More details are becoming available about what may have caused President Donald Trump to back down from imposing broad new tariffs on most of the world. Following several days of financial markets sliding in response to Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, the president announced Wednesday that — with the exception of tariffs on China — he was pausing all other trade duties from going into effect for 90 days. In a Wednesday segment on Fox Business, commentator Charles Gasparino said that several sources confided to him that it was actually “the White House who capitulated.” He added that while he was a “patriot” he admitted that the Trump administration was the first to blink based on the international bond market.
Gasparino said that the administration ultimately pulled back because of threats that Japan — which he said runs ” major money management firms that are involved in the bond market” — was contemplating dumping some of its estimated $1.26 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. Gasparino said Japan “forced [the administration’s] hands” with the move, and said that he was told Japan now believed the United States bond market “was not a great place to do business.”
“He had no choice,” Gasparino added. “The gun was at his head. It was very bad.”
Essentially, U.S. Treasury securities — which make up the vast bulk of the $36 trillion national debt — are the primary way in which institutional investors and foreign governments choose to park their money. While the FDIC only guarantees bank deposits up to $250,000, U.S. Treasury securities are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. But if a major buyer of treasuries decided to dump their holdings, it could potentially trigger a sell-off throughout the rest of the bond market, causing a global financial crisis.
The U.S. Treasury securities market is also highly dependent on Congress raising the debt limit, which it statutorily has to do by this summer. If Congress fails to raise the debt limit and pushes the U.S. into default, it would effectively violate the guarantee associated with treasuries, which would also lead to a major financial catastrophe. Trump said earlier this year that he would be in favor of abolishing the statutory requirement to raise the debt limit, and abolish the concept of the debt ceiling entirely.
Comment: Last night I read that China was starting to sell off US treasuries and that we were about to sell more bonds. The interest rate on these bonds was rising. I didn’t put it all together until this afternoon when I learned that Japan was also beginning to sell our treasuries. I find it hard to believe that somebody in Trump’s economic circle wasn’t well aware of this possibility. But I do believe that Trump may not have had a clue until it was explained to him today. (It probably took the equivalent of a two by four soaked in motor oil to do it.) He was fully committed to the huge worldwide tariffs until the T-bill reality kicked him right in the jollies.
He’s still fully committed to a tariff war with China, but he’s still keeping heavy tariffs on the rest of the world. Ten percent is still disruptively high. His unrequited love for the most beautiful word in the world will not be denied. Not that I support his tariff-driven trade war, but I think he’d be much better off if he concentrated on China and perhaps those countries like Viet Nam and Indonesia, where Chinese manufacturers have found haven, and left the rest of the world alone. Selling our T-bills is still a danger, but at least Japan and others may hold onto them if the catfight stays between China and the US. I don’t think America alone is going to cut it.
In a move aimed at protecting American jobs and ensuring food security, the Trump Administration has announced new tariffs on major shrimp-supplying countries, a decision praised by the Southern Shrimp Alliance. “We’ve watched as multigenerational family businesses tie up their boats, unable to compete with foreign producers who play by a completely different set of rules,” said John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance. “We are grateful for the Trump Administration’s actions today, which will preserve American jobs, food security, and our commitment to ethical production.“ Unfair trade policies that disadvantage American shrimpers include billions of dollars in subsidies from international financial institutions to develop foreign shrimp aquaculture, along with widespread use of forced labor, banned antibiotics, and environmental destruction that reduce the cost of shrimp production in major supplying countries.
The U.S. shrimp industry has suffered significant losses in recent years. Since 2021, the prices of imported shrimp have dropped significantly, decreasing their value by more than $1.5 billion. This economic downturn has led the U.S. shrimp industry to lose nearly 50% of its market value, forcing many shrimping businesses to close. Despite the falling wholesale prices, retail shrimp prices have remained historically high for consumers, highlighting the disconnect between wholesale and retail markets.
The tariffs come at a critical moment when 94% of shrimp, and all seafood, consumed in the United States is already imported. This extreme import dependence stands in stark contrast to overall U.S. food imports, which account for just 15% of American food consumption, according to the FDA. “Our government has been outsourcing our food supply to companies engaged in practices we would never accept on American soil,” Williams noted. “Without quickly addressing unfair trade, we are choosing a food supply chain that is fully outsourced to industries that engage in horrible practices. If we wait for systemic reforms, we will lose our domestic shrimp industry.”
The new duties are expected to slow imports and prevent Americans from becoming completely dependent on foreign shrimp producers while the administration addresses harmful trade policies and enforcement deficiencies. International financial institutions—supported by U.S. government funds and taxpayer dollars—have invested billions into foreign shrimp aquaculture development, helping multinational companies rapidly displace the well-regulated U.S. shrimp industry.
