More B-2 bombers have been deployed to Diego Garcia, a sign that the war against the Houthis in Yemen is escalating.

 

Satellite photo of Diego Garcia showing six B-2- bombers. Times of Israel/AP.

At least six B-2 stealth bombers have been deployed to Diego Garcia, a sign that the war against the Houthis in Yemen is escalating. Times of Israel. The deployment is highly unusual and comes at a time when a 2nd Carrier Strike Group is heading to the region, headed by the USS Carl Vinson, joining the USS Harry Truman. Attacks against the Houthis have increased as a cease fire fell apart between Hamas and Israel. The Houthis have attacked shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in response to the war in Gaza. The US Navy has been in heavy combat since then, with some describing the battles as the most intense the Navy has fought since World War II. Over 100 civilian ships have been attacked since the start of the conflict. The Trump administration has been more aggressive in targeting Houthi leadership in addition to missile launch sites.

My Comment:

There are some concerns that these B-2 bombes are not in Diego Garcia for the Yemen War but for a potential war between the United States and Iran. I concede this is possible but I generally think it's unlikely. Tensions with Iran are reasonably high but I don't really see a reason why a war would break out unless something happens, like a first strike against Diego Garcia, which is something I have seen suggested. Is Iran even capable of that? I am not sure, but regardless, I think an actual war with Iran is unlikely. 

So why are these B-2's there? Part of it might because our other heavy bombers are vulnerable to Yemen's fairly formidable anti-air defenses. Remember, the Houthis have shot down at least some drones since strikes have begun, mostly MQ-9 Reapers. It's unclear how many drones have been shot down, the Houthis claim 20, with the most recent being this week, but without confirmation from the United States those numbers are likely inaccurate. But they have had some successes. 

Our non-B-2 bombers, like the B-52 and B-1 are not really designed to go into that kind of combat environment. Should they try to directly engage it's possible that they could be shot down. They could still be used with standoff weapons and large amount of escorts (which may be why the 2nd Carrier Strike Group has been deployed) but I don't think it's worth it. Fighter bombers are better suited for that role and drones can supplement them. 

The real reason is probably due to the fact that Yemen has quite a few fortified bunkers and the B-2 Sprit is the only plane that can use the biggest and most powerful "bunker buster" bombs, the GBU-57a/B MOP.  These bombs can only really be used by the B-2 (with the B-21 not being deployed yet) and they are necessary to destroy some of the heavy bunkers. 

Though I don't think that a war with Iran is likely, it could be that this is some saber rattling as well. Deploying these bombers and using these bunker busters could be a message for them. It's the stick to any carrot that Trump could be offering up for a potential nuclear deal. I don't think President Trump really wants a war, and saber rattling and then cutting a deal has been a very common tactic for him. But the deployment could be about sending a message. 

Finally, it's fairly crazy to me how little coverage the war with the Houthis have gotten. Like the article said, the US Navy is in extremely heavy combat and only got a short break when the cease fire deal in Gaza fell apart. You would think the war would get more coverage but the US media, as always, is out to lunch when it comes to things that are actually important. 

Chaos in the House as a Republican rebellion shuts down votes...

 

Republican Anna Luna led the rebellion. Fox News/Getty.

Two critical House votes have been tabled after a rebellion led by a small group of Republicans. Fox News. The rebellion was led by Representative Anna Luna who wanted legislation to pass that would allow members of congress to vote remotely for 12 weeks after having a child. Luna led an extremely rare Discharge Petition against her own party and was joined by 8 other Republicans and every Democrat in the House. House leadership tried to block the vote but failed as Luna had enough votes. The rebellion led to Speaker Johnson to cancel the rest of the votes this week, including critical votes on the No Rogue Rulings Act and the Safeguarding Voter Eligibility Act. 

My Comment:

What an utter embarrassment and this is why Republicans never seem to get anything accomplished. The core legislation at play here has little to do with the disorder in the house, it's the fact that instead of voting on absolutely critical legislation, Luna pulled a stunt and Johnson angered part of his party in response. Now neither bill is going to be considered and I am furious at both sides. 

I generally disagree with the idea that members of Congress should be able to vote remotely under any circumstances. If they don't want to be there after having a child, they can resign. For your vote to count, you should be in Washington DC. And the whole thing is ridiculous as the House has a child care unit, for free, as a perk of the job. There is absolutely no excuse for new parents in the House to have this vote from home perk when it's not needed at all. 

And Luna's rebellion is not going to play well at all for folks at home. Instead of doing what their base wants, Luna and her allies worked with Democrats (!) to shut down legislation for a niche issue that does not affect American voters in any way whatsoever! Most folks don't get 12 weeks of home work after having a kid and they certainly don't have free child care like members of Congress do. I know a lot of folks are very upset that the issue was even supported by any Republicans at all. 

Of course, Johnson stepped in it too. Instead of allowing this stupid vote to pass and be voted on, he tried to force a rule that would have stopped it. Had he simply allowed the vote to go through, it likely would have passed, which would have been bad optics, but nothing compared to this. He made the wrong choice and now two absolutely critical bills aren't going to go anywhere for at least the next week. 

So instead of voting on a critical legislation, the House ripped itself apart over a niche issue that voters are not going to care about at all, and giving the Democrats a rare win for absolutely no reason. How can Republicans claim to be a serious party if things like this continue to happen? The party won a mandate and the voters kept their part, but the party is absolutely not doing theirs. 

I have never understood why the Republicans constantly shoot themselves in the foot like this. The Democrats, despite being a much more fragmented and dysfunctional party, never seems to have their party pull stunts like this. I don't know if it's something in the psychology of Republicans that force them to fight amongst themselves or if the Democrats have better leadership (in terms of whipping the party). 

Marine Le Pen barred from running in 2027 election in shock conviction.

 

Marine Le Pen, leader of National Rally. BBC/Getty.

Leader of the National Rally and the frontrunner for the 2027 election in France, Marine Le Pen was convicted of an embezzlement charge and will be barred from running. BBC. Le Pen appealed the decision but there would be no hold on the election ban, which will last five years. She was sentenced to 4 years in prison for misuse of EU funds, a crime virtually all political parties in France are guilty of. Due to that and the fact that the ruling would have massive political consequences, nobody really thought Le Pen would be convicted or punished. The conviction has come as a shock to the National Rally Party which now has a very uncertain future. Le Pen was the main draw for the party and it's unclear if she will somehow win her appeal or if she will be replaced, perhaps by Jordan Bardella, the president of the party? Le Pen was projected to get 42% of the vote, more than enough to win the first round of voting in the 2027 election, assuming nothing changes. 

My Comment:

The state of Democracy in the west is pretty deplorable. First there was Trump who was impeached, had an election stolen, he was almost assassinated twice and was convicted of a nonsense crime. He won anyways, but then there was the AFD being shut out in Germany despite being the 2nd most popular party, Romania and Ukraine having their elections canceled, Turkey jailing Erdogan's political opponent and now? Now the leading candidate in France's election, Marine Le Pen has been barred from running in a race she would have almost certainly would have won. 

