Authorities in the Dominican Republic announced Friday that they confiscated nearly 9.5 tons of cocaine, the largest drug seizure in the country’s history.
The $250 million worth of drugs were found nestled inside a banana shipment that arrived at the Caucedo port in the capital of Santo Domingo, the country’s most important seaport. The shipment had been sent from Guatemala and was destined for Belgium, said Carlos Devers, spokesman for the Dominican Republic’s Anti-Drug Agency.
Ten suspects have been detained, he said at a press conference.
Authorities so far this year have seized nearly 47 tons of drugs.
The second biggest seizure on record was reported in 2006, when officials found more than 5,680 pounds (2,580 kilograms) at the Caucedo port.
The Dominican Republic has long been considered a major drug transit point.
The global benchmark for food commodity prices rose in November, reaching its highest level since April 2023. The increase was driven primarily by a surge in vegetable oil prices. What's particularly concerning is that global food prices have resumed an upward trajectory this year, climbing steadily since the first quarter.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' Food Price Index, which tracks international prices of a basket of globally traded foods, averaged 127.5 in November—up 5.7% from a year ago but still 20.4% below its record high in March 2022.
The biggest driver of the overall index was the FAO Vegetable Oil Price Index, which jumped 7.5% in November versus October. This marked its second notable increase in two months and a 32% rise compared to the same month one year ago
While the FAO Dairy Price Index moved marginally higher, the other sub-indexes posted declines in November.
Here's the breakdown of all FAO sub-indexes:
The FAO Vegetable Oil Price Index increased by 7.5 percent in November from October, marking its second large increase in two months and 32 percent higher than its year-earlier level. Global palm oil prices climbed further amid concerns about lower-than-expected output due to excessive rainfall in Southeast Asia. World soyoil prices rose on global import demand, while rapeseed and sunflower oil quotations increased as tightening global supply prospects affected their respective markets.
The FAO Dairy Price Index maintained its upward trajectory in November, increasing by 0.6 percent from October, driven by rebounding global import demand for whole milk powder. Butter prices reached a new record level amid strong demand and tight inventories in Western Europe, while cheese prices rose due to limited export availabilities.
The other sub-indexes posted declines in November. The FAO Cereal Price Index dropped by 2.7 percent, down 8.0 percent below a year earlier. Global wheat prices declined due to weaker international import demand and increased supplies from the ongoing harvests in the Southern Hemisphere. World maize prices remained stable as strong domestic demand in Brazil and Mexico's demand for supplies from the United States of America were offset by favorable weather in South America, reduced demand for Ukrainian supplies and seasonal pressure from the ongoing U.S. harvest. The FAO All-Rice Price Index declined by 4.0 percent in November, driven by increased market competition, harvest pressures and currency fluctuations.
The FAO Sugar Price Index declined by 2.4 percent from October, impacted by the start of the crushing season in India and Thailand and eased concerns over next year's sugarcane crop prospects in Brazil, where recent rains have improved soil moisture.
The FAO Meat Price Index decreased by 0.8 percent in November, due mainly to lower quotations for pig meat in the European Union, reflecting abundant supplies and persistently subdued global and domestic demand. World ovine and poultry meat prices fell slightly, while international bovine meat quotations remained stable, with higher Brazilian export prices offset by lower Australia prices.
Readers have been well-informed this year about global food inflation re-accelerating. We said in June...
This was followed by a big jump in global food prices in September.
Global food prices hitting 19-month highs in November is momentum going in the wrong direction for consumers. This also shows how food prices are very sticky.
Ukraine will still remain a de facto member of NATO so long as its security guarantees with the bloc’s members remain in effect.
Zelensky recently flip-flopped on ceasefire terms by signaling that he’d accept a cessation of hostilities in exchange for Ukraine being admitted to NATO, though without Article 5 applying to all the territory that he claims as his own while the conflict remains ongoing. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry then released a statement about how their country won’t accept any alternative to NATO membership. The Kremlin predictably described this demand as unacceptable.
This coincided with NATO Secretary General Rutte clarifying that his bloc’s focus right now is on arming Ukraine, which corroborated reports from Le Monde that several members such as Hungary, Germany, and even the US oppose Ukraine joining at this time. The larger context concerns Putin finally climbing the escalation ladder after authorizing the historic use of the hypersonic medium-range MIRV-capable Oreshnik missile in combat after the US let Ukraine use its ATACMS inside of Russia’s pre-2014 territory.
Nevertheless, what’s lost amidst the latest news about Zelensky’s flip-flop on ceasefire terms is the fact that this is actually just a faux concession since there isn’t any chance that he’ll capture all of his country’s lost territory, plus he’s still demanding NATO membership, which is at the root of this conflict. At the same time, Ukraine is already arguably a de facto member of NATO after clinching a spree of security guarantees with many of its members over the past year, which resemble Article 5 in spirit.