The total number of shrimp and aquaculture development projects increased significantly in the past decade, primarily in India and Ecuador, which supply nearly 70% of all U.S. shrimp imports and are the largest competitors to the U.S. shrimp industry. Ecuador alone received over $550 million in development funding for shrimp farming since 2000, with $195 million going directly to private companies competing with U.S. shrimpers. This investment helped fuel a staggering 150% increase in Ecuadorian shrimp exports to the U.S. in just four years. Similar funding has gone to other major producers like India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, creating a global shrimp oversupply.
Most consumers remain unaware that the majority of imported shrimp comes from countries linked to widespread use of forced labor and banned antibiotics—documented by U.S. and foreign governments, human rights organizations, and investigative journalists. Despite these concerns, many U.S. retailers continue sourcing large volumes of shrimp from the most problematic countries, often relying on inadequate industry certification programs. “Today’s demand for shrimp is met at a massive human, environmental, and public health cost,” said Williams. “When we outsource our seafood production to industries that use forced labor and environmental shortcuts, we’re making a choice about the kind of world we want to support.”
Comment: This is an example of how fine grained economic policies should be in order to be effective. On the plus side, I’m sure any further US support for foreign aquaculture has ended. I can’t fathom the reasons for providing that kind of support in the first place. And Trump’s massive tariff regime will definitely aid the domestic shrimp industry as the article states. However, these tariffs will probably not stand long enough to help our shrimp fleets. Just this morning, I saw a headline that Trump and Argentina’s Milei have reached a zero-zero tariff agreement. So all that Red Argentine Shrimp will continue to flow into the US without tariffs. Will the current duties on foreign seafood continue to stand? I doubt it with this zero-zero deal. Any further zero-zero deals with countries like India, Ecuador or Indonesia, the top three shrimp exporting nations, will doom our domestic shrimp industry.
Will Trump care? I doubt it. He’ll have his zero-zero trade deals to crow about. For that matter, I doubt most Americans will care, either, except for those communities involved in the shrimp industries. I personally think those communities and industries are worth protecting with import duties and quotas. Hell, I’d like to see them thrive and expand. Build more shrimp trawlers. Help two industries. This is an instance where tariffs can be a good thing… if targeted and applied judiciously.
I’m still in a quandary about the desired end state of trump’s massive tariffs. Is it simply to totally upend the current economic system and see what happens? Is it to make trillions and trillions of dollars in tariffs? Is it to force other nations to adopt zero tariff policies? Does that include zero quota limitations? Or is it to protect and rebuild our industries? Trump administration spokespeople were all over the map this weekend. Even Lutnick, that truly annoying used car salesman, seemed inconsistent in his comments. He said the tariffs are here to stay and that this will bring our factories back. He also said we are the number one consumers in the world and other nations are clamoring to close trade deals to have access to those American consumers. So are the tariffs going to stay in place or not?
And does Lutnick and Trump expect the rest of the world to adopt our voracious appetite to consume or do they expect us to curb our consumerism? I can’t see either happening. We Americans have no intention of giving up our wants. That would require self-discipline. And most of the rest of the world just can’t afford our appetites to consume ever more and more. Many even see such consumerism as crass and immoral. I live a pretty cushy life, but, Jesus, there are limits. Being self-sufficient, frugal and content with less has its own rewards in my opinion.
BTW, white and brown shrimp are making their way into the Chesapeake Bay. Last year both Virginia and Maryland issued a small number of commercial permits for 16 foot beam shrimp trawling in the bay. I know our local crabbers often sell local shrimp probably as a by catch. Cast nets are also used by locals from shore or skiff.
A Russian Lancet attack drone seconds before Butcher’s interceptor drone brought it down
A Canadian recently celebrated becoming the first foreigner to take down a Russian Lancet loitering munition. The drone pilot, who goes by the callsign “Butcher” (“Myasnyk” or м’ясник in Ukrainian) belongs to an elite interceptor unit, fighting a new type of war in the sky. Many have compared it to the early days of combat aviation during WW1, when pilots used improvised weapons and tactics in a rapidly developing struggle for supremacy. You never know what your opponent will come up with next, and aircraft and pilots are pushed to the edge of their ability. “At the moment it is, hands down, the most challenging work in terms of drones in Ukraine,” Butcher told me.
