Search This Blog

Thursday, August 7, 2025

Kremlin Confirms Trump-Putin Meeting 'In Coming Days'

 The Kremlin has on Thursday belatedly confirmed that a meeting between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been agreed to and will take place in the "coming days". The White House first unveiled it yesterday, as reported in the NY Times, but it was as yet unclear to degree to which Moscow was on board.

But now Russia has agreed "in principle". According to a statement of Putin’s longtime foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, "At the suggestion of the American side, an agreement in principle was made to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest level in the coming days."

He laid out that the idea of a Trump-Putin-Zelensky meeting (which apparently Washington pushed for) "for some reason was mentioned by Washington yesterday" but "not specifically discussed,” Ushakov added, explaining that the Russian side "left this option completely, completely without comment."

Meeting during Trump's first term. Sputnik/Reuters

This was in reference to the intense three-hour meeting that Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff had with both Putin and his top negotiator and investment chief Kirill Dmitriev.

"We have launched work to discuss the parameters of such a meeting and the venue for it jointly with our American colleagues now," Ushakov said additionally.

"By the way, I’d like to note that the venue, too, has been agreed in principle and will be announced a bit later," he added. Putin's office has described that the interest in a face-to-face meeting, which will mark the first of Trump's second term - was mutual. One location being already floated as a possibility is the United Arab Emirates.

As for a Zelensky meeting, President Trump has indicated this would happen just bilaterally soon following his sit-down with Putin. Trump had been quoted Thursday as saying "that there will be a meeting [with Putin] very soon" and "that we could be ending" the Ukraine conflict. "We haven’t determined where [the meeting would take place], but we had some very good talks with President Putin today." 

But this is all a bit surprising as nothing has fundamentally changed in the warring sides' stances. Moscow has not backed off its maximalist war goals, and will not budge from giving up the four eastern territories it has long declared part of the Russan Federation after a popular referendum, or what was fundamentlally annexation vote.

The Zelensky government hasn't issued any indication that it's ready for territorial concessions - and it even wants to keep laying claim to Crimea. Meanwhile the tariffs offensive continues, with more taking effect overnight:

After months of threats, delays and extensions, President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs took effect overnight, raising the overall average tariff rate to more than 17%, its highest since the Great Depression. Everything from European Union appliances and Japanese cars to food, furniture and toys from China TVs from South Korea will be hit. However, selected oil and gas imports, along with some smartphones and goods covered by a pre-existing trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, are not affected.

Trump has indicated his trade offensive won’t stop. The president said he still plans to impose import taxes on pharmaceutical products and semiconductors. Amid that pressure, Apple said it plans to invest $600 billion in the U.S. over the next four years amid pressure from Trump to shift its supply chain to American soil.

Meanwhile, Trump hiked the tariff rate for India to 50% because of the nation’s purchases of Russian oil, and he said he could raise the European Union’s tariff level to 35% from 15% if it reneges on an investment commitment.

As for the upcoming meeting, Anti-Kremlin punits have accused Putin of using the whole dialogue with Washington as a way to keep stalling - all while sustaining battlefield gains - and to gain a reputational boost. They see Putin as having everything to gain with a direct meeting with Trump, in terms of global standing and domestic opinion - but he's not expected to make any significant compromise.

At this point from Moscow's point of view the fate of the war is being decided, but wholly on the battlefield. Ukraine's near-daily cross-border drone attacks also means the Russian military is unlikely to take its foot of the gas pedal operationally.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/kremlin-confirms-trump-putin-meeting-coming-days-tariffs-dozens-countries-take-effect

Lilly Shares Tumble As Weak Weight-Loss Pill Data Overshadows Strong Earnings

 Eli Lilly shares plunged in premarket trading after disappointing results from its new weight-loss drug (a pill, rather than an injection) overshadowed strong second-quarter results and raised full-year guidance. 

Starting with the bad news: The topline data from the 72-week trial of orforglipron was underwhelming. Patients on the highest dose lost 11.2% of their body weight, compared to 2.1% for placebo. For comparison, Novo Nordisk's Wegovy demonstrated an average of 15% weight loss over 68 weeks in late-stage trials, while Lilly's Zepbound was around 20%. 

Orforglipron's results fall short of the current standard set by Wegovy and others, overshadowing strong second-quarter results and an increased full-year guidance.

Here's a summary of Lilly's second-quarter results:

  • Adjusted EPS: Came in at $6.31, a sharp increase from $3.92 a year ago. This shows strong profit growth.