Is she guilty of what she was convicted of? Probably. From what I understand the misuse of EU funds is pretty much universal among all French political parties, but only Marine Le Pen is getting convicted for it. It's a very obvious example of a two-tiered system. Something tells me if Emmanuel Macron's center left party won't be charged under the same laws. 

La Pen was likely to win in 2027. Macron has made a mess of things and Le Pen is fairly popular. But she's been labeled far-right, and for once the slur might have at least a little proof to it. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, was canceled for not denouncing Nazis enough, though his daughter had little to do with that. There are folks that say that Le Pen was a liability for National Rally for this reason.

Though I am guessing it both her semi-skeptical views on Ukraine and immigration that are the real reason this case was brought. Both things are very unpopular among the normal folks but Europe has been pulling out all the stops to prevent anyone from seriously challenging it. 

If there is any good news for National Front, it's the fact that they have a lot of time to figure it out. The next election isn't until 2027, so that should be enough time to either double down on Le Pen or replace her with someone else. I am guessing they will keep their options open though right now it is far too early to figure out what they will actually be doing. 

The main problem I see for the powers that be is that this will almost certainly make Le Pen into a martyr. That is exactly how it happened with Donald Trump and though Le Pen might not be able to run in 2027, folks will vote for National March just because they are upset about what happened to her. Would Trump have won in 2024 if it wasn't for the shame prosecution? Maybe but it certainly helped him out. I think the same thing could very well happen in France in 2027... 

New Mexico GOP headquarters attacked in apparent arson incident.

 

The damage done to the GOP headquarters in Albuquerque New Mexico. Fox News/New Mexico GOP.

The New Mexico GOP headquarters was attacked in an apparent arson incident. Fox News. Firefighters responded to the fire shortly after the attack, greatly limiting the damage. No injuries were caused but the building suffered damage to the front doors and smoke damage inside. A political motive seems obvious as the building also had been vandalized with spray-paint saying "ICE=KKK". The attack is one of a series against Republicans, or people perceived to be Republicans, since Trump was sworn in as president. Local Democrats condemned the attack while law enforcement at the local and federal level investigate the attacks.  

My Comment:

Looks like another politically motivated attack against Republicans, this time in New Mexico. New Mexico is a semi-solid blue state so it's not like Republicans are actually doing much in the state. This is pure spite by the folks that did this. 

The wave of terrorism we are seeing reminds me of the days of rage back in the 1970's. Back then there was a large amount of attacks against the system conducted by far left activists. A few people even died during these attacks. Back then it was mostly the Vietnam war but today it's, well, I am not sure why these folks are even upset. 

The situation isn't exactly the same now though. Back then the militant left was on the ascent but today they are on a serious decline. The attack on the GOP headquarters in New Mexico and the attacks on Tesla across the nation (despite the cars mainly being owned by leftists) are a rear-guard action for a movement that lost all credibility after Donald Trump was elected for a 2nd term. 

If this attack is an anti-immigration enforcement action, then it's another example of how out of touch these folks are. Very few people are on the side of the illegal immigrants, especially the ones that are actual gang members. It's an 80-20 issue that the left is on the wrong side of. I guess it's possible the attack was conducted by an illegal immigrant but my guess is that this was done by antifa or a similar group. 

I do think it's only a matter of time before someone is hurt or killed in these kinds of attacks. Honestly, given the assassination attempt on Trump where he himself was injured along with a few other people, and a man, Corey Comperatore, was killed, they kind of already have been. In this case there wasn't anyone at the GOP headquarters when it was attacked but if folks had been there and the fire department wasn't on the ball, someone could have been hurt or killed. 

The problem is that I am not exactly impressed with how the Justice Department and FBI are being led right now. Kash Patel hasn't done much and what Pam Bondi has done is mostly go on Fox News and talked instead of actually doing anything to stop the problem. 

And I think if they put the effort in they could. The entire FBI was directed to focus on the folks that protested on January 6th so we know they have the ability to go after people if they actually want to. I am guessing the anti-Trump and anti-Tesla networks could have been disrupted easily if the FBI was actually trying. But as of now they are not and it's not great that we aren't seeing the same kind of reform at Justice as we are in other aspects in government. 

California under investigation for law that hides changes in "gender identity" from parents.

 

California Governor Gavin Newsom on his podcast with conservative pundit Charlie Kirk. Fox News/This is Gavin Newsom podcast.

California is under investigation for a law that hides changes in "gender identity" from parents. Fox News. The Department of Education launched the investigation after alleged violations of the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA), which allows parents access to information pertaining to their children at schools. The Trump administration has said that the law would cover things like gender identity and mental health.  Assembly Bill 1955 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom last year and it prevents teachers from disclosing information about sexual orientation, gender identity or expression without the consent of the student. Critics say the law protects students from being "outed" to their parents. The Department of Education also issued a separate warning about the executive order that prevents biological males from participating in sports, which could lead to a cut of funding. Newsom agreed on his podcast that transgender athletes participating in woman's sports is "deeply unfair" but has not as of yet changed any policies. 

My Comment:

How you react to this story is probably dependent on what actually is the source of homosexuality and transgenderism. The old "nature vs nurture" debate. If you are on the side of "nature" you think that those things are caused by genetics or some other natural cause and in that case you might think that the California law is just. On the other hand, if you think that this behavior is due to "nurture", or more specifically culture, you would probably think that the law is terrible. 

I am not really sure. I'm pretty confident that Transgenderism is a meme, not in an offensive sense, but under the original version of the term, as coined by Richard Dawkins. I generally think most of the non-LGB portion of the LGBTQ spectrum are the result of memes, cultural transmission of ideas. I'm more convinced that the LGB portion of the spectrum is something you are born with, but I am not 100% convinced. But I would be shocked if transgenderism is not some kind of culturally transmitted fad, at least to some degree. 

It's a good example of the fundamental disagreement with transgender ideology. They claim that there is no such thing as grooming someone into being transgender, it's something you are born with, but that is the fear that justifies this intervention from the Trump Administration. If the skeptics are right then hiding gender identity from parents prevents them from trying to correct the behavior and causing them to revert to their "natural" state. Transgender folks see this as "genocide" (really).

They would also argue that this could result in abuse if children are outed, either as homosexual or transgender. I guess this is possible but that's not a reason to not do it. I am absolutely not supportive of anyone that abuses kids for any reason, but the fact remains that parental rights should always outweigh hypothetical scenarios. If they do abuse their kids then sure, arrest and punish them, but you don't punish everyone because the potential actions of a few. 

I do think that this is a battle that Gavin Newsom is likely to lose. He's already wavering on "trans rights" as we saw with his statements earlier in the month about transgender athletes. I think he realizes, unlike much of the Democratic base, that this issue is deeply unpopular and the only real support comes from the transgender community itself and a few true believer allies. It's been described as an 80/20 issue, but I am guessing support might be even lower, even in a very liberal state like California. 