His fearsome-sounding nickname actually comes from the fact that he used to be a butcher back home. This Canadian has come a long way, traveling to Ukraine in 2023 for an NGO doing humanitarian work. But he soon decided this was not enough. “Humanitarian work is critically important but will not end the war,” says Butcher. “I made the decision to switch to fighting the war.” In his forties and with bad knees, Butcher was not cut out to be an infantryman. But a new combat specialty was in demand: drone operator. He volunteered with the nonprofit group Wild Hornets, who turn donations into lethal drone hardware and who introduced him to a whole new world. “Wild Hornets taught me to build, maintain and fly drones,” says Butcher. “I got in a lot of flying practice.”
Butcher the joined the 25th Air Assault Brigade with the intention of operating strike drones hunting tanks. The commander asked if he was interested in working in air defence, and he jumped at the chance. It would be the fulfillment of a boyhood dream. Butcher had always wanted to be a fighter pilot, an ambition thwarted by poor eyesight. No surprise that he played a lot of video games as a teen, including plenty of air-to-air combat games and countless hours on MS Flight Simulator. “I would say being a gamer has definitely helped,” says Butcher. “You develop hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and you can see small changes on a monitor.” But he notes that gaming skills are not essential. His unit commander, a four-time ace at downing drones, never even played video games. “It takes a lot of different factors, and different people bring different assets to the table,” says Butcher. “There is no career path for this.”
The interceptors stand between Ukrainian forces and Russian drones, including reconnaissance drones which call down artillery and rocket fire and attack drones. “We are out in position 24/7, very much like WWII fighter pilots waiting for the call to scramble,” says Butcher. “At other times we are already up in the air and just jump from target to target or area to area, guarding the skies in a particular sector.” Multiple teams cover a sector, and Butcher says close co-ordination and team work is essential. His recipe for success is “Patience, strategy, teamwork, skill, communication — and a dose of luck.”
As Butcher sees it the FPV operators going after Russian tanks have it easy. Their target stays more or less in one place, is always at the same altitude and is usually obvious. Strike missions on the ground are a matter of flying in a straight line to a location, identifying the target there and engaging it. Intercepting drones in the air is harder. “We get intel on targets, and we go searching for those targets, and once we’ve found them we get up close and detonate our drone,” says Butcher. “What’s complicated is what happens in the air.”
Finding drones is challenging when you do not know exactly where they are or at what altitude. Unlike crewed aircraft, Butcher’s interceptor does not have radar, so he relies on visually spotting drones which may have a wingspan of just a few feet. Some, like the flat flying wing Supercam are virtually invisible seen edge-on. “It’s very, very difficult to sight in, to get visual on the target,” says Butcher. “Intel is not always super-accurate, so we have to use our brains and intuition — like understanding what they might be searching for in order to find them.”
Interceptors try to approach from above and behind where they will not be spotted by the Russian drone operator. If they can get close then the job may be a quick one.But increasingly Russian reconnaissance drones are fitted with rear-facing cameras. When it spots something coming, the camera triggers a series of automatic evasive maneuvers, a system known as Ukhylyant (“Evader,” but also “draft dodger”). “We’re flying all over the place chasing targets, doing maneuvers. It’s very much like dogfighting,” says Butcher. The interceptor is armed with an explosive charge, so the pilot has just one chance to get in close enough and trigger it. But the success rate is high. “Once we get eyes on a target, it’s usually going down,” says Butcher. “I’d say roughly 75% of the time this is the case.”
The Lancet kill was a notable success, because while Russian scout drones orbit in an area for several hours, the Lancet flies directly to its target. “It requires a greater sense of urgency,” says Butcher. “Both because of the limited time it’s in the air, and because of its intended use.” Knocking one down means that the Lancet – one of Russia’s most effective weapons – will never reach its target. Intercepting saves lives.
Flying a drone might seem less risky than being in the air. But the Russians are constantly locating and targeting Ukrainian drone teams, who are considered high value targets. “We’re under fire pretty much every day,” says Butcher. “Artillery, KABs [Russian glide bombs], FPVs, and MLRS [multiple launch rocket systems] are launched all the time. We have plenty of close calls. It’s just that some days are closer than others.”
Meanwhile drone combat is changing fast. Video has emerged of new Ukrainian interceptors armed with shotguns and netguns, and devices (presumably jammers) that can bring down drones without contact. Similarly, the Russian reconnaissance drones are currently unarmed, though there has been much discussion on Russian Telegram channels of fitting rear-firing weapons.
Luckily the Ukrainians are good at adapting swiftly to new demands. “In Ukraine, we have a sort of direct-to-consumer model happening where we on the front are able to directly communicate with and procure drone technology from companies,” says Butcher. “We can get a new prototype on a Sunday, test it, and provide feedback on Monday. The company will make changes over the next couple of days, and by Friday, we could have the next generation in our hands.”
