SkingradGuard

Link: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5784951-wright-predicts-iran-war-end/

Archive: https://archive.is/2JiVB

THE HILL -

Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Sunday that he thinks the U.S. conflict in Iran could end in the next few weeks — or even sooner.

“I think that this conflict will certainly come to an end in the next few weeks,” Wright told ABC News’s Martha Raddatz on “This Week.” “Could be sooner than that, but the conflict will come to the end in the next few weeks.”

The war in Iran began late last month when the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes against the Middle Eastern country, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and setting off a larger regional conflict.

President Trump said Friday the war will come to an end when he “feels it in [his] bones.” He has previously floated various possible timelines for when the military operation could wrap up.

A few days after the U.S. and Israel’s initial attack, Trump said he expected the offensive to take up to “four to five weeks” or longer.

Late last week, Gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, called for an end to the war. Those three countries, alongside Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, have all come under varying degrees of attack from Iran since the onset of the war.

Back in the U.S., high fuel prices have rattled Americans and markets, as some economists warn that an extended conflict could push the U.S. into a recession.

Wright, responding to Raddatz’s questions about rising gas prices, said Sunday he expects costs to decline when the conflict concludes.

“We’ll see a rebound in supplies and a pushing down of prices after that,” he said, noting that the administration was “very aware” that there would be a “short-term disruption” amid the conflict.

Wright said last week that he didn’t expect price spikes to last for months.

“Look, you never know exactly the time frame of this, but, in the worst case, this is a weeks, this is not a months thing,” he told CNN.

I hope y'all like some BBC propaganda slop! It's the same greatest hits they've been playing for years.

Linky: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgj9p15y87o

Archive linky: https://archive.is/1bXdt

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to send out a firm message of defiance.

When we met this weekend in the government headquarters in Kyiv, he said that far from losing, Ukraine would end the war victorious. He was firmly against paying the price for a ceasefire deal demanded by President Vladimir Putin, which is withdrawing from strategic ground that Russia has failed to capture despite sacrificing tens of thousands of soldiers.

Putin, Zelensky told me, has already started World War Three, and the only answer was intense military and economic pressure to force him to step back.

"I believe that Putin has already started it. The question is how much territory he will be able to seize and how to stop him... Russia wants to impose on the world a different way of life and change the lives people have chosen for themselves."

What about Russia's demand for Ukraine to hand over the 20% of the eastern region of Donetsk that it still holds - a line of towns Ukraine calls "fortress cities" - as well as more land in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia? Isn't that, I asked, a reasonable request if it produces a ceasefire?

"I see this differently. I don't look at it simply as land. I see it as abandonment - weakening our positions, abandoning hundreds of thousands of our people who live there. That is how I see it. And I am sure that this 'withdrawal' would divide our society."

But isn't it a good price to pay if that satisfies Putin? Do you think it would satisfy him?

"It would probably satisfy him for a while... he needs a pause... but once he recovers, our European partners say it could take three to five years. In my opinion, he could recover in no more than a couple of years. Where would he go next? We do not know, but that he would want to continue [the war] is a fact."

I met Zelensky in a conference room inside the heavily guarded government enclave in a well-to-do corner of central Kyiv. In the interview he spoke mostly in Ukrainian.

You get a sense of the weight of leadership carried by Zelensky from the diligence of his security guards.

Visiting any head of state requires rigorous checks. But entering the presidential buildings in Kyiv takes the process to a level I have rarely experienced before.

It is not surprising in a country at war, with a president who has already been targeted by Russia.

Despite all that, the man who started as an entertainer, who won the Ukrainian version of Strictly Come Dancing in 2006, and played the role of an unexpected president of Ukraine in a TV comedy, before becoming the real-life president of Ukraine, seems to be remarkably resilient.

US President Donald Trump said on the eve of the most recent ceasefire talks in Geneva that "Ukraine better come to the table fast".

He continues to default to putting more pressure on Ukraine than on Russia.

Western diplomats have indicated since last summer that Trump agrees with Putin that territorial concessions from Ukraine to Russia are the key to the ceasefire Trump wants, ideally before this coming summer.

Plenty of analysts outside the White House also judge that Ukraine cannot win the war and, without making concessions to Moscow, will lose it.

I asked Zelensky whether Trump and the others had a point.

"Where are you now?" Zelensky asked in return. "Today you are in Kyiv, you are in the capital of our homeland, you are in Ukraine. I am very grateful for this. Will we lose? Of course not, because we are fighting for Ukraine's independence."

Zelensky has often said that Ukraine can win, but what would victory look like?

Of course, he said, victory meant restoring normal lives for Ukrainians and ending the killing. But the wider view of victory he presented was all about a global threat that he says comes from Putin.

