Porsche Sales Plunge Most In 16 Years

Porsche AG shares in Germany are headed for their steepest weekly decline since trading began in late 2022, after the 911 maker reported that vehicle sales in the 2025 selling year fell to their lowest level in 16 years.

The 911 maker announced earlier that it delivered 279,449 vehicles to customers worldwide in 2025, down 10% from 310,718 in 2024. This marked the largest annual drop in deliveries since the 2009 financial crisis roiled global markets and crushed consumer sentiment.

"After several record years, our deliveries in 2025 were below the previous year's level. This development is in line with our expectations and is due to supply gaps for the 718 and Macan combustion-engined models, the continuing weaker demand for exclusive products in China, and our value-oriented supply management," Matthias Becker, Member of the Executive Board for Sales and Marketing at Porsche, wrote in a statement.

Porsche's troubles are not dissimilar to those of other European auto brands, where sliding sales, profit warnings, intensifying competition from Chinese brands, and weak electric-vehicle demand have created significant uncertainty that is likely to linger well into the second half of the year.

The stock is slightly lower in European trading. On the week, shares are down the most on record (-10%), with trading data going back to their 2022 initial public offering.

Compared with peers... 

Bloomberg cited a conversation earlier this week between Oddo BHF analyst Anthony Dick and Porsche CFO Jochen Breckner at the German Investment Seminar in New York. Breckner told the analyst he was "even more conservative" than before. In reducing his estimates, Dick said Porsche is in an ongoing "major restructuring," noting that profitability has been under pressure since its IPO. He added that this year and next are likely to be transition years for the company

According to Bloomberg data, analysts remain mostly pessimistic on Porsche, with just five buy ratings, 13 neutral ratings, and 11 sell ratings.

The broader EU auto industry is struggling.

Bernstein analysts, led by Stephen Reitman, called Porsche their "wild card," noting that a shift to a full-time CEO with experience at Ferrari and McLaren Automotive provides "room for optimism" and greater urgency in improving performance.

Overall, Porsche appears to be in prolonged transition over the next one to two years, while the broader EU auto industry remains stuck in a rut, weighed down by weak demand, margin pressure, and an uncertain path forward.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 07:45

UK Govt Threatens To Return Lucy Connolly To Jail For Sharing Joke Post On X

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Lucy Connolly, the 42-year-old UK woman previously sentenced to two years in prison for a post on X is back under the microscope of Britain’s speech enforcers, with the government threatening to put her back behind bars for merely reposting a satirical jab at Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The latest drama stems from Connolly reposting a comment that read: “Could Trump could come and take Starmer like they did in Venezuela.”

Probation officials deemed it “not of good behaviour,” with Connolly noting: “Apparently… somebody called probation and said they were very offended by this post and it’s inciting violence.”

Lucy Connolly – who has already spent ten months locked up for a singular post on X – is facing a recall to prison because she retweeted a joke about Donald Trump arresting Keir Starmer.
Officials told her it was inciting violence.
THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH IN THE UK!@LucyTCWife pic.twitter.com/W3LtW5czA3

— Dan Wootton (@danwootton) January 14, 2026

The fact that some random person called in the thought crime to the authorities is arguably equally as disturbing as the resulting threat to send Connolly back to prison. It highlights how there are hordes of bootlicking citizens eager to act as the thought police and to tattle to the State.

Connolly has also been cautioned over remarks about British-Egyptian extremist Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who has a history of posting extremist threats against British people, yet was welcomed into the country recently by Kier Starmer after being released from prison by Egyptian authorities.

Connolly first hit the headlines after the horrific Southport attacks, where three young girls were murdered by a second-generation Rwandan migrant. In the heated aftermath, she tweeted: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care.”

Judge Melbourne Inman KC labeled it “grossly offensive” and handed her the maximum 31-month sentence under the Public Order Act, despite no prior offences or direct threats. She served 380 days before release on licence in August, under conditions typically reserved for serious offenders.

Her case drew fire from proponents of free speech, who blasted it as proof of Britain’s “two-tier justice system.” Before his tragic murder, Charlie Kirk noted such words “would not be any prison time in America,” underscoring how the UK has slid toward a “totalitarian country.”