The real question is if Newsom is going to cut these people loose and wave the white flag. Not doing so could absolutely torpedo his presidential ambitions. It could even result in Republicans taking the governorship of California once Newsom is gone. My read on him is that he is a savvy, if cynical, political operator and he's likely to jettison this issue as fast as he can...  

Palestinians in Gaza have protested against Hamas and the war against Israel for two days.

 

Palestinians in Northern Gaza protest against Hamas. NPR/AFP/Getty.

Palestinians in Gaza have protested against Hamas and the war against Israel for the past two days. NPR. The protests have been in the northern city of Beit Lahia and is the first major protest against Hamas since the war began. The protesters are demanding an end to the war and release of Israeli hostages. The new offensive launched by Israel and the blockade they have placed on aid may have caused the protests. Hamas has not allowed open protests since they took control of Gaza 18 years ago. The last major uprising, in 2019, was put down with beatings and imprisonment. It is unclear if Israel will take advantage of the unrest or not. 

My Comment:

A rare positive sign in the Gaza conflict and it's very possible that Hamas is losing control of Gaza. Such protests were not imaginable at any other part of the war and previous protests under Hamas were put down with prejudice. 

I do have to say that I wonder how much of this is natural. Protests have to be organized and I wouldn't be surprised if a foreign intelligence agency, either the Israelis or the Americans, helped do so. It's possible that this was a grassroots protest, but I always wonder when it comes to protests. If there is one thing the CIA and the State Department are good at it's organizing protests and riots in hostile governments. 

Still, in the past I doubt they would have had any results in their efforts. I think there are at least some Palestinians that are sick of the war and know that Hamas can't win it. Though there is obviously a lot of anger for Israel as well, the fact remains that if Hamas had followed the deal they made with Israel, the war would be over now and nobody would be getting bombed and aid would be flowing in the Gaza. 

This may or may not be good for Israel. The hope is that these protesters will either cause Hamas to quit the war or even lead to Hamas being replaced by a new government that won't continue the war. That would obviously be a win for Israel and I am thinking that is the outcome they want. 

But they also have a PR problem from this as well. In the past they could argue, correctly I might add, that there wasn't really any resistance to Hamas, a terrorist organization. With these protests that isn't true anymore and it does raise questions about the morality of their heavy handed strikes. I don't really think this would change anyone's minds on the war, people are too entrenched for that, but it is worth mentioning. 

Either way, I see this as a positive sign that peace talks might resume and that we could see an end to the war. Hamas isn't powerful enough to prevent these protests and that might be even more dangerous to them than the Israeli air strikes and ground operations. If they can't put down these protests they are at risk of losing control of Gaza. Perhaps they will finally wise up and make a serious effort at peace...  

Trump signs executive order demanding proof of citizenship for voter registration

 

Donald Trump holds up the executive order. New York Post/AFP/Getty.

President Trump has signed an executive order demanding proof of citizenship for voter registration. New York Post. The order would require both proof of citizenship and the reporting of certain details of the documents, such as the expiration date. Though it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections, it is not verified in any way, other than a question on the registration form. This new order would ensure that voters would not be able to lie on the form. The order also instructed both DOGE and the Department of Homeland Security to look for non-citizens on the voter roles. 

Donald Trump's executive order can be found here. 

My Comment:

As needed as this executive order is, I am expecting some federal judge to issue an injunction that will be tied up in court until at least the 2026 midterms. I don't think there is much in the way of a legal argument, other than states having a wide leeway to do what they want in elections, but it's never about the argument. The process is the punishment and the federal judges are in the control of the Democrats. 

Still, it's utterly absurd that you don't have to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. The only safeguard against illegal voting by non-citizens is a tiny checkbox that can easily be lied about. Sure, you could get punished if you get caught, but how would you be caught unless you posted your illegal voting on social media or something? 

It's the reason why most mainstream news articles about this topic are infuriating. They say non-citizens voting isn't a real problem, but how on earth would we know? Like I said, it's trivial to lie on the form and without real documents to confirm. Plus, I don't think that there has ever been an audit like the one proposed in this order. Has anyone ever checked the voter roles against the immigration database before? My guess is no and I am also guessing that they will find folks that are voting illegally. 

I also don't buy the argument that requiring these documents will disenfranchise anyone. All you need is a REAL-ID or passport and basically anyone that has a driver's license has a REAL-ID. On May 7th, everyone will need a REAL-ID to fly, but nobody is saying that is going to prevent anyone from flying. And it's absurd that we have more restrictions on flying than we do for voting. 

I do think that there is more to be done to secure elections. Showing your ID at the polls is another easy thing, and getting rid of both mail-in and electronic ballots would go a long way to prevent any kind of voter fraud. Supposedly Trump is working on national voter ID but it wasn't on this order. 

The real question is if the order will survive any legal challenge. Like I said before, I think some judge will put the whole thing on hold and by the time it is decided it will be after the 2026 and maybe the 2028 elections as well. Like I said yesterday, congress needs to act to reign in the excesses of the courts and actually get these executive orders laid into the law... 

Republicans in Congress are discussing how to reign in Federal Judges.

 

File photo of Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson. ABC News/Reuters. 

Republicans in Congress are discussing how to reign in Federal Judges after several have filed injunctions against the Trump administration. ABC News. The Republicans will hold hearings about Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee that ended Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants, many of whom were gang members from Venezuela. Republicans have accused Boasberg of naked bias and may call him as a witness. In addition to the hearings, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has said they will have a vote for a bill called the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would prevent district judges from launching sweeping injunctions outside of their districts. Impeachment of judges may happen as well, but that would face a difficult battle in both the House and the Senate, with conviction and removal extremely unlikely given that 14 Democrats in the Senate would have to agree to convict. 

My Comment:

Looks like there is at least an effort to reign in these federal judges. Whether those efforts lead to much of anything remains to be seen, but it is about time something is being done. These rulings have been almost universally against the president and have targeted things, like foreign policy, that the courts have absolutely not jurisdiction on.

Of the three solutions proposed, the most useless is hearings. Though there is some appeal in watching these judges squirm on the stand, it won't actually do anything. Maybe if you use motivated reasoning you could say they have a chilling effect on these judges, but that seems very unlikely. 

Indeed, I don't think there is much more useless than a congressional hearing. Very little ever comes from these hearings and it's mostly just an excuse to see both parties talk. And keep in mind, the Democrats will be at these hearings as well, so it's not like they will have a chance to actually grill these judges. 

The 2nd solution seems like it would actually do something. Passing legislation against nationwide injunctions seems like some that can easily pass both the House and the Senate and once it did it would greatly hamper the Democrats effort at lawfare. Instead of one judge they would need one from each district, so 12 in total, to rule against the Trump administration for a national ban. That's not impossible but it would both be difficult and expensive. 

This is the solution I think that the Republicans should focus on. There is a possibility that it could backfire and the Democrats could use it to their advantage in the next administration (if the party survives that long), but the risk are worth it. The real problem is that they don't have the 60 votes they need to bust the filibuster against it in the Senate. It's possible they could use reconciliation to lower the threshold to 51 votes, but it would be extremely difficult to make the act related to the budget. 