  • Revenue: Tops $15.56B, up 38% year-over-year, and beat the $14.7B Bloomberg Consensus estimate.

Product Highlights:

  • Zepbound (obesity drug): Generated $3.38B, up 46% quarter-over-quarter, and beat the estimate of $3.07B.

  • Verzenio (cancer drug): Revenue was $1.49B, up 12% y/y, slightly misses the $1.52B estimate.

  • Mounjaro (diabetes/obesity): Brought in a massive $5.20B. It remains a blockbuster.

Other Notables:

  • R&D Expenses: Spending rose to $3.34B, up 23% y/y, slightly above the estimate of $3.2B, indicating continued high investment trends in pipeline development.

In markets, Lilly shares in New York plunged as much as 12% in premarket trading. If the losses hold through the cash session, sustaining at least a 12.35% decline (last seen on Oct. 9, 2008), then it would mark the largest single-day drop since the 29% crash on August 9, 2000

Wall Street also overlooked Lilly lifting both sales and profit forecasts for the year

  • Revenue: Lilly now expects to bring in $60B to $62B this year, up from its previous forecast of $58B to $61B. Bloomberg Consensus estimate: $60.07, so the new guidance is slightly more optimistic than what Wall Street was expecting.

  • Adjusted EPS: Raised to $21.75 to $23.00, up from $20.78 to $22.28, signaling higher expected profitability.

Lilly's decline sparked a bid in Novo shares.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/eli-lilly-shares-slide-toward-worst-drop-years-weight-loss-pill-disappoints-despite

Trump Demands Intel CEO "Must Resign" Over Alleged China Ties Cited In Senator Cotton's Letter

 President Trump must have read U.S. Republican Senator Tom Cotton's letter, sent to Intel's Board on Wednesday, about the chipmaker's new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan's ties to Chinese firms, and a recent criminal case involving his former company, Cadence Design. That's because Trump just fired off a shocking new Truth Social post moments ago.

"The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately," Trump wrote on his social media platform. 

The president continued, "There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!" 

In a letter addressed to Intel Chairman Frank Yeary, Cotton raised the question whether Intel's Board knew about subpoenas issued to Cadence during Tan's tenure, and whether Tan has fully disclosed or divested from Chinese chip firms linked to the Chinese military or Communist Party.

Writing to "express concern about the security and integrity of Intel's operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security", Cotton said in the letter. 

Cotton noted that Tan recently pleaded guilty to illegally transferring sensitive chip design technology to a Chinese military university and semiconductor firm while working at Cadence. 

Cotton also criticized Intel's decision to hire Tan despite these associations, especially given the company's nearly $8 billion award under the CHIPS Act and its role in the Secure Enclave program, which requires strict compliance with national security protocols.

Intel shares are down nearly 4% in premarket trading in New York. 

Here's the full letter from the GOP Senator:

Mr. Frank D. Yeary

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Intel Corporation

2200 Mission College Blvd

Santa Clara, CA 95054

Dear Mr. Yeary:

I write to express concern about the security and integrity of Intel's operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security. In March 2025, Intel appointed Lip-Bu Tan as its new CEO. Mr. Tan reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People's Liberation Army. 

Mr. Tan was most recently the CEO of Cadence Design Systems, a company that makes electronic design automation (EDA) technology, which is a key enabler of advanced chip design. Last week, Cadence pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining licenses. These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan's tenure. 

Intel was awarded nearly $8 billion from the CHIPS and Science Act, the largest grant to a single company. Intel is required to be a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations. Mr. Tan's associations raise questions about Intel's ability to fulfill these obligations. In the interest of transparency and national security, I respectfully request a response to the following questions by August 15, 2025.

  1. Was the Board aware of Cadence's subpoenas before hiring Mr. Tan as CEO? If so, what measures were taken to address concerns about Cadence's activities under Mr. Tan?
  2. Did the Board require Mr. Tan to divest from his positions in semiconductor firms linked to the Chinese Communist Party or the People's Liberation Army and any other concerning entities in China that could pose a conflict of interest for Intel's CEO?
  3. Given Intel's contract under the Secure Enclave program, has Mr. Tan disclosed any remaining investments, professional roles, or other ties to Chinese companies to the U.S. government?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely,

Tom Cotton

United States Senator

It seems like the 'Red Scare' has begun. 

And this...