Connolly insists she hasn’t posted anything offensive or inciting since her release, even suggesting authorities provide a list of “things she was allowed to say” to avoid these traps.

Connolly has also had to deal with her 13-year-old daughter, Edie, being barred from a new school after the headteacher rescinded a trial placement upon discovering her mother’s conviction. The educator claimed “racism doesn’t go down well” and that Edie’s presence would cause a “ruckus.”

Connolly called it “outrageous discrimination,” asking: “In what world is this ok?” and adding, “My daughter is being punished for my views. She’s innocent, and now she’s the one suffering.”

The Maduro quip that landed Connolly in hot water—suggesting Trump should swoop in and haul Starmer away like Venezuelan tyrant Nicolás Maduro—was no isolated gag. Thousands of frustrated Brits have cracked similar jokes across X and beyond, venting rage at a regime seen as trampling freedoms while bungling borders and the economy.

Posts like “Trump is gonna Maduro your ass next!” and “We really need Trump to repeat the Maduro operation with Starmer” rack up likes in the hundreds or thousands for mocking the PM’s fate. If resharing such satire warrants prison time, what’s next—a mass roundup of every citizen daring to poke fun at the powers that be?

This reeks of selective tyranny, cherry-picking targets to stifle dissent while ignoring the real threats fueling public fury.

Connolly’s ordeal is just one thread in Britain’s expanding speech gulag. Last year alone, police arrested nearly 10,000 people for “grossly offensive” social media posts under draconian laws like the Communications Act—averaging 30 busts a day.

Forces raid homes over sarcastic emails, old tweets, or WhatsApp chats, diverting resources from real crimes like burglaries and knife attacks. We’ve even seen early releases for violent offenders to make room for thought criminals.

Take the case of Luke Yarwood, jailed 18 months for two anti-immigration tweets viewed just 33 times. The judge called them “odious in the extreme,” despite no real-world impact or followers acting on them. Such minimal-reach rants get hammered harder than child abusers in some courts, exposing priorities skewed against ordinary Brits raging against open borders.

Starmer’s regime has recently gone as far as suggesting a complete ban on X, citing its Grok AI for generating fake images as a convenient excuse for what is clearly an effort to target the platform where unfiltered truth is allowed to reach the masses.

Now the government is turning its attention once again to Online Safety Act’s Section 121, empowering Ofcom to force platforms like WhatsApp to scan private messages via client-side tech—shattering end-to-end encryption.

Officially for child exploitation and terrorism, it flags everyday views on mass migration as radicalization risks: researching immigration stats, defending British rights, or protesting cultural shifts.

Schools are even using games labeling such concerns as paths to extremism.

The use of the “Maduro joke” shared by Connolly to crackdown on free speech echoes globally. In Spain, ex-senator Carles Mulet has denounced bullfighter Fran Rivera and right wing activist Vito Quiles for jokingly urging Trump to “continue” after Venezuela by intervening in Spain and eyeing Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

Ridiculously, the pair are now facing 5-10 years in prison, with authorities citing treason and provocation, among a litany of other offences.

This global assault on free expression demands fierce pushback. When mere reposts or quips land ordinary people in the crosshairs and families bear the brunt, it’s evident: the real danger isn’t online words, but regimes worldwide desperate to silence opposition to their rejected agendas.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 07:20

UN Chief's Last Annual Speech Warns Global Cooperation 'On Deathwatch'

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will step down as head of the UN in 2026, and on Thursday he issued a stark warning to world leaders upon the occasion of this last annual priorities speech.

He said that international cooperation is being pushed "onto deathwatch" by widening geopolitical rifts and increased and unpredictable violations of international law and sharp cuts to humanitarian aid. While not naming names, the United States under President Trump was probably high on the UN official's mind, and certainly the audience was thinking it in the wake of the Venezuela operation as well as threatened US strikes on Iran.

Source: UN Dispatch

"At a time when we need international cooperation the most, we seem to be the least inclined to use it and invest in it," he said, decrying some governments are actively working to weaken the system, increasingly creating "self-defeating geopolitical divides".