About that, this clause is popularly misportrayed as obligating countries to dispatch troops in support of allies that are under attack, though it only actually obligates them to provide whatever support they deem necessary. The security guarantees that it clinched institutionalize those countries’ existing support for Ukraine in the form of arms, intelligence sharing, and other aid, which is essentially the same as Article 5 but without any implied (key word) pressure to dispatch troops like full membership carries.
So long as these agreements remain in force, then freezing the conflict even without Ukraine formally joining NATO would still represent Russia’s acceptance of its de facto membership as explained, though it’ll be very difficult for Russia to get Ukraine to terminate these pacts and for its partners to accept that. Germany’s and the UK’s allow for termination within six months of notification without any strings attached, while Poland’s the US’ specify that ongoing and implementing agreements will remain in force.
Per the first, “The termination will not affect the implementation of ongoing activities or projects, which have been decided prior to the date of its termination, unless Ukraine and Poland decide otherwise”, while the second states that “any implementing agreement or arrangement entered into between the Parties consistent with the terms of this Agreement shall continue to remain in effect under its own terms, unless otherwise specified in the terms of the specific implementing agreement or arrangement.”
In other words, even in the unlikely event that Russia coerces Zelensky or whoever his successor might be into terminating these pacts, Poland and the US might still unilaterally implement parts of them per their legal interpretations. This could hypothetically take the form of them carving out a proxy state in Western Ukraine on national security pretexts in order to prevent the deployment of Russian troops on NATO’s borders if the national government somehow falls under the Kremlin’s influence.
Granted, they’d have to have the political will to actually deploy troops to the country and it’s unclear whether they’d be willing to risk World War III over this if the Kremlin signaled that it has the political will to strike those of their troops that might officially enter Ukraine, but it still can’t be ruled out. Accordingly, most emerging scenarios of this conflict’s endgame lean towards Ukraine’s security guarantees with NATO remaining in effect, thus amounting to its continued de facto membership.
The only way in which this can be avoided is if Russia achieves a military breakthrough that enables it to coerce Zelensky or whoever his successor might be into terminating these pacts and the West (chiefly the US and Poland) is either deterred from staging a conventional military intervention, retreats under Russian attack if they go through with it, or are decisively defeated there in a hot war that somehow doesn’t go nuclear. This sequence of events is unlikely to unfold barring some unforeseen development.
Accordingly, even if Russia achieves its four maximalist aims of restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality, demilitarizing that country, denazifying it, and having Kiev recognize the loss of its five former regions, Ukraine will still remain a de facto member of NATO if these security guarantees remain in force.
Zelensky therefore isn’t conceding anything significant by flip-flopping on ceasefire terms. Russia will either accept this new military-strategic reality or it’ll have to resort to brinksmanship to try to change it.
Days after President Yoon Suk Yeol declared a brief state ofemergency martial law(probably the shortest on record), an opposition party's attempt to impeach him failed when most lawmakers from his conservative ruling party boycotted the vote.
The Democratic Party's move to impeach Yoon was thwarted on Saturday by the president's People Power Party, which announced shortly before the assembly session that it had decided to oppose the bill.
Impeaching the president requires a two-thirds majority in the 300-member assembly - or about 200 votes. However, the opposition party fell short of the threshold, as members of the president's party largely abstained from voting.
AP News cited National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik, who called the failed impeachment vote "very regrettable" and a national "embarrassment."
"The failure to hold a qualified vote on this matter means we were not even able to exercise the democratic procedure of deciding on a critical national issue," the speaker said.
Earlier in the day, Yoon apologized to the South Korean people for the emergency martial law, admitting he acted out of 'desperation.' He made no mention of resigning or impeachment, stating that he would leave that decision to his party.
Opposition parties could push through a new impeachment motion after the new parliamentary session opens next Wednesday.
"There are worries that Yoon won't be able to serve out his remaining 2 ½ years in office because his leadership took a huge hit," AP noted, adding, "Many experts say some ruling party lawmakers could eventually join opposition parties' efforts to impeach Yoon if public demands for it grow further."
Protests gathered outside the National Assembly building shortly after the motion to impeach Yoon failed.
"Tens of thousands of protesters massed outside South Korea's National," NYTimes wrote in a running blog.
JUST IN - Massive crowd gathers before the National Assembly plenary session to vote on South Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment motion pic.twitter.com/IF7SFXR3kj
In markets, the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) was up 1.3% on the week, Ishares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY) fell 4.3%.
Meanwhile, Graham Ambrose, managing director of Goldman Sachs' equity franchise sales team in London, told clients late Tuesday that there could be "buying opportunities in Seoul in coming days."