But the bill has a better chance of actually working than the third solution, impeachment. The House probably has the votes to impeach these judges but the trial happens in the Senate. Though the benefits of impeachment hearings is similar to regular hearings, we can't even pretend that we are going to get enough Democrats on board with removing these judges to pass the 67 vote threshold to impeach them. 

Given that it won't accomplish much and could even backfire, I am not sure that impeachment should even be tried. I have always said that the impeachment attempts against Bill Clinton and Donald Trump helped their popularity and made the parties that called for them look vindictive at best. I do think that these judges deserve to be impeached, it's obvious lawfare and has very little to do with the actual law. But unless we somehow get past the 67 vote conviction threshold, I don't see what the point is.      

US deportation flights to Venezuela resume.

 

Deported Venezuelans arrive in  Maiquetia Venezuela. Fox News/Reuters.

US deportation flights to Venezuela have resumed for the first time in weeks. Fox News. The first flight of 199 illegal aliens arrived today, including members of the Tren De Aragua (TDA) gang. Venezuela had accepted four flights of deportations since Trump was sworn in, but stopped accepting them after Trump removed a Biden-era exception of sanctions that allowed Chevron to sell Venezuelan oil.  The deal came after Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened even more sanctions if Venezuela didn't accept their citizens. One flight of Venezuelans were also deported to El Salvador before a judge put an end to it. It is unclear what the terms of any deal between Venezuela and the United States are. 

My Comment:

Donald Trump campaigned on getting Tren De Aragua out of the country and this is another step in accomplishing that goal. Even though the Democrats are conducting lawfare against everything Trump is doing, he is able to at least able to get some of these deportations going again. 

It's unclear what the deal to get Venezuela to take back their people was. Generally, Trump uses the carrot and the stick approach to make a deal. We know what the stick was, Rubio was going to impose more sanctions on Venezuela to get them to take these fights back. It's possible that Venezuela took that threat seriously and allowed these flights again, but without confirmation from either side it's impossible to know. 

What was the carrot? Perhaps it was some other form of sanctions relief besides the oil waiver that Trump got rid of? I doubt that Trump would go back on that waiver but I guess that is possible too, but I think we would have heard of it by now. Again, without confirmation either way, it's impossible to know.

Regardless, I am glad that Venezuela is taking these people back. They emptied their prisons and kicked the folks out and they ended up here in the United States. Since many of them were TDA gangsters they brought a lot of crime and misery with them. I'm pretty down on immigration in general, but the one group of people that absolutely should not be allowed into the United States are members of a violent gang. 

I do think it's funny that it's easier for Trump to deal with a hostile foreign nation than it is with our courts system. Some stupid judge released a de facto veto of his plan to deport these people to El Salvador and Trump was able to bypass him by dealing with Venezuela instead. It's a good thing that he's still able to do this. 

EU plan to send military aid to Ukraine has fallen apart.

 

Politico/Getty.

An EU plan to supply Ukraine billions of dollars worth of military aid has fallen apart. Politico. The original "Kallas Plan", named after the EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas, was to send 1.5 million rounds of artillery, but that deal fell apart. The 2nd proposal was for the EU to provide 40 billion euros worth of aid, but was unable to gain support from much of Europe, including Hungary, France and much of Southern Europe. The 3rd proposal was more modest than the 2nd but would cost 5 billion Euros two million rounds of artillery. However, even that plan is in danger as many EU countries are asking that the contributions be voluntary. The reasons cited are a lack of funds, a wish to be more independent from the EU and have the aid delivered bilaterally, to opposing aid in the first place (in the case of Hungary). Kaja Kallas has also been criticized for her efforts and acting more like a Prime Minster than a diplomat. 

My Comment:

When Donald Trump temporarily cut off aid to Ukraine, Europe made a lot of noise about providing aid in amounts that would pick up the slack. Now they can't even get a fairly small artillery shell delivery off the table. Cracks are absolutely starting to show when it comes to support of Ukraine. 

Much of the problem is economic. Many European countries simply don't have the money to keep sending equipment and arms to Ukraine indefinitely. Due to the lack of weapons in Europe and the frankly pathetic stores of weapons they still have, all of these shells have to be made and paid for, and there just isn't much in the budget. 

Some of the problem is apparently Kaja Kallas herself. From what it sounds like she is acting more like a dictator than a diplomat and is trying to tell Europe what to do instead of asking them what they want to do. She got the order wrong, she should have gone to these EU countries first and see what they were willing to give instead of just making demands. 

It's also clear that the EU is a herd of cats and are all pulling in different directions. Hungary doesn't want anything to do with the Ukraine war at all and is a real problem for the pro-Ukraine faction, mostly made up of eastern European countries. Eastern Europe is ready to keep the war going until the last Ukrainian, but all of Europe is having problems with their economies. I don't think anyone is ready for a blank check anymore. 

Thought the UK isn't part of the EU, it would be stupid to ignore that they are willing to pay quite a bit of money to Ukraine even if the EU isn't on board anymore. It's absolutely enough to make up for US aid, given the sorry state of their military. I think all of UK has 40 tanks that are operational. Supposedly Ukraine has 1000 and Russia has at least double that in operation. They can't make up for the US.  

Of course, all of this is pretty much a moot point. Even if Ukraine had gotten the more expensive plan, it wouldn't change much on the battlefield. Best case scenario is that it would delay the collapse, not prevent it. US Aid, UK Aid, EU Aid, none of it matters when Ukraine is out of troops and facing an opponent that absolutely is not. 

Protests erupt in Turkey after main opposition candidate arrested by Tayyip Erdogan

 

Protesters and police square off in Istanbul. BBC/Getty.

Protests have erupted in Turkey after the main opposition candidate, Ekrem Imamoglu, has been arrested by President Tayyip Erdogan. BBC. Imamoglu is the Mayor of Istanbul and a member of the secular Republican People's Party (CHP) and a major political rival of Erdogan. Imamoglu was arrested along with 100 others after being accused of corruption and supporting the PKK, a Kurdish terror group that had just laid down arms earlier in the month. Imamoglu's college degree was also revoked by Istanbul University, which would disqualify his candidacy due to a constitutional rule that requires candidates to have completed higher education. Erdogan is term limited and cannot run in the next presidential election in 2028 unless the constitution is changed. It was unclear if his party would win in either case before the arrests.

My Comment:

This seems like another example of NATO countries falling into dictatorship. It's not very different than the results of the Romanian election being overturned because the "wrong" candidate won. And it's very similar to what happened with Donald Trump in the lead up to 2024 election, though Trump was able to overcome the charges against him and win the election anyways. 

It absolutely appears that Erdogan is rigging an election he might lose otherwise. Erdogan's party is a lot less popular than it used to be, largely because Erdogan is acting like this. He had a pretty major defeat in the past election and he even lost the Mayorship of Istanbul to Imamoglu, which was a personal blow for him as that is how he came up. 