"The context is chaos," Guterres told delegates. "We are a world brimming with conflict, impunity, inequality and unpredictability."

Another big and dramatic line, as he discussed hot conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza to Yemen to Sudan - came in the following:

"That is the paradox of our era: at a time when we need international cooperation the most, we seem to be the least inclined to use it and invest in it," he said, adding: "Some seek to put international cooperation on deathwatch. I can assure you: we will not give up."

"Peace is more than the absence of war," he additionally said, blaming that poverty, lack of development, inequality and weak institutions end up creating conditions for further violence. "Sustainable peace requires sustainable development."

"As we meet today, millions are trapped in cycles of violence, hunger and displacement," he additionally described, calling on more robust global action.

Meanwhile over in Moscow, President Putin expressed agreement, the same day in a speech not related to the United Nations describing that the global situation is on the brink:

“The situation on the international stage is increasingly deteriorating - I don’t think anyone would argue with that - long-standing conflicts are intensifying, and new serious flashpoints are emerging,” Putin said with a smile.

In a speech to new ambassadors who ‍had presented their credentials in the Kremlin, his first public remarks on foreign policy issues ‍this ‍year, Putin did ⁠not mention the United ‌States or Trump explicitly.

“We hear ⁠a monologue from ‍those who, by the right of might, consider it permissible to ⁠dictate their will, lecture others, and issue orders,” Putin said. “Russia is sincerely committed ‌to the ideals of a multipolar world.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has delivered a stark warning about the state of global security, saying the world is becoming more unstable as old conflicts flare up and new flashpoints emerge. https://t.co/R0yHuPdpQf

— Rajeev Ahmed (@twittingrajeev) January 15, 2026

"We hope that recognition of this need will come ‍sooner or later. Until then, Russia will continue to consistently pursue its goals," Putin stated.

More junior Russian officials have over the past days pointed out that it's absurdly hypocritical for the West to lecture Moscow, when Washington is going unprovoked into countries like Venezuela to remove leaders - and threatening new war against Iran.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 06:55

Data Centers, Power Infrastructure, Healthcare Set To Lead Next Phase Of Construction Boom

Eric Gaus, chief economist at Dodge Construction Network, joined Goldman Sachs analysts to discuss the overall state of U.S. building construction, assessing which project types are likely to dominate and the underlying strength of the trend.

"We come away from our discussion with a continued outlook for private non-residential construction spending to return to growth in 2026 vs 2025, with strength led by data centers, power infrastructure, and healthcare," Goldman analysts led by Adam Bubes wrote in a note on Tuesday.

For those unfamiliar with Dodge Construction, the index is a leading indicator of U.S. construction activity, measuring the dollar value of new, nonresidential building projects entering the planning phase. Analysts track the index because it provides early signals for industrials, materials, engineering firms, and REITs, and often anticipates broader turns in the business cycle.

Bubes forecasted nominal growth of 2% in 2026 and 5% in 2027 in private nonresidential construction spending, with data centers, power infrastructure, and healthcare leading the way.

About 2.5 months ago, the Dodge Momentum Index showed a sharp increase in data center buildouts expected for 2026.  In May of last year, we pointed to UBS analyst Steven Fisher, who forecasted the Trump-era construction boom in AI data centers wouldn't filter into the real economy until early 2026.

"More slowing before reacceleration in 2026," Fisher told clients at the time, adding, "We expect stimulus and structural forces to drive the rebound, while cyclical factors remain weak."

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can read the full Goldman note in the usual place, where key takeaways from the Dodge Construction roundtable offer more insight into building trends nationwide this year.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 05:45

Data Centers, Power Infrastructure, Healthcare Set To Lead Next Phase Of Construction Boom

Eric Gaus, chief economist at Dodge Construction Network, joined Goldman Sachs analysts to discuss the overall state of U.S. building construction, assessing which project types are likely to dominate and the underlying strength of the trend.

"We come away from our discussion with a continued outlook for private non-residential construction spending to return to growth in 2026 vs 2025, with strength led by data centers, power infrastructure, and healthcare," Goldman analysts led by Adam Bubes wrote in a note on Tuesday.

