Silicon Valley. House Speaker Mike Johnson's call to technologists and venture capitalists at the forum to guide and assist the government underscores the critical role of public-private partnerships in navigating the technological labyrinth.

As the U.S. and China continue their relentless pursuit of technological dominance, the narrative is clear: this is not a sprint with a finish line but a marathon without end, defining the future of global power, security, and technological innovation.

Big Mike Begs

No, not that Big Mike... House Speaker Mike Johnson (R?-LA), who implored the technologists and venture capitalists at the forum to help the government wherever they can.

"There are not many industries, not many leaders and experts, who we just openly plead for your counsel, but I am doing that here today," said Johnson. "Because a lot of the people who are of goodwill here, who want to do the right thing, could use some of your guidance along the way to make sure that we don’t step on any land mines that we don’t see. You have a much better vision, I think, on a lot of that than we do."

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/cia-engaged-infinite-race-china-ai-other-tech