Could the charges be true? I am guessing not. I don't see how Imamoglu was supposed to be helping with PKK given that he's the Mayor of Istanbul and the PKK is mostly active in the border area with Syria and Iraq. Could he be corrupt? Possibly, but I don't doubt there is corruption everywhere in Turkey. 

I also don't know if he would be any better than Erdogan. My main problems with him are his racism against Kurds, his religious views and the fact that he doesn't get along well with his neighbors. Imamoglu might not share those problems but who knows if he would end up any better? But the people of Turkey are the ones that should decide that, not Tayyip Erdogan. 

Despite this arrest, I do think that Tayyip Erdogan's grip on power is still secure for the moment. Many of his more powerful political enemies were purged in the failed coup in 2016. There might be some disorder and riots but without strong leadership I don't see them accomplishing much. There needs to be leadership against Erdogan for there to be a change in regime and I don't see that happening when one of the last folks that could pull that off just got arrested. 

Trump gets a partial win in Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia agrees to 30 day energy infrastructure cease fire.

 

Damaged energy infrastructure in Ukraine. The Guardian/EPA.

Russia has agreed to a 30 day cease fire in terms of energy infrastructure in the Russia-Ukraine war after a high stakes call with US President Donald Trump. The Guardian. The deal was not as extensive as the full cease fire that was the objective, but it is still a sign that the Ukraine war has some hope of ending. Attacks on energy infrastructure has been a major part of the war, with Russia attempting to "deenergize" much of Ukraine while Ukraine has launched many drone attacks against the Russian oil industry. If Ukraine agrees to the partial cease-fire it would be the first since the war started. The White House said that new negotiations would begin for a maritime cease fire, a full cease fire, and an end to the war.

My Comment:

Slowly but surely things seem to be ramping up in the peace movement in the Ukraine war. This is a very small step but if it comes to pass the war might actually end some day. A partial cease-fire is a partial win and it's certainly better than the alternative. 

It's also a win-win for both Russia and Ukraine. Both sides have done damage to each other with their energy attacks. Ukraine's only power generation now comes from their remaining nuclear power plants and whatever they can get from foreign countries, the rest of their infrastructure has been destroyed. And Russia will be happy that they will no longer have to face attacks on their very important oil industry. 

It's why I think there is a chance that Zelensky will go for this too. They never really gained all that much from attacking Russia's energy infrastructure, it was always out of spite, so giving up drone strikes on their oil industry is very easy. It would also protect the few power generators they still have, which would help them keep the power on. It's an easy win for both sides. 

It's possible that Zelensky won't go for it. I get the feeling that both Putin and Zelensky want to continue the war, but neither side wants to anger President Trump. The question is if Zelensky is willing to risk the wrath of Trump to hold off the Banderites in his government that want zero cease fires, even one as common sense as this one. 

If a cease fire happens, it would just be the first step. The steps after that are a bit harder. The 2nd step, a maritime cease-fire, seems like it would be fairly easy, but after that things get a lot more difficult. A full cease-fire, like the original demand, is going to be a tough sell to the Russians. 

What Russia is looking to avoid is Ukraine using the cease-fire to rearm. Ukraine is absolutely on the backfoot right now. Not only did they lose the battle of Kursk, with much of their best soldiers and equipment being destroyed, they are also losing ground on the other fronts. Russia has the military momentum right now and it will be very hard to convince them to give it up. 

That's why Russia is demanding a pause on military aid so that Ukraine cannot rearm during a cease-fire. The problem with that is that I am sure Trump would be able to cut a deal, but what he can't do is convince Europe to do so as well. Europe seems suicidally set on fighting the Ukraine war to the last man, even if it means destroying themselves in the process. Europe is going to be a huge problem to any peace deal and my advice to Trump would be to try and find a separate peace from the madmen in Europe. 

Zelensky is the other major problem. I have said for awhile now he's got four mutually exclusive groups that are pressuring him, Russia, The United States, Europe and the Banderites in his own government. He can't possibly please all four groups, so it will depend on who he is more afraid of, and right now I think it's the Banderites. He knows that if he even considers Putin's demands, (to review, Russia want's demilitarization, denazification, recognition of captured territory, including Crimea and a guarantee there will be no joining NATO), that they could very easily assassinate him. Though he would be wise to not anger any of the other factions as they could absolutely do the same thing.  

Still, though peace is a long way off, and we could still see the same collapse we just saw in Gaza, it's still a big step that Russia is willing to agree with anything. It's very possible that the problems can somehow be resolved and the killing will finally stop. I absolutely won't be holding my breath, but it is nice to have hope. 

Israel-Hamas cease fire falls apart as Hamas refuses to release remaining hostages.

 

Fires burn in Gaza as seen from Israel. ABC News/Reuters. 

The cease fire between Israel and Hamas has fallen apart as Hamas refused to release remaining hostages. ABC News. In response, Israel launched massive airstrikes targeting Hamas all across Gaza. Defense Minister Israel Katz said the "gates of hell would be unleashed" against Gaza for not releasing the hostages left under Hamas control. Hamas had rejected all offers on a hostage deal and have done so since phase one of the cease fire ended on March 1st. One American citizen remains in Hamas custody. They are believed to have 24 total surviving hostages along with the bodies of 39 more. 

My Comment:

This seems like a pretty obvious mistake by Hamas. Had they followed the terms of the original deal they would have seen an end of the war soon. Instead they are getting bombed again. And they have also angered the Trump Administration who had wanted this war to end. 

I expect that there won't be any restrictions in terms of aid now from the Trump administration. Trump has shown to be frustrated with Hamas and has vowed to provide Israel whatever they need to end this war militarily. I don't think that will involve direct military support, but just about everything else is on the table. 

I really don't understand why Hamas didn't agree to the peace deal. I guess maybe they didn't want to lose their last leverage with their hostages, but what good are hostages if they don't prevent air strikes? Even if the peace deal was doomed from the start, which I don't think it was, they would have bought themselves a few more months had they just kept releasing hostages. 

So is the peace process dead? It's too early to tell. I am guessing that the lines of communication are still open, and if they approached the United States diplomatically, hat in hand, they probably could get a deal again. But I think that is what it would take. And I honestly don't get what Hamas is thinking here, to me none of this makes any sense. 

What is clear is that it makes the context of what happened in Yemen this weekend into context. I was kind of confused as to why Trump ordered strikes against the Houthis, despite the increase of tensions. Now it makes sense. If the war in Gaza is back on than it stands to reason that the Red Sea war will be back on as well. It also explains the increased tensions between the United States and Iran... 

Regardless, I do worry about the leadership of Hamas. Not only are they doing things that is pretty bad for the people of Gaza, they are also insulated from much of the damage going to be caused by the resumption of the war. Many of these leaders aren't even in Gaza and have little to fear if the entire state is destroyed. 

As for Israel, I don't think they have a whole lot to lose from fighting, but they do have to consider that the world is changing rapidly in the region. Syria is a mess right now and Turkey is a large threat as well. Ending the war against Hamas might be in their best interest so they can rest, rearm and prepare against the threat to the north. Getting bogged down in Gaza again might be counterproductive. 