"I believe that stopping Putin today and preventing him from occupying Ukraine is a victory for the whole world. Because Putin will not stop at Ukraine."

You are not saying that victory is getting all the land back, are you?

"We'll do it. That is absolutely clear. It is only a matter of time. To do it today would mean losing a huge number of people - millions of people - because the [Russian] army is large, and we understand the cost of such steps. You would not have enough people, you would be losing them. And what is land without people? Honestly, nothing."

"And we also don't have enough weapons. That depends not just on us, but on our partners. So as of now that's not possible but returning to the just borders of 1991 [the year Ukraine declared its independence, precipitating the final collapse of the Soviet Union] without a doubt, is not only a victory, it's justice. Ukraine's victory is the preservation of our independence, and a victory of justice for the whole world is the return of all our lands."

A year ago, Zelensky visited the White House and received a reception one senior Western diplomat described to me as a pre-planned public "diplomatic mugging" from Donald Trump and his Vice-President JD Vance.

Their argument, in the presence of the world's media, was watched by millions around the world.

Trump, just inaugurated as president for the second time, was sending the strongest possible signal that the era of support Zelensky and Ukraine had relied on from President Joe Biden was over. Nato members were already on notice from the new administration. Vance had just got back from shattering Western European illusions about the strength of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Since then, reportedly coached by Britain's National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell among others, Zelensky has avoided public confrontations with Trump.

The US president has stopped almost all shipments of military aid to Ukraine. But the US still provides vital intelligence, and European countries are spending billions buying weapons from the Americans to give to Ukraine

I asked Ukraine's president about Trump's often contradictory statements, recalling that among the untruths he has uttered is the accusation that Zelensky is a dictator who started the war - a precise echo of claims made by Vladimir Putin.

Zelensky laughed.

"I am not a dictator, and I didn't start the war, that's it."

But can you trust Trump? If you extract a security guarantee from him, I asked, would he keep his word? He is after all a man who changes his mind.

"It is not only President Trump, we're talking about America. We are all presidents for the appropriate terms. We want guarantees for 30 years for example. Political elites will change, leaders will change."

He meant that US security guarantees needed approval from Congress in Washington DC to make them watertight.

"They will be voted on in Congress for a reason. It's not just presidents. Congress is needed. Because the presidents change, but institutions stay."

In other words, Donald Trump might be unreliable, but he will not be there for ever.

Zelensky says those security guarantees would have to be in place before he could consider another US demand - for Ukraine to hold a general election by the summer, echoing another Russian talking point that Zelensky is an illegitimate president. Trump has not demanded elections in Russia, where Putin became leader for the first time on the last day of the 20th Century.

Zelensky said he had not decided whether to stand again, whenever an election is held: "I might run and might not."

Elections were due in 2024, but they could not be held under martial law that was introduced after Russia's full-scale invasion.

Holding postponed elections, Zelensky said, was technically possible if they had time to change the law to allow them to happen. But he needed security guarantees for Ukraine first.

He went on to raise so many potential problems about holding an election with millions of Ukrainians abroad as refugees and significant tracts of the country occupied by Russia that I suggested that in reality he was against the idea.

"If this is a condition for ending the war, let's do it. I said, 'honestly, you constantly raise the issue of elections'. I told the partners, 'you need to decide one thing: you want to get rid of me or you want to hold elections? If you want to hold elections, (even if you are not ready to tell me honestly even now), then hold these elections honestly. Hold them in a way that the Ukrainian people will recognise, first of all. And you yourself must recognise that these are legitimate elections'."

Hehe

:beanis:

Link: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5748269-vance-supreme-court-tariff-ruling/

Linky archive: https://archive.is/72517

by Sarah Davis

Vice President Vance condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a majority of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Friday.

“Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports’, didn’t actually mean it,” Vance posted on the social platform X. “This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.

The vice president pointed to a “wide range of other tariff powers” still available to the president.

Vance’s statement echoed Trump’s remarks at the White House on Friday afternoon, when he said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.”

A majority ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose steep tariffs on countries across the globe. The emergency measure grants the U.S. president the ability to place regulations on imports in response to “unusual and extraordinary” threats.

Two of the six justices in the majority opinion — Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch — were appointed by Trump.

The president criticized them in his Friday remarks to the press.

“I don’t want to say whether I regret nominating them. I think their decision was terrible,” Trump said. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed discontent with the Trump administration’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, pointing to Congress’ constitutional authority over federal taxation. A resolution calling for the cessation of Trump’s tariffs passed in the Senate last fall with bipartisan support.

Recent polling indicated that most Americans felt similarly, with 67 percent of respondents expressing their support for the Supreme Court to overturn these policies in a February survey.