. . . 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-demands-intel-ceo-must-resign-over-alleged-ccp-ties-cited-senator-cottons-letter

Trump To Allow Crypto In 401k Retirement Plans For US Workers: White House

 US President Donald Trump will sign an executive order that could open the door for cryptocurrencies to be included in 401(k) retirement plans, potentially reshaping how Americans invest their savings.

The White House Press Office confirmed to Cointelegraph on Thursday that the order directs the US Labor Department to reevaluate restrictions around alternative assets in defined-contribution plans, including digital assets, private equity and real estate. 

A senior White House official said the order instructs the Secretary of Labor to clarify the department’s stance on alternative assets and provide guidance on fiduciary processes for offering these types of investments in retirement portfolios.

Trump will allow crypto exposure for $12.5 trillion 401(k) market

Once implemented, Cointelegraph's Ezra Reguerra reports that the order could grant Americans access to digital assets through their 401(k) plans — part of a $12.5 trillion retirement market and a sought-after opportunity for crypto firms aiming to reach more retail investors.

The move would be a significant step forward for the crypto industry, which has long sought broader retail exposure and financial system legitimacy.

Despite institutional investors increasing crypto allocations, everyday savers have been restricted due to fiduciary risk, regulatory uncertainty and volatility concerns. 

The White House official said that Trump’s directive would call for inter-agency coordination with the US Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to explore rule changes that may support the adoption of alternative investments like crypto in retirement products. 

Bitcoin is rallying this morning on the report...

And yesterday saw a reversal of the recent outflows from ETFs...

Trump has final say on the executive order

On July 18, the Financial Times cited anonymous sources saying that the president is eyeing alternative investments like crypto assets for American 401(k) retirement plans.

In a previous statement to Cointelegraph, White House spokesman Kush Desai said that nothing should be deemed official unless it comes from Trump himself.

Desai said Trump is committed to restoring prosperity to everyday Americans and safeguarding their economic future. “No decisions should be deemed official, however, unless they come from President Trump himself,” Desai said. 

During a Bloomberg interview, US SEC Chair Paul Atkins said education on the risks associated with crypto as an investment is crucial.

Atkins said disclosure is key and that people should be made aware of what they are getting into. He added that he’s looking forward to what the president will do. 

Earlier this year, the Labor Department rescinded an earlier guidance for crypto in 401(k) plans. On May 28, the Labor Department revoked a 2022 guidance that urged fiduciaries to be “extremely cautious” when eyeing crypto for 401(k) retirement plans. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/trump-allow-crypto-401k-retirement-plans-us-workers-white-house

Gabbard "Not Surprised" Establishment Media Is Silent On Russia Hoax Bombshells

 Via VigilantFox.com

DNI Tulsi Gabbard just called out the mainstream press for going quiet on the newly declassified revelations that EXPOSE the full extent of the Russia Hoax. 

According to Gabbard, this silence is no coincidence. 

“I’m not surprised for a few reasons.”

“Primary of which, many of these mainstream media outlets were the ones who—John Brennan and his people, and James Clapper and his people, leaked to almost immediately after that, Obama-directed National Security Council meeting.”

“Weeks before that assessment was completed. And actually even before it had really begun being drafted.”

She said the media didn’t question a thing.

“In many cases, you know, they printed…these mainstream media outlets printed exactly what they were told to print, without any kind of vetting or like, hmmm…okay, was this always the assessment? Or can you give us any evidence that this is true?”

“None of it. Because it didn’t exist.”

“These are mainstream media outlets that went on to repeat and build up and really advance and propagate this lie that was created by President Obama and his administration and went on to win awards for it.”

Pulitzer Prizes….for lies.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tulsi-gabbard-not-surprised-establishment-media-silent-russia-hoax-bombshells

Kaiser Poll: Most Americans Reject Fall COVID Shot, Don't Trust CDC Or FDA On Vaccine Safety

 Via JonFleetwood.com,

In a sweeping signal that Americans are waking up to the dangers of coerced medicine and captured regulation, a new KFF (formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation) poll reveals that the majority of Americans do not intend to get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, and less than half trust the CDC or FDA to ensure vaccine safety.

The nationwide erosion of confidence in federal health agencies and their pharmaceutical partnerships is welcomed by those who have long called for accountability, transparency, and the restoration of informed consent in American medicine.

Most Say ‘No’ to COVID Vaccine

According to the KFF Health Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust, conducted July 8–14, 2025:

  • 59% of U.S. adults say they will either “definitely not” or “probably not” receive a COVID-19 vaccine this fall.

  • Only 21% say they will “definitely get” the shot.