For those unfamiliar with Dodge Construction, the index is a leading indicator of U.S. construction activity, measuring the dollar value of new, nonresidential building projects entering the planning phase. Analysts track the index because it provides early signals for industrials, materials, engineering firms, and REITs, and often anticipates broader turns in the business cycle.

Bubes forecasted nominal growth of 2% in 2026 and 5% in 2027 in private nonresidential construction spending, with data centers, power infrastructure, and healthcare leading the way.

About 2.5 months ago, the Dodge Momentum Index showed a sharp increase in data center buildouts expected for 2026.  In May of last year, we pointed to UBS analyst Steven Fisher, who forecasted the Trump-era construction boom in AI data centers wouldn't filter into the real economy until early 2026.

"More slowing before reacceleration in 2026," Fisher told clients at the time, adding, "We expect stimulus and structural forces to drive the rebound, while cyclical factors remain weak."

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can read the full Goldman note in the usual place, where key takeaways from the Dodge Construction roundtable offer more insight into building trends nationwide this year.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 05:45

China Leads Global Coal Power Additions Despite Renewables Push

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

China continues to nearly single-handedly prop up global coal consumption and new coal-fired power generation, despite being also the world’s leading investor in renewables and battery storage. 

China is set to commission as many as 85 coal-fired power generating units this year, out of a total global of 104 coal projects slated for start-up in 2026, according to data by non-profit Global Energy Monitor (GEM) cited by the Financial Times.

Of all the 63 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power generation expected to begin commercial operations globally this year, 55 GW will be in China, the GEM data showed. 

Last year, China accounted for a massive 78% of all global coal power capacity that began operating. The world’s top coal consumer and importer also makes up a whopping 86% of the total global capacity under construction and expected to be commissioned this year, according to the data analyzed by GEM. 

Apart from China, other Asian economies such as India, Indonesia, and Vietnam continue to add coal-fired capacity. 

GEM data shows India has 24 GW of coal power capacity under construction. India is investing huge sums in renewables and hit its renewable installation target earlier than planned, but it continues to bet on coal. 

Coal-fired power generation and capacity installations in India continue to rise and coal remains a key pillar of India’s electricity mix with about 60% share of total power output. Despite booming renewable capacity additions, India continues to rely on coal to meet most of its power demand as authorities also look to avoid blackouts in cases of severe heat waves.

Globally, China is the leader – by far – in renewable energy investments and capacity installations, but it is also a leader in coal-fired power and continues to be the key driver of record-high global coal demand. 

So, any meaningful reduction of global coal-related energy emissions depends on how China approaches its energy security and affordability dilemma in the coming years.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 05:00

Danish Intelligence Confirms The Russia-China Threat To Greenland

A 2025 Intelligence Assessment by the government of Denmark highlights the long term Russian and Chinese 'threat' in Arctic waters, at a moment Greenland officials have rejected the US assertion that the large resource-rich island and its waters are being gradually influenced and taken over by the Russia/China 'menace'.

Trump has recently stated, "We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t."

AFP/Getty Images

Greenlanders meanwhile are by and large rejecting this, though perhaps Trump was using hyperbole in a "see Alaska from my house" Sarah Palin moment.

While Trump has already proven he often first sets his interventionist policy and agenda, and then goes looking for a justification in a post hoc fallacy kind of way (a longstanding tradition among pretty much all American presidents, sadly), the Danish intelligence report does seem to add general weight to Trump's arguments.

For a sampling of official quotes from the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) - Intelligence Outlook 2025, complied by Conservative pundit Nick Solheim:

"In recent years, the United States has significantly increased its security policy focus on the Arctic, while Russia continues its military build-up, and China continues to develop its capacity to operate both submarines and surface vessels in the region." (p. 30)

"Russia remains the strongest military power in the Arctic but sees itself as being challenged by the West. As a result, Russia will increasingly assert its interests through a more confrontational approach, both politically and militarily." (p. 30)

"Most of Russia’s nuclear-armed submarines are stationed in the Arctic. They form a key component of Russia’s plan to deter the United States from attacking, providing Russia with the capability to launch a potential retaliatory nuclear strike." (p. 31)