Trump administration deports 250 gang members despite ruling from judge.

 

Deported gang members in El Salvador's CECOT prison. New York Post/AFP/Government handout. 

The Trump administration has deported 250 Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador despite a stay from a judge. New York Post. US District Judge James Boasberg issued a 14 day stay to stop the deportations which were justified by the government by the 1789 Alien Enemies Act. The judge ordered no flights to take off of for any planes in the air to return. However, a plane with 250 Venezuelans were already in the air. The Government argued that since the plane was in international waters at that point, the Judge's ruling did not apply. They also said that they were not defying the order, despite the media arguing otherwise, with no further deportations happening under the 1789 act. The deportees were members of the violent Tren De Aragua and MS13 gangs. The case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. 

My Comment:

At some point, something will have to be done to deal with these activist judges. The 1789 Alien Enemies Act is on solid legal ground and so is the idea of deporting members of gangs that are listed as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. I don't think there is any legal argument that the President can't use both of these laws to deport these gang members. In order to prevent it they would have to somehow rule that either the act or the foreign terrorist declaration was unconstitutional and I don't see how they could do that. I am guessing that the Supreme Court would agree. 

Of course the real reason for this is for the case to work its way through the legal system as an attempt to run the clock out on the Trump Administration. The original stay is for two weeks and that's two weeks we could be deporting more of these criminals. And that's assuming nothing else happens with the case. It's a strategy that the Democrats have been using since the start of Trump's administration and I, for one, am sick of it. 

Folks on both sides of the argument are saying that the Trump administration is defying the judge's order. But I don't really see it that way. The planes were apparently in flight when the order was issued so it's not like they could be turned around realistically. When the judge makes a ruling that is impossible to follow then it's not really valid and is a built in defense of any contempt order the judge issues. 

And, so far, there hasn't been any further deportation flights using the 1789 law as justification for not having hearings. If the Trump administration does start to deport further gang members under that law then it's possible that they could argue that Trump isn't complying to judges order, but that isn't what is happening here. 

Of course there really isn't anything saying that Trump can't just ignore court orders. Joe Biden did when he went against the Supreme Court when it came to forgiving student debt (the double standard is ridiculous), and nothing happened to him. And it's part of the system of Checks and Balances that though Judges can make rulings, they have no actual power to enforce them, like the famous, possibly apocryphal quote from Andrew Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.". 

So under the system of Checks and Balances, Trump can indeed ignore the court order if he so desires. So why isn't he really doing it when the Judicial Branch is out of control? Because the check against that comes from the Legislative Branch. If he does, he might get impeached for it. It would be extremely unlikely given the current makeup of the House, but who knows what happens after 2026? Trump's 1st term was marred by two pointless impeachments and it hurt not only his presidency, but his 2020 election campaign. 

Either way, I think more than a few people would think it is worth the risk. These judges aren't ruling based on the law, they are, like I said above, trying to buy time until Trump is out of office. The fact that they are doing so for gang members in designated terror group is almost beyond parody. I no some people are saying the judge should be impeached, and I don't disagree, though I doubt they would have the 67 votes in the Senate they need to get rid of him... 

Russia has taken the last major town in the Kursk salient, essentially ejecting Ukraine from Russian territory.

 

Vladimir Putin in military fatigues. Russian pool/Reuters. 

Russia has taken the last major town in the Kursk salient, Sudzha, essentially ejecting Ukraine from Russian territory. Reuters. President Vladimir Putin, dressed in military fatigues, visited troops in the Kursk region and told them to continue the attack, which has taken back the majority of territory the Ukrainians took during last year's offensive in to Russia. Ukraine had lost 86% of the territory since their peak. Russian troops raised the Russian flag in the city center of Sudzha but there are still reports of some fighting going on in the outskirts of the city. Putin has said that foreign mercenaries fighting in the Kursk region will not be afforded protection by the Geneva conventions while Ukrainian forces captured will be treated as terrorists. Putin has also said that they are starting a new front in the region to create a buffer area between Russia proper and Sumy, so Ukraine could not threaten the Kursk region again. Ukraine had invaded Kursk in attempt to use the territory as a bargaining chip but the effort has now failed. 

🪖 The flag of the "Archangel of Spetsnaz" was installed in the village of Sudzha.
12/3/2025https://t.co/yj5gLTncHt pic.twitter.com/jCgJWbxRP4

— John Spectator (@johnspectator) March 12, 2025

My Comment:

It's hard to view the last week or so other than a massive disaster for the Ukrainians in Kursk. In case you missed my last few posts on the subject, Russia pulled off a stunning special operation where they infiltrated hundreds of troops behind enemy lines north of Sudzha through an empty natural gas pipeline. This caused a full rout for the Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region as they realized that the enemy was behind their lines and was in the process of cutting off their retreat.  

That retreat is ongoing. I had thought that it might be possible that Ukraine would be able to hold out in Sudzha for a time given that it is a town and that urban warfare favors the defenders, but that was not the case. They have now fled the majority of the city and it's essentially captured, and by the time this post goes out it might be fully liberated. 

Keep in mind the few Ukrainians still left in the Kursk salient will be in serious trouble as Russia still has fire control over the only highway out of the region. Retreating has been difficult for them an I am guessing they are taking horrible casualties. Also keep in mind that the forces deployed to the Kursk incursion were the best remaining and best armed troops remaining in Ukraine. 

I have said from the start of Ukraine's offensive into Russia that it was a boneheaded play and I have been proven absolutely right. The attack never accomplished any of their objectives. They didn't take the Kursk nuclear plant and were unable to hold it hostage. They weren't able to use the captured territory as a bargaining chip and they certainly lost way more troops then they could afford, troops that would have better served elsewhere. 

I'd also like to point out that having Putin show up in military fatigues is pretty significant. I don't think I have ever really seen him wearing that and I think it's sending a message. Russia is in this for the long haul and they are going to defend their territory no matter what. The fact that he also announced that they will be continuing into Ukrainian territory in the Sumy region tells me that the battle is far from over. 

Does this mean that Trump's peace proposal is dead? It's very possible. Russia got one of their biggest victories in the war and nothing in the peace proposal seemed to appeal to Russia in the first place, not to mention Ukraine sabotaging it with their massive drone attack yesterday. Supposedly Defense Minster Lavrov said that he's not interested in a 30 day cease fire, but a real peace deal, so that tells me the cease fire is probably not happening. 

But I also said yesterday that the Kursk salient was a major obstacle to the cease fire. I said there was no way that Russia would agree to any cease fire when they had the momentum on their side and when Sudzha was still in Ukrainian hands. That obstacle is now no longer relevant and I am guessing that the entire Kursk salient will be closed before Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin actually talk. That means there is at least a chance the cease fire goes into effect. 

Either way, this has to count as one of Russia's biggest victories of the war, and it was pulled off in spectacular fashion. Even if hate Russia you have to admit that they did very well here. They got caught flat-footed by the offensive last August but in the end they have pulled off a stunning victory.   