  • Republicans are the least likely to receive the vaccine, with 59% stating they will “definitely not” take it.

  • Among White adults, 42% say they will “definitely not” get the shot.

These findings follow a growing body of evidence discrediting the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

A recent JAMA Health Forum study admitted that the shots “saved far fewer lives than first thought,” especially in younger populations.

COVID shots have been linked to 38,709 deaths, 221,030 hospitalizations, and a total of 1,665,264 injuries—though these numbers represent less than 1% of actual adverse events, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-commissioned report by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare.

These staggering figures may help explain why a clear majority of Americans are now refusing the shot.

Confidence in CDC & FDA Continues to Decline

Just 49% of U.S. adults say they have confidence in federal health agencies like the CDC and FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines approved for use in the U.S.

  • Only 42% believe these agencies make decisions based on science rather than the personal views of agency officials.

  • Just 37% believe the CDC and FDA act independently, without influence from outside interests.

These numbers reflect the ongoing fallout from the COVID-19 response, which congressional investigators recently confirmed involved the CDC and White House using “deeply flawed” messaging and “overpromising” vaccine safety “without evidence.”

This collapse in public trust is unsurprising given the government’s admitted reliance on arbitrary “6-feet” distancing rules, unproven mask mandates, and harmful lockdowns—none of which were grounded in transparent science, but all of which inflicted lasting damage on public health, the economy, and institutional credibility, according to a two-year investigation by the Congressional Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Confusion Over Federal Policy Changes

Public awareness of recent changes to U.S. vaccine policy remains limited, despite multiple headlines since the appointment of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—likely due to mainstream media blackout, institutional resistance, and a legacy press unwilling to cover reforms that threaten the pharmaceutical establishment.

(This is why independent media is so important.)

  • 52% say RFK Jr. has made changes to U.S. vaccine policy.

  • Only 26% describe those changes as “major.”

  • 40% say they don’t know enough to characterize the changes.

Among parents, confusion is also evident:

In fact, the CDC’s updated guidance does not formally recommend the shot for healthy children, stating the decision should be made between the provider and the family.

48% are unsure whether federal agencies are currently recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children this fall.

Split on Whether RFK Jr.'s Policies Improve Safety

When asked whether RFK Jr.’s changes will make Americans safer:

  • 36% said the changes will make people less safe.

  • 20% said they will make people safer.

  • 31% said they don’t know enough to say.

  • 13% believe the changes will not make a difference.

The response is largely partisan:

  • 62% of Democrats say RFK Jr.’s changes make people less safe.

  • 41% of Republicans say the changes will make people safer.

This split comes despite Kennedy’s sweeping reforms—including pulling the CDC’s COVID shot recommendation for children and pregnant women, banning mercury in flu vaccines, blocking the WHO’s pandemic treaty, defunding Gates-linked GAVI, ending coercive hospital vaccine incentives, and firing all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel—each a bold move to restore public health integrity and medical freedom.

However, health realists are still waiting for Kennedy to pull the deadly COVID shots from the market.

Trust in Public Health Officials vs. Personal Providers

The most trusted source for vaccine information remains personal healthcare providers:

  • 83% of Americans say they trust their doctor “a great deal” or “a fair amount.”

Trust in government entities is notably lower:

  • CDC: 57%

  • Local public health departments: 62%

  • State government officials: 43%

  • HHS Secretary RFK Jr.: 37%

However, RFK Jr. holds strong support among Republicans:

  • 70% of Republicans trust RFK Jr. for vaccine information.

  • Among MAGA-aligned Republicans, that figure rises to 77%.

  • By contrast, only 11% of Democrats say they trust RFK Jr.

Vaccine Access Not a Major Concern

Among adults who do plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall, concerns about access are more common.

But for the general population:

  • Only 33% are concerned the vaccine might not be available.

  • Only 34% of insured adults are concerned their insurance might not cover it.

Among those unlikely to get the shot, concerns about access are negligible:

  • Just 11% worry about vaccine availability.

  • Only 14% are concerned about insurance coverage.

Broader Context: Regulatory Trust Eroding

This poll comes as the FDA expands its fast-track drug approval pipeline, clearing drugs for use in as little as 30 days.

The agency has also confirmed plans to bypass normal clinical trial requirements for a new bird flu vaccine, using the same Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway as it did with the COVID shots.

In this regulatory environment, the KFF data reflects what many have long warned: Americans are rejecting medical coercion, questioning agency integrity, and demanding informed consent.