"The United States’ assessment of the scale and nature of future Chinese military activity in the Arctic is a key factor shaping its engagement in the region. Any Chinese military activity in the Arctic – particularly in proximity to US territory – would be regarded as a serious concern." (p. 31)

"China aims to develop the capacity for independent military operations in the Arctic. Chinese activities are primarily concentrated in the waters north of the Bering Strait, extending towards the North Pole." (p. 35)

"China’s long-term goal is to deploy missile submarines beneath the ice, thereby attaining the same nuclear second-strike capability as Russia and the United States." (p. 36)

"Although Chinese companies have shown interest in investing in Greenland, this has so far not produced tangible results. Nevertheless, China’s long-term Arctic interests include Greenland, and it is expected to continue pursuing cooperation with Greenland, particularly in research but also in commercial ventures." (p. 36)

"Despite the considerable geographical distance, Russia periodically deploys submarines, surface vessels and aircraft near both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, as well as throughout the waters between them." (p. 38)

"In addition, Russia employs civilian vessels operating in the area to carry out tasks such as surveillance on behalf of the Russian state." (p. 38)

"For Russia, the waters between Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom – the so-called GIUK Gap – form the main maritime gateway to and from the Arctic. Thus, the GIUK Gap is vital for Russia in the event of an armed conflict with NATO." (p. 35)

"In such a conflict, Russia would seek to disrupt the supply lines between the United States and Europe by deploying attack submarines capable of transiting the GIUK Gap undetected." (p. 35)

But it should be clear there's also a convenient invoke the Moscow/Beijing bogeyman for when it suits your purpose kind of thing at play here...

Deterrence as usual- this is less a threat asessment than a review of the militarily un-alarming by commercially ominous status quo. You might as wll have quoted FA & The Economist.

— Russell Seitz (@RussellSeitz) January 13, 2026

BREAKING: The odds of the U.S. acquiring Greenland hit 25%, as the Trump admin floats offer valuing Greenland at over $10 million per resident. pic.twitter.com/EGgRQqrFww

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) January 14, 2026

The 'fact checkers' have been quick to push back, for example in this fresh Associated Press article: "Experts have repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s claims of Chinese and Russian military forces lurking off Greenland’s coastline. Experts say Russia instead operates in the Barents Sea, off the Scandinavian coast, and both China and Russia have a presence in the Bering Sea south of Alaska."

It remains that the "Arctic" is a big, big place - and pretty much every great power with significant maritime capability patrols it as international waters. Whether Greenland is truly under threat or not from Russia and China is another matter.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 04:15

What's Behind Washington's Signaling Support For NATO Troops In Ukraine?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

It might be a negotiating tactic to pressure Russia into concessions on its maximalist goals in the conflict as a quid pro quo for not reprioritizing Russia’s containment over China’s by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and thus reducing the odds that they’ll actually deploy there.

France and the UK recently committed to deploying troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire as part of their latest proposed security guarantees to that country, the principle of which was praised for the first time ever by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the US’ Special Envoys for talks with Russia. The Paris Declaration that France and the UK signed also pledged their support for “Participation in a proposed US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism”. All of this certainly raises concern in Russia.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared last February during his speech at NATO HQ that his country won’t consider member states’ troops in Ukraine to be covered by Article 5 and won’t deploy any of its own there either as part of any security guarantee. In light of the Paris Declaration, however, some in Russia might wonder whether the US is soon planning to reverse both policies to protect its NATO allies’ troops in Ukraine upon their deployment and deploy its own there too for monitoring a ceasefire.

Putin himself warned as recently as last September that Russia would deem Western troops in Ukraine “legitimate targets for destruction.” It’s therefore easy to see how their deployment en masse, unlike the minor unofficial French and UK troop presence in Odessa that Russian spies confirmed later that same month, could spiral out of control into World War III if Russia targets their forces. That might not happen, though, if the US’ support for the latest security guarantees is just a negotiating tactic (at least for now).

To explain, Trump 2.0 could have continued pumping Ukraine with weapons for free and never initiated talks with Russia if it wasn’t sincere about ending the conflict, all while gradually ramping up escalations against Russia as part of a “boiling the frog” approach for normalizing the path to World War III.