The interceptors themselves are evolving. The originals were simply modified FPVs like those hitting ground targets. Now there are various bullet-shaped types with improved aerodynamics capable of much greater speeds as well as fixed wings. In sufficient numbers, a network of interceptors may one day protect Ukraine from the nightly waves of Shahed drones, which are not often seen in Butcher’s zone. “They [Shaheds] are rarely in our AO [Area of Operations], so we don’t get many opportunities to go after them,” says Butcher “They tend to be used to strike cities and civilian targets in the rear as opposed to front-line work. They’re tools of terror as opposed to tactical weapons, in my opinion.” The interceptor pilots maintain their vigil, sometimes flying twenty sorties a day. Unlike other teams who have safe houses at the rear and who rotate out every three or four days, their work is continuous.
One day this will all be over. Some people might have had enough flying, but Butcher wants to carry on being a drone operator after the war. “I plan to continue working with drones in some capacity,” says Butcher. “That was part of my motivation for getting into drones. I figured if I survived the war, it would be good to come out of it with an employable skill.” He already has a combat record in drone warfare that few non-Ukrainians can match. If NATO militaries want to learn about how to fight the wars of the future, Butcher’s knowledge is likely to be in high demand.
The writer, David Hambling, is a technology journalist and author based in South London. He writes for The Economist magazine, New Scientist, WIRED, Aviation Week, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science among others. In 2015 he wrote “Swarm Troopers: How small drones will conquer the world” about how the cheaper drones will change the face of battle. He writes and talks about the subject quite a bit.
This is a relatively new aspect of drone warfare. It is reminiscent of the early days of WWI when reconnaissance pilots and observers would take shots at each other and rather quickly evolved into full scale aerial warfare with dedicated pilots and machines. It is particularly well suited for Ukraine. Using missiles to shoot down other missiles and drones is prohibitively expensive. And the anti-aircraft missiles are becoming scarce. But the Ukrainians can mass produce drones and they have gained the expertise to use them effectively. It is becoming an important part of a strategy of total national defense, a strategy that all of European NATO should be studying intensely.
WASHINGTON DC — Over his 20-year NHL career, Alex Ovechkin has rarely passed up a chance to score. Ovechkin made history Friday night, scoring twice at home in DC to tie Wayne Gretzky for the all-time goals record. The goal brought the crowd at Capital One Arena roaring to its feet, stopping play for several minutes as Ovechkin’s teammates poured from the bench in celebration. But after he took a moment to bask in the accomplishment — saluting his family, Capitals faithful, and the watching Wayne Gretzky — Ovechkin was ready to go for the hat trick.
With just under two minutes to go, the Chicago Blackhawks pulled goaltender Spencer Knight, giving Ovechkin had what could have been a clear chance for goal no. 895. Head coach Spencer Carbery and the rest of the team were ready to set Ovechkin up for the record-breaking marker, while fans watching on waited for him to take the ice. Ovechkin, however, didn’t want the story to end on an empty cage. “I tell Carbs right away, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” Ovechkin said postgame. “Stromer ask me, Carly ask me, everybody ask me, ‘Do you want it? Do you want it?’ I said, ‘Let’s wait.’”
Ovechkin, who holds the league record with 65 empty-net goals, knows how it feels to reach a milestone without a goalie in net: he scored an empty-netter back in 2022 for goal no. 802, passing Gordie Howe for second in all-time goals. Even then, Ovechkin was hesitant to shoot, passing the puck back and forth with Evgeny Kuznetsov in a game of hot potato before lighting the lamp.
Given the stakes at hand — two minutes to go, the chance for a hat trick, and the opportunity to make history on home ice — Carbery wanted to make sure Ovechkin was certain in his decision to sit the play out. Still, he stood by Ovechkin’s decision, even if it cost him a chance at the record Friday night. “He wants to break the record with a goaltender in the crease, which I appreciate, and he didn’t want to go up,” Carbery said postgame. “He told me that on the bench, and I just wanted to confirm and make sure that he didn’t want to go out.
“Being at home, it’s hard, right? Because for us as coaches and me, even, I just want to make sure that he — ‘Are you sure in this moment, hat trick, at home?’ And he didn’t want to go out and score on an empty net to break the record. And I appreciate that. We have six games left. He wants to break the record and have that moment be where he’s shooting a puck past a goalie. And I have a lot of appreciation for that.”