The message from the American people is clear: we’re done being lied to, we’re done being experimented on, and we’re done trusting captured agencies to protect us—this is the beginning of a public health reckoning, and it’s long overdue.\

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/most-americans-reject-fall-covid-shot-dont-trust-cdc-or-fda-vaccine-safety

Wednesday, August 6, 2025

Inside NATO's Efforts To Arm Ukraine

 by RFE/RL via OilPrice.com,

  • European NATO countries have pledged to buy American weapons, including Patriots, for Ukraine as U.S. support under Trump wanes.

  • The EU surpassed the U.S. in total aid to Ukraine and committed to boosting defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2034.

  • While Europe is increasing artillery shell production, Ukraine still urgently needs U.S.-made air defense systems to counter Russian strikes.

Earlier in July, an agreement was reached for European NATO allies to purchase American weapons, including Patriot missiles, for Ukraine. While Germany recently announced that two Patriots would head to Kyiv shortly, questions remain if this deal really will give Ukraine what it needs in the months ahead.

The deal, announced by US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in Washington, D.C., on July 14, is essentially a continuation of what has been the modus operandi for Western allies since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine over three years ago: the Europeans send military equipment they already have to Kyiv and then replenish their stock with new weapons -- mainly American ones.

The big difference now, though, is that the Europeans must considerably step up weapons deliveries to Ukraine, with the Trump administration so far not providing any new pledges.

(Deliveries promised during the Biden administration are still continuing, however.)

To an extent, the Europeans have ramped up production to fill the gap, with the German-based Kiel Institute noting that for the first time since June 2022, Europe has surpassed the United States in total military aid to Ukraine with 72 billion euros ($83 billion), compared to 65 billion euros coming from Washington.

Increased NATO Defense Spending

The question for Ukraine and its allies is how viable the proposed mechanism will be. In the long run, the Europeans will have to buy more weapons after having pledged to spend 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense by 2034 at the NATO summit in the Hague in June. Arms destined for Ukraine will be a key part of this spending.

A diplomat from an EU country, speaking anonymously to RFE/RL, said the July Washington deal is the best way to keep the "Americans engaged in Ukraine in particular and in Europe in general," as the United States will benefit from the expected European defense splurge.

And while Europe is keen to invest in its own defense sector, this will take time. European leaders have decided it's better to buy American at least in the short term.

"It's either that or leave Ukraine without weapons," one NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity as they aren't authorized to speak on the record, told RFE/RL.

"I think on the European side there is a hard realization that this has to happen in some fashion or another."

On July 21, the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, an alliance of over 50 countries including all NATO member states and several non-NATO partners, met online for the first time since the Washington deal was announced. At the meeting of the group, which has been the key coordinator of Western arms deliveries to Kyiv, as many as seven countries expressed interest in buying American weapons for Ukraine. Those countries included Canada, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and some of the Nordic nations.

The outcome of the meeting of the Contact Group, which is also known as the Ramstein group, is that Ukraine would provide a detailed "wish list" of what it needs, focusing in particular on air defense and ammunition. NATO, in turn, would provide an estimate of how much such military hardware would cost to purchase. More clarity is expected when the Ramstein group assembles again in the fall, possibly in Ukraine for the first time.

The main question now is how quickly the military hardware can be delivered to Ukraine. European countries are expected to supply 2 million 155-millimeter artillery shells this year, and with Ukraine beginning domestic production supported by Western funding, the gap caused by the absence of American exports could be covered.

Patriots In Demand

But with air defense, it's a different story. And it's here that Ukraine still needs American arms, notably Patriot surface-to-air missiles.

The European alternative to the Patriot missile defense system, the French-Italian SAMP-T, has been provided to Kyiv, with Rome recently announcing a third battery will be sent in the fall. But according to NATO diplomats, producing both the interceptors required and the entire setup takes longer compared to the Patriots.

Plus, Kyiv has also questioned the European system's effectiveness.

When Trump and Rutte met the press to announce the deal on July 14, the US president mentioned that 17 Patriot systems could be readied to be purchased for Ukraine.

Germany last week announced that it will send two batteries to Ukraine in the near future, but it is not clear where the other systems would come from.

Six European countries -- Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, and Spain -- currently operate Patriot systems, but there are fears from those countries that sharing their batteries with Ukraine would leave their own skies exposed.

Both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, the two primary producers of Patriots, are stepping up production to meet the European demands, but Ukraine, under constant Russian barrage, will likely not see the benefits anytime soon.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/inside-natos-efforts-arm-ukraine