Abstaining from those courses of action only to suddenly engage in the unprecedented escalation of extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and even sending its own is possible but unlikely.

The “Trump Doctrine”, which readers can learn more about here, relegates Russia as a junior partner in a US-led world order. All that the US wants is to deny China access to more of Russia’s resources, which it requires for maintaining its growth and thus its superpower trajectory, by massively investing in some deposits as an incentive for compromising on its security-related goals in Ukraine and then outbidding China for access to others in the future. This quid pro quo, however, remains unacceptable to Putin.

Even if his position doesn’t change and the conflict continues, achieving the above goal vis-à-vis Russia might become increasingly less important for the US if it soon obtains control over Iran’s, Nigeria’s, and other major BRI countries’ resources after its astounding success in Venezuela. In that event, it’s difficult to imagine Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, whose “Strategy of Denial” is at the center of the “Trump Doctrine”, prioritizing the Russian front of the New Cold War over the Chinese one.

After all, the aforesaid complementary policies include radically ramped-up multilateral military pressure upon China in parallel with denying it access to the resources (and markets) that it requires, which doubling down on the Ukrainian Conflict would detract from. If the non-military aspects of Colby’s “Strategy of Denial” are advanced in major BRI countries and among US partners in the Indo-Pacific, the EU, and the Gulf, then the cost of stubbornly trying to advance this with Russia wouldn’t be justified.

Accordingly, the US would be less likely to extend Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and naturally wouldn’t deploy its own there either in that scenario, instead possibly suggesting a compromise whereby its allies would concentrate their troops in Poland and Romania instead while the US might monitor a ceasefire via remote means like satellites and drones. This proposed compromise would be necessitated by circumstances, but the context likely wouldn’t be told to the Russians.

Rather, it could be presented as a pragmatic compromise for Russia scaling back its goals, particularly those related to demilitarization and territory. Putin is reluctant to do that, however, but he also might not want to risk upsetting the current arrangement within the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) whereby containing China now takes priority over containing Russia like could happen if he rejects a compromise and/or presses forward after Donbass.

Given the US’ eagerness to outsource Russia’s containment in Europe to the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” in partnership with Germany after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, which would enable the US to fully prioritize China’s containment, Russia’s post-conflict security situation might relatively improve (albeit not to the extent envisaged when the special operation began) so long as it agrees to a compromise. This opportunity of sorts could be lost if Russia continues pursuing its maximalist goals.

Five questions therefore arise whose answers will determine what might come next:

1. How serious is the US about extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and possibly deploying its own there too even at the expense of derailing plans to more muscularly contain China?

2. Does Putin believe that it’s serious or does he think that it’s bluffing? How might he react based on each assessment and what factors could change how he views its intentions?

3. What’s the likelihood of the US’ “deep state” dynamics reverting from prioritizing China’s containment to Russia’s if Putin rejects a compromise and/or presses forward after Donbass?

4. How might the US’ success or lack thereof in denying China access to other states’ resources (and markets) just like it did Venezuela’s affect the above as well as its flexibility in compromising with Russia?

5. To what extent might Putin compromise on his maximalist goals? Could he be persuaded to accept NATO troops in Ukraine after the conflict ends if the US doesn’t extend Article 5 to them?

There are more or less two ways for Putin to look at everything:

1. The US’ plans to more muscularly contain China will remain its priority, especially if it succeeds in denying China access to more energy and markets, so Russia can safely reject a compromise in favor of retaining its maximalist goals and pressing forward after Donbass without worrying that the US will redouble its military support for Ukraine and/or provoke a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine who might then unilaterally deploy there alongside its own.

2. The US’ “deep state” dynamics remain fluid so it’s possible that rejecting a compromise and then pressing forward after Donbass could be manipulated by Russia’s enemies to persuade Trump to reprioritize its containment over China’s, which could greatly raise the chances of the US redoubling its military support for Ukraine and/or provoking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine who might then unilaterally deploy there alongside its own.

As for the US, it prefers a swift political end to the conflict so as to more muscularly contain China afterwards but not entirely on Russia’s terms, so it’ll likely apply more secondary sanctions upon Russia’s partners in pursuit of that if Putin rejects a compromise. If there’s a major Russian breakthrough, it might even threaten to extend Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine if Russia doesn’t stop and then order their deployment to partition Ukraine if it still doesn’t at the risk of World War III if they’re attacked.