The 'Axis of Upheaval' is on the march—and the U.S. must figure out how to respond.
If it feels like the world is on fire right now, that's because it is. From Ukraine to Syria to the Korean Peninsula, a widening array of conflicts is raising questions among defense experts: Is it 1914 again? 1939? Has World War III already started and we're just now figuring it out?
For retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who served as Donald Trump's second national security adviser from 2017–2018, the answer is clear.
"I think we're on the cusp of a world war," McMaster told The Free Press. "There's an economic war going on. There are real wars going on in Europe and across the Middle East, and there's a looming war in the Pacific. And I think the only way to prevent these wars from cascading further is to convince these adversaries they can't accomplish their objectives through the use of force."
That won't be easy. Consider the facts:
In Ukraine, thousands of North Korean soldiers have recently joined Russian ground troops to bolster President Vladimir Putin's invasion of the country. Meanwhile, Russia has opened up a new front in the war by entering the northeast Kharkiv region, as it continues to assault Ukraine's cities and block its ports.
A U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon that forced terror group Hezbollah to retreat from Israel's northern border is showing signs of unraveling. Meanwhile, the Jewish state is still fighting a war in the Gaza Strip, where around 60 Israeli and U.S. hostages remain. And last month, Israel's air force destroyed much of Iran's air defense systems, leaving Tehran's nuclear facilities exposed to future attacks.
Rebels in Syria have recently seized key areas of the country that had been controlled for years by dictator Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers. Now that these insurgents have taken Aleppo, they are vowing to march on Damascus.
In the Baltic Sea, investigators suspect a Chinese ship of sabotaging critical underwater data cables that linked NATO states. Concerns about CCP aggression are mounting amid an emerging consensus in Washington that China would defeat the U.S. in a Pacific war, largely due to Beijing's naval superiority.
And on Tuesday, South Korea's president briefly declared martial law, alleging he needed to fend off a North Korean–backed coup led by the opposition party. Massive protests caused him to back down, and he is now facing impeachment proceedings.
These wars, rebellions, and spy tales may appear disconnected. But in reality, they all point to a widening global conflict that is pitting the U.S. and its allies against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—nations all fixated on toppling the West. Strategists have even come up with catchy nicknames for this anti-American coalition, dubbing the bloc the "Axis of Aggressors" or the "Axis of Upheaval."
Philip Zelikow, who served as executive director of the 9/11 Commission and counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2005 to 2007, is among those who think these conflicts are related. "I think there is a serious possibility of what I call worldwide warfare"—meaning a world war that is not as coordinated as past global conflagrations. "It's not hard to see one of these conflicts crossing over into another."
As Trump prepares to enter office next month, his primary foreign policy task should be to prevent an actual full-blown World War III, sources told The Free Press—or to stop it from metastasizing if it's already here.
To do this, the president-elect will have to fortify alliances with NATO, South Korea, and Japan—partnerships Trump has already shown he's skeptical of. And he will need to stare down a number of American adversaries, including Putin, Chinese president Xi Jinping, and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un—a despot for whom Trump has expressed both scorn and admiration.
At the same time, Trump benefits from his willingness to break from past U.S. policies and institutions that have helped foment these current conflicts. This includes a defense industry that doesn't produce the right weapons to compete with China or enough munitions to arm Ukraine. Defense strategists in previous U.S. administrations have been blind to the Axis of Aggressors' moves to expand their global power, sources told me—placing too much faith in global institutions, such as the United Nations, that were incapable of checking them.
Trump, with his nontraditional advisers such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, could potentially revolutionize the way the U.S. builds and projects power, sources told me. SpaceX CEO Musk, in particular, could marry America's military establishment with Silicon Valley's start-up culture to produce, at scale, the types of smart airplanes, drones, and submarines needed to deter Washington's enemies, they said.
But Trump's desire to shake up Washington and dismantle many of its national security institutions comes with enormous risk. The disruption of the Pentagon, State Department, and FBI could make the U.S. and its allies more vulnerable if these institutions become inoperable or less efficient, current and former officials told The Free Press.
"What he's gonna need is some agenda to bring the world back together after he pulls things apart," said David Asher, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, who oversaw U.S. government operations against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran in the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.
The threat of a widening global conflict is being driven by factors reminiscent of events before the start of World War I, sources told me. This includes the breakdown in alliances and trading systems and the arrival of disruptive technologies like airplanes, telephones, and mechanized weapons. Today, there is no longer a consensus that free trade will bring countries closer together and forestall future wars. And the Covid-19 pandemic revealed the dangers of reliance on China for medical supplies. Trump's threats to slap high tariffs on China and other countries also raise the specter of greater conflict.