A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York indicated that U.S. businesses and consumers took on about 90 percent of the costs of these tariffs, despite claims from the White House that foreign countries would shoulder the majority of the financial burden.

Several Republican lawmakers have come out in support of the court’s decision Friday. Kentucky’s GOP Sens. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell — who both voted in favor of passing the Senate resolution last October — commended the ruling.

Paul, who sponsored the resolution, called the ruling a “defense of our Republic” in a post on X.

McConnell said in a statement that the court’s decision leaves “no room for doubt” on the issue of Congress’s constitutional authority over tariffs.

“Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid,” McConnell said. “If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1.”

Lol, lmao

Linky: https://archive.is/SlCn6

Other linky: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/13/lindsey-graham-to-allies-get-over-greenland-00780269

Lindsey Graham to allies: Get over Greenland

The South Carolina Republican offered a fairly optimistic take on a NATO alliance that's been battered by the dispute over Greenland.

By Joe Gould

Sen. Lindsey Graham says it’s time for America’s allies to move on from their angst over President Donald Trump’s recent gambit to acquire Greenland — and start doing more work to strengthen the NATO alliance.

“Greenland is behind us,” said the South Carolina Republican Friday at the Munich Security Conference. “I think everybody’s hugging it out and we’ll live to fight another day.”

More broadly, Graham’s message was that Trump’s pressure campaign on Europe has ultimately reinforced NATO — and that allies now need to translate higher defense spending into sharper support for Ukraine. It was an optimistic take after the alliance neared a rupture over Trump’s threats.

“Everybody loves NATO,” Graham said. “Well, I love it because people are doing more.”

Graham, a Trump ally, predicted that talks between the U.S., Greenland and Denmark over the future of the Danish territory will yield an agreement for more U.S. military infrastructure there. Trump recently reversed course after leaving open the option to seize Greenland.

“Who gives a shit who owns Greenland,” Graham said. “The point is Greenland is going to be more fortified because Donald Trump, once he feels like it’s his brand or his buy-in, is going to go big.”

On Ukraine, he said the U.S. needs to put more pressure on Moscow to help peace talks.

Graham said he plans to advocate for Ukraine to receive Tomahawk missiles, more training for Ukrainian forces and longer-range systems capable of striking deeper into Russian territory. He is backing a bipartisan Russia sanctions package that has stalled in Congress, but he insisted Trump would sign it.

“He’s asked me, like, three times, where’s the bill? He went from like, ‘I don’t know about this’ to ‘Yeah, that’s good idea,’” Graham said.

He credited Trump with forcing European governments to boost defense budgets and argued the alliance would not be contributing as much without his prodding. He cast Trump’s mix of tariff threats and unpredictability as an effective approach with allies and adversaries.

“When it’s all said and done, in 2028 or 2032 or 2040 — whenever he leaves — we will have a stronger NATO and a weaker Russia,” he said.

Fucking hell. Death to Amerikkka

Link: https://xcancel.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2007979957134512415

Hey all, in a late-night induced NATOpedia doomscroll, I wandered into the page about the Triads, and it makes some wild claims about how the CPC is in bed with organized crime. Checking the sources of course, they're all linked to pro-Imperialist sources, including Taiwan-based propaganda sources. Linky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_(organised_crime)

I remember some users here explaining how the reform and opening up period is was what increased organized crime presence in the mainland, whereas the NATOpedia article claims that the CPC embraced organized crime during the revolution. I shouldn't be surprised about this slander, as reducing the influence of reactionary forces such as crime syndicates is often a primary goal of ML states; we see this in Cuba, the USSR and Vietnam. The article even mentions Vietnam and Ho's policies of eradicating crime syndicates, so it's quite the stark contrast in propaganda narratives being displayed here about AES states.

I guess I am asking if there is any truth to imperialists claims here? Because from my cursory glance, it just seems like more anti-China fearmongering from the usual propaganda outlets and think-tanks.

linkies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7i9KdVTFR4 https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=R7i9KdVTFR4

Rogue worker in the DOJ, or intentional?

Accidentally put this in the wrong comm my bad. Deleted the last one.

each person in New Zealand eats, on average, 28.4 liters of ice cream per year. The U.S. ranked second at 20.8 liters per person,

linky

"capitalism can't be defined"

I HATE LIBERALS I HATE LIBERALS AAAAAAAAAA

You can do almost anything with them. Better than humanity you ask? Yes! For example, can you prepare humankind the way you can a bean? Nope.

Haters will say it's not true, but it is!

:beanis:

Seeing all the indignant chuds and liberals saying 🥺"awh you can't make fun of this, this is why the left will always lose" is so funny. Lmao

I'm not going to link any threads in particular (too many funny ones) but here's the forums if you want to lose some brain cells: https://steamcommunity.com/app/553850/discussions/0/