Ukraine launches massive drone strike on Russia and then agrees to a 30 day cease fire proposal?

 

A damaged civilian building in Sapronovo. ABC News/AFP/Getty.

Ukraine has launched one of the largest drone strikes of the war on Russia. ABC News. Russia claims to have shot down 343 drones, with 91 of them being in the Moscow region while 6 were targeting the Kursk nuclear power plant. Two or three people were killed in the raid and at least 20 were wounded. Russia said that the attacks were meant to undermine peace talks. 

However, Ukraine has agreed in principle to a 30 day cease fire. BBC. The cease fire goes beyond Ukraine's proposal to have a cease fire in the air and ocean only. The United States has agreed to also resume aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Russia has not as of this writing responded to the proposal. 

My Comment:

I think I understand what Ukraine is doing here. I don't think the drone attacks were for any military objective, they just wanted to put Russia into a position where they wouldn't agree to the cease fire that was just proposed. 

Why don't I think that the strikes were for military purpose? Because they weren't directed at the Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces have been routed. I wrote yesterday about how that battle happened, and now Russian troops have entered the town of Sudzha directly. Though I doubt anything could stop the Russians at this point, using this huge number of drones to attack Russian forces in the area could have affected the battle. More troops could have escaped the cauldron and perhaps Ukraine could have delayed the inevitable capture of the Russian territory they took earlier in the war. 

Instead, these strikes were to give a middle finger to Russia. Russia did launch a drone strike on Ukraine but Ukraine is trying to derail this peace mission before it can even begin. Russia is a lot less likely to agree to any cease fire deal after their capital was attacked and civilian areas were damaged. 

I don't have high hopes of this cease fire going into effect. Not only did this drone strike sour the Russian's mood, they have little reason to accept it when the battlefield is finally starting to open up. How can they agree to a cease fire when they are very close from kicking Ukraine out of their territory? Maybe after Sudzha falls in the next couple of days, but until that happens I don't see it happening. 

This is why I think Ukraine agreed to this deal, they get almost everything they want. They get Trump off of their back, they get their weapons and intel back, they also get to paint Russia as the "bad guy" when they refuse to accept the deal, at least at the moment. 

However, I do think it's possible that Russia will agree. Like I said, the Sudzha question could be resolved pretty soon, assuming they don't get bogged down in the town. Once that happens Russia could agree to a cease fire for their own reasons. A break in the fighting could help them in the Donbas front, where Ukraine managed to push back a little. A 30 day break would also allow them to better prepare for a major offensive this spring without the threat of those troop buildups being attacked by Ukraine

I think Russia also wants to please Donald Trump to an extent. Donald Trump is an unpredictable man in many ways, but what is predictable is that he wants to make a deal. If Russia throws Trump a 30 day bone not only do they please Trump, they also give Ukraine another 30 days to screw things up for themselves with him. 

The key factors of if it does happen is how angry Russia is about the drone strikes and how much benefit they see from a cease fire. I can't see it happening until Sudzha falls, unless some kind of deal is made where Ukraine pulls back from Russia entirely as a condition of the cease fire. 

Either way, it is encouraging that at least some kind of cease fire is being discussed. It's possible that things could indeed work out. I'm fairly cynical, I don't see Russia as agreeing to a cease fire when they are winning unless they get an amazing deal, and I don't think Zelensky is sane enough to give them what they want. But all we can do is hope it works out and the killing can finally stop. I sincerely hope a deal can be made. 

Ukraine's Kursk front in Russia has collapsed to the point of a rout, with Russia now threatening to encircle the remaining forces.

 

An Ukrainian soldier in the occupied town of Sudzha. ABC News/Reuters. 

Ukraine's Kursk invasion in Russia has collapsed to the point of a rout with Russia now threatening to encircle remaining forces. ABC News. Russia had caused several major breakthroughs in Ukranian lines, forcing them to retreat to Sudzha. The last highway out of Sudzha is under fire control of the Russians while Russia has also entered Ukraine to try and further cut off the town. Russia was able to pull of a stunning attack that cut off the northern forces by infiltrating a company of troops through an unused gas pipeline north of Sudzha. The town itself has now been entered by Russian forces. 

My Comment:

The ABC News report had several obvious errors, like claiming that North Korea was involved in the offensive of that the Kursk breakthrough was due to Trump cutting off support. Neither of these things are true as far as I have been able to determine. I still haven't seen any actual evidence of North Korean combat troops being deployed in large numbers and the Kursk operation was doomed for the front. 

They are also downplayed just how insane and effective the pipeline attack was. Supposedly a company-sized formation of Russian troops climbed through the pipeline, which used to carry natural gas to Europe. The trip took 6 days underground and when they popped up behind enemy lines, it caused absolute chaos and caused the rout. 

The funny thing is that Ukraine absolutely should have expected this, it's not the first time Russia has used a pipe to change the outcome of the battle. In 2023 they used a similar pipe, a water pipe this time, to essentially win the battle of Adviika, which had ground on for a long time. The attack then was very successful so I am not sure why Ukraine didn't learn their lesson. I am guessing they didn't think that the Russians would be crazy enough to do the same thing with a 9 mile long gas pipeline, but apparently they are. 

Ukraine really got routed here too. The Russians were able to take basically all their territory back except Sudzha, and some of the land to the south and west of it. Ukraine lost a huge number of vehicles and troops in the retreat. They are saying that the roads leading into and out of Sudzha are "Highways of Death", similar to the infamous Highway 80 in Iraq during the Gulf War. 

Even worse for Ukraine is the fact that Russia has fire control over the exits from Sudzha. They can hit every inch of that territory with artillery and drones, so any withdrawal will be hit with both. When your MSR is under artillery fire you are in serious trouble. 

Of course Russia is making things worse by entering Ukraine and threatening the highway out of Sudzha as well. If they manage to reach the highway, they can essentially cut off the MSR, making any retreat from Sudzha extremely difficult. They are also attacking from the east, which could cut off the eastern side of the highway as well. Regardless of what the Ukrainian generals are saying, Ukraine's forces are in danger of being totally cut off. 

But instead of evacuating Sudzha, Ukraine is doubling down, yet again. They are sending even more troops into Russia and they just appear to be putting their fingers in their ears about their losses and chances in the battle. 

Why? Because the Kursk salient was supposed to be their trump card (no pun intended) in any negotiations with Russia. They wanted to trade it for land that Russia took in the war. Why Russia would agree to that is not clear, but what is clear is that they waited far too long and will lose their bargaining chip very quickly. I would be surprised if the Kursk salient is still there by the end of the week, let alone by the time any negotiations start. 

Of course this was always the likely outcome. Ukraine very foolishly decided to attack during a defensive war against an opponent that had a much larger military. They did so on a narrow front and created a very large salient which was always going to be at risk of being cut off. And by doing so they had allowed Russia to use their conscripts in battle, freeing up more contract soldiers to fight on the Donbas front. It was a massive mistake all around and shows why Russia hasn't tried to take out Zelensky. He's incompetent. 