"What you learn when you study economic history is that long cycles do end and when they do, they end with war," said Asher, who's worked on Wall Street and said he has recently briefed financial institutions on the threat of a global conflict.
Both McMaster and Zelikow said that the Syrian civil war that started nearly 15 years ago should have been a major wake-up call to the U.S., Europe, and NATO. The Obama administration tried to oust al-Assad through diplomacy and talks that included Russia and Iran, the strongman's primary patrons. But then the U.S. and Europe were blindsided in 2015 when Moscow and Tehran propped up al-Assad with both air and ground troops.
"We started talking about great power rivalry and all of that, but we didn't really do anything to arrest these trends," said Zelikow, who's now a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
This Syrian playbook can now be seen in Ukraine. Iran, North Korea, and China have all been supplying weaponry or technologies to Russia, while Iranian-backed Houthi fighters are now reported to be on the Ukrainian battlefield alongside North Korean troops.
The war in the Middle East, sparked by Hamas's invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023, has also attracted this broader axis. The Houthis, in support of Hamas, have been attacking international ships in a critical transit strait of the Red Sea. And they've been getting guidance from both Tehran and Moscow, according to current and former U.S. officials.
On the north side of the strait, an Iranian general is "directing the Houthis using Russian intelligence," McMaster told The Free Press. On the south side, "you have an Iranian surveillance ship. And you have a Chinese [naval] port, you know? I mean, that's not by mistake."
How will the Trump administration confront this emboldened axis? A significant divide among foreign policy strategists may prove difficult to bridge. In one corner are hawks and traditional Republican conservatives—such as incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, and UN Ambassador designee Elise Stefanik—who have called for a muscular defense of Pax Americana. They're expected to press Trump to continue arming Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, and even amp up our military support to preserve the Western order.
On the opposing side is an isolationist wing reflected in the public musings of Trump's eldest son, Don Jr., who tweeted on November 17 about the Biden administration's decision to provide long-range missiles to Ukraine:
The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!
Trump's vice president J.D. Vance, and his advisers, including Tucker Carlson to Tulsi Gabbard, also believe U.S. military overreach led to catastrophic U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and needless Western provocations of Putin that sparked his invasion of Ukraine. They argue that stepping back, rather than expanding, is the key to global peace.
Some Trump confidantes told The Free Press they've been studying U.S. policies that led up to the past two world worlds as guidance for today. They have concluded that Washington was too lenient on Hitler's Germany leading into World War II, but too committed to European allies in the early 1900s ahead of World War I. And they believe Trump will need to strike a balance between these two postures.
"I think you have to learn the lessons of both wars," Peter Thiel, the tech investor and close Trump ally, told The Free Press last month. "You can't have excessive appeasement, and you also can't go sleepwalking into Armageddon. In a way, they're opposite lessons."
* * *
Jay Solomon is an investigative reporter for The Free Press and author of The Iran Wars.
CG Oncology (CGON) announced topline data from the Phase 3 BOND-003 trial in patients with high-risk Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer, NMBIC, unresponsive to Bacillus Calmette Guerin, BCG, demonstrating 74.5% of patients achieved a complete response, CR, at any time, after receiving treatment with cretostimogene as a single agent. The median duration of response, DOR, has not been reached but exceeds 27 months as of the data cutoff of September 30, 2024. These data will be presented today as a Late-Breaking Abstract at the Society of Urologic Oncology, SUO 25th Annual Meeting.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will travel to Paris to attend the re-opening of Notre-Dame cathedral on Saturday, and could use the trip to hold talks with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, two diplomatic sources said.
There were efforts to arrange the meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump, who is also attending the celebrations, the two sources said. The plans would probably not come together until the last minute and any talks would be discreet, they added.
A Ukrainian delegation met on Wednesday with senior Trump aides, two sources familiar with the meeting said, as Ukraine seeks support from the incoming U.S. team for its war to repel Russia's invasion.
The Ukrainian delegation was led by Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskiy.
The group met in Washington with Trump's choice for White House national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and his Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, one of the sources said, without providing details.
Trump has vowed to bring about a negotiated end to the nearly three-year-old war between Ukraine and Russia, but has not provided details.
French President Emmanuel Macron will meet Trump late on Saturday afternoon at the presidential palace and meet Zelenskiy immediately afterwards, the French presidency said.
It did not say whether Zelenskiy and Trump would meet at that point, although one source said a trilateral meeting was possible.
Any meeting in Paris would be an opportunity for Zelenskiy to set out his case for support and assess Trump's views. The two men also met at the U.N. General Assembly in September.
With France in political deadlock following the fall of the government on Thursday, Macron will also hope to shine on the international stage by bringing the two leaders together and showing that Paris has a key role in its support for Ukraine, and in any future negotiations, diplomats said.