This approach could backfire if China and Russia become more dependent on each other due to the US denying the first access to more resources and the second its access to more of the markets in which it sells its resources (like India if there’s more secondary sanctions pressure and India then replaces Russian oil with Venezuelan as part of a deal). China could then gain access to Russia’s entire resource base on the cheap while Russia would receive the financing required for indefinitely perpetuating the conflict.

Such unprecedented mutual dependence on one another could backfire on them too, however, if it breeds resentment among one and/or if the US abruptly makes one of them a much better offer than before on the condition that they dump the other and thus indirectly help the US strategically defeat them. To be clear, Putin and Xi have repeatedly reaffirmed how deeply they trust one another so this dark scenario is unlikely, but it shouldn’t be casually dismissed either since the possibility still exists.

Circling back to the subject of the US supporting European security guarantees to Ukraine for the first time ever, this is arguably just a negotiating tactic at this stage, but it also signals (whether sincerely or not) that the US’ “deep state” isn’t solidly behind prioritizing China’s containment and could thus revert to prioritizing Russia’s if Putin rejects a compromise and/or presses forward after Donbass.

That’s all that can be assessed for now given the complexity of the global systemic transition at its latest stage.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 03:30

Nervous-Looking Macron Urges Military To Produce Own Version Of Russia's Oreshnik

French President Emmanuel Macron while addressing French military personnel at the Istres airbase in the south of the country on Thursday said that Europe needs its own answer to Russia's cutting edge hypersonic arsenal.

In the remarks he specifically invoked Russia's hypersonic ‘Oreshnik’ missile, which has been launched on Ukraine at least two known times - one just a week ago - and is capable of reaching speeds exceeding Mach 10.

Source: United24

Macron made clear that France needs its own type of Oreshnik missile: "We must also acquire such weapons, capable of changing the situation in the short term," the president said in a speech broadcast on the Elysee Palace’s page on X.

Macron said this is crucial while acknowledging that "France is within the range of the 'Oreshnik'". He explained:

"We've witnessed the second launch of the Russian long-range missile Oreshnik. We Europeans must acquire these new weapons, capable of changing the balance of power, if we want to remain credible."

Russian state media observed that Macron appeared "scared" of Russia's hypersonic capabilities. 

And he vowed, "We will continue the work we began with the Europeans to develop ultra-long-range weapons. This is an initiative we launched."

The NY Times has called it a warning delivered to Europe at Mach 10: "The message came screaming through the skies at 8,000 miles per hour. Early Friday morning [Jan.9], for just the second time since its all-out invasion of Ukraine, Russia fired a nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile — a hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic weapon that until recently was banned under international treaty," the publication wrote.

2025 was a big year for Moscow showcasing its military might and tech. As we reviewed earlier, in a matter of less than a year (after years prior in design and development), Russian scientific know-how came up with four bangers:

1. Oreshnik: hypersonic missile, already tested in the Ukraine battleground.

2. Burevestnik: Or “Stormbringer”, with that nice Deep Purple ring. Nuclear cruise missile with unlimited range.

3. Poseidon: nuclear-powered torpedo, capable of loitering underwater, undetected, for unlimited time; then, at a command, strikes enemy coasts with a nuclear payload, provoking a radioactive tsunami. Largely exceeds the destructive power of the Sarmat, Russia’s largest ICBM.

4. Khabarovsk: nuclear sub. Call him The Messenger of Doom: capable of delivering at least 6 Doomsday-enabling Poseidons.

Oreshnik is such a nothingburger that Macron says France needs an equivalent ASAP while looking like this. https://t.co/DZxj3YN3KY

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) January 15, 2026

Earlier this month and into last, Russia made clear it would be stationing Oreshnik missiles inside the territory of the 'Union State' of Belarus, and this was seen as a reaction to several trends: increased long-range drone attacks on Russia out of Ukraine, and the US increasingly moving against Russia-linked tankers on the high seas.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 02:45

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.