The real question is if this is the beginning of the end for Ukraine. Russia has been winning the war for a long time, but the lines haven't seen any major breakthroughs until now. Given that Ukraine's best troops and weapons were deployed to Kursk, any many of those troops and weapons have been destroyed or captured, it's possible that this will be a death blow. Given that morale is already terrible and nobody wants to be the last guy to die in a lost cause, we might see some larger breakthroughs on other fronts... 

More than 1300 Syrians killed in renewed fighting and massacres between the new government and the Alawite minority.

 

Syrians protest against the violence in Damascus. NPR/AFP.

More than 1300 Syrians have been killed in renewed fighting in Syria, with the new government carrying out massacres against the Alawite minority. NPR. The fighting began after an Alawite militia allegedly killed 16 government soldiers. In response the government sent troops and enforced curfews in Latakia and Tartus. Alawites have been attacked since the Assad government fell, as they were a major supporter of the regime and Assad as an Alawite himself. The new government, led by former al-Qaeda affiliate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, formally known as al-Nusra, has conducted massacres in response, with many civilians dying after being shot at close range. The British based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates that 800 civilians, 231 Syrian fighters and 250 Alawite militiamen have been killed. 

My Comment:

I am sure I have said somewhere on this blog that I thought having al-Nusra, what HTS used to be, taking over Syria would be the 2nd worst outcome for the country. Obviously having ISIS take over would have been even worse, but remember, HTS is al-Qaeda. They have said they have renounced terrorism and al-Qaeda but I don't believe it for a second. 

Indeed, I am surprised that it took this long for the Alawites to be attacked. Though they are kind of Muslims, both Sunni and Shia Muslims consider them heretics. Part of it too is the fact that they supported the old regime. Assad was an Alawite himself and many of the bad things his regime did was in defense of the Alawites, which just multiplies the hatred Alawites get in Syria right now. 

I do think it was wise for the Alawites to arm up, but it looks like they don't have anywhere near the resources they need to actually fight back against the Syrian government. Though I am guessing a lot of Syria's more modern equipment and weapons are rusting in the desert, they still have a very powerful Army and state level resources. Alawite militias might be able to stop some of the killing but if the Syrian government goes all in then things will get bad quickly. 

I'd also mention that this part of Syria, the coast, was largely unaffected by the war. The Syrian government protected the area very well and there wasn't a population of Sunni Muslims for the terrorists to draw from. It's sad to see that it is falling into chaos now. 

Russia also had a major naval base there and that is part of the reason why it was peaceful. The Tartus naval base is a very strategic one and Russia will probably be willing to defend it, and their Alawite allies. They have forces in the area and supposedly they are protecting large numbers of civilians. 

Russia's interests in Syria makes me suspicious of this whole situation. Western intel agencies hate the act that Russia has a base in Syria and have a major interest in seeing it destroyed. Part of me thinks, without any real evidence, that the shooting by the Alawites may have had some western involvement. Either way, I am guessing they are happy with the fighting picking up again as it will undermine Russian interests in Syria. 

But if there is a hope that the killing will stop, it's Russia as well. I doubt the Syrian government wants to pick a fight with the Russians, who have a very capable military right now and have quite a history in the region. It's possible that the HTS government could reign in their forces so that further attacks against civilians don't happen. 

Either way, this is not a good situation for Syria. The country appears to be falling back into chaos, and it's also losing a lot of their sovereignty. It's possible that we will see much of the country carved up, with an independent Alawite coast, a Turkish north, a Israel-American south and HTS dominating everything else (with ISIS hanging out in the desert). Regardless of the long term situtuation, I think the killing and reprisals against Alawites (and other minorities like Christians, Druze and Shia Muslims) will continue... 

California governor Gavin Newsom says transgender athletes competing in woman's sports is deeply unfair.

 

California governor Gavin Newsom. BBC/Getty.

California governor Gavin Newsom says that transgender athletes competing in woman's sports is "deeply unfair". BBC. Newsom made the comments on the first episode of his new podcast with conservative pundit Charlie Kirk. The context was the two men discussing why Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump and both men agreed it was due to the issue. Newsom cited the "Kamala is for they/them" ad as a major reason why Trump won. Newsom did say that he had a problem with how people "talk down" to "vulnerable communities" as well. Many Democrats condemned the remarks but polling shows that Newsom is aliened with many polls. A New York Times/Ipsos poll found that virtually all Republicans and 7 out of 10 Democrats agree that transgender athletes should not be in woman's sports. 

Gavin Newsom's podcast can be found here. 

My Comment:

I didn't listen to Gavin Newsom's podcast because I genuinely hate the format. Why would I listen to a two hour discussion when I could read the same information in ten minutes? Not to mention, I am not a fan of Newsom at all, I think he has ruined the state of California. 

But I do think he is a savvy politician and seems to be one of the few Democrats that understands why the Democrats lost in 2024. Certainly, transgender issues weren't the only reason why they lost, but it certainly is a major reason why. The truth is that a lot of people are disgusted with many of the things the transgender community is doing. 

Woman's sports is a big one. The truth is that biological males have a competitive advantage over biological women. On average men have a major advantage in muscle mass, strength, endurance and height, all of which makes them dramatically more able than even peak women. Pumping yourself full of hormones and growing your hair out does not suddenly change that. 

This means that women can no longer compete against transgender athletes. Dozens of records are getting broken by male to female transgenders and more than a few female athletes are getting injured by folks dramatically larger and more powerful than they are. President Trump highlighted the case of Payton McNabb during his congressional address this week. McNabb was a 17 year old student athlete that had a transgender athlete spike a ball in her face which injured her to the point where she could no longer compete. Such stories are hardly unique. 

Of course that wasn't the only issue with transgender athletes. Female athletes were forced into locker rooms with intact male to female transgender athletes, which was deeply uncomfortable for them at best and could lead to sexual assault at worse. 

This is not a hard argument to make and it's one that has convinced most folks. They say that transgenders in sports is a 80/20 issue and I think it might even be worse than that for Democrats. It's something that only activists agree with and I think Newsom is right to try and move the party away from it. 

Will it work though? Given the huge amount of pushback Newsom is getting, I am not sure it will. Newsom is a pragmatist on this issue but much of the core Democrats are indeed true believers. I don't see how the Democrats can thread the needle here. They either have to jettison the 30% of their own voters that are true believers on this, which would cost them the next election. Or they can keep doubling down and alienate just about everyone else. 

As for Newsom himself, he is positioning himself for a 2028 run. He's trying to move to the center despite an entire career of being a left wing radical. I am not even sure if he is legit on this issue or just trying to position himself as a moderate alternative to whoever the 2028 GOP candidate is (probably JD Vance, but who knows?). 

Will it work? It really depends on the Democratic Party. Part of me thinks that Newsom wouldn't have a chance to win a primary given the voters disdain for white men, but I do think that he would have a better chance of winning in 2028 than someone like Kamala Harris 2.0, especially if he continues to jettison the 80/20 issues.