Dylan Strome, who has spent three years as Ovechkin’s center, similarly grappled with Ovechkin’s decision — for once, no one on the bench wanted to score — but ultimately deferred to his judgement. “It’s hard, because for a hat trick goal, it’s a little different,” Strome said postgame. “I asked him about 15 times. I didn’t want to be the guy to shoot it in the empty net if he wanted the empty netter…you don’t want to be the guy to shoot it into the empty net if he’s looking for it to pass, but he made it pretty clear that he didn’t want to get it on an empty netter, and you’ve got to respect his wishes.”
Ryan Leonard eventually scored in Ovechkin’s place, notching the first goal of his NHL career. “I’m happy for Leno. He score his first NHL goal. The kid have a great future,” Ovechkin said postgame.
Comment: This would have been a helluva game to be at. Too bad the ticket prices are now so damned high. My younger son and I would enjoy going to those games occasionally. My older son would also attend when the Capitals played the Penguins. He’s a Penguins fan and would wear his Malkin jersey while we wore our Ovi jerseys. Those were good times. No, those were great times.
Both during and after last night’s game, there was much praise and good will for both Ovechkin and Gretzsky. It was a great sight to behold. Then this morning I read several shots at both Gretzsky and Ovechkin; at Gretzsky for his support of Trump and Ovechkin for his support of Russia and Putin. So what. I don’t like Putin or Trump, but I can enjoy hockey greatness when I see it. Jesus, people! Lighten up! No wonder the world is going to Hell.
BTW, there’s a good chance that Ovi will surpass Gretzsky with his 895th goal tomorrow on Long Island. But there’s no rush. He still has a year on his contract with the Capitals. Then he will most likely be back to Russia where he wanst to end his career. Good for him. I’m just grateful for having experienced the Ovi era.
CNN – The Trump administration has fired the director and deputy director of the National Security Agency, the United States’ powerful cyber intelligence bureau, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the situation, members of the Senate and House intelligence committees and two former officials familiar with the matter. The dismissal of Gen. Timothy Haugh, who also leads US Cyber Command — the military’s offensive and defensive cyber unit — is a major shakeup of the US intelligence community which is navigating significant changes in the first two months of the Trump administration. Wendy Noble, Haugh’s deputy at NSA, was also removed, according to the former officials and lawmakers.
The top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committee, Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, denounced the firing of Haugh, who served in the roles since February 2024, in statements on Thursday night.
Lt. Gen. William Hartman, an experienced military officer and the deputy of Cyber Command, is expected to serve as acting head of the command and NSA, the two former officials said. The news of the dismissals comes as the White House also fired multiple staff members on the National Security Council on Thursday, after Laura Loomer, the far-right activist who once claimed 9/11 was an inside job, urged President Donald Trump during a Wednesday meeting to do so, arguing that they were disloyal.
Loomer, who brought a list with roughly a dozen names of people she deemed insufficient in their support of Trump, also advocated for the firing of Haugh and Noble, two sources familiar with the meeting told CNN. During the meeting, Loomer told the president that Haugh specifically should be fired because he was handpicked by the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. Haugh was nominated in 2023, while Milley was serving, to head up the NSA and Cyber Command. In a social media post overnight Loomer said, “NSA Director Tim Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired. As a Biden appointee, General Haugh had no place serving in the Trump admin given the fact that he was HAND PICKED by General Milley.” She went on, “Thank you President Trump for being receptive to the vetting materials provided to you and thank you for firing these Biden holdovers.”
Loomer did not immediately respond to CNN’s request for comment on Haugh and Noble’s dismissals, however, she told CNN on Thursday that it “was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my findings, I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of strong vetting, for the sake of protecting the President and our national security.”
Cyber Command and the NSA declined to comment and referred CNN to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which could not be immediately reached for comment. CNN has requested comment from the White House National Security Council.
Comment: Loomer’s visit to the Oval Office brings up images of Grima Wormtongue and Grigori Rasputin. Of course none of that would matter if Trump wasn’t absolutely addicted to the blind adoration and “charms” of Laura Loomer. This and yesterday’s other firings seemed to be based purely on accusations of sufficient personal loyalty to Trump. The question of red versus expert has surely been answered. God help us.
When our soldiers were in trouble, our friends showed up and didn’t leave.
An essay by LTG Mark Hertling, US Army, (Ret.)
SOME MIGHT WONDER WHY these American soldiers were training in Lithuania in the first place. It’s because the Lithuanians are our allies, and we train with each other. I’ve been to the training area where these four soldiers were practicing. In fact, I visited all three Baltic states in 2012—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—as part of a defense engagement program. Each country was serious, professional, and proud to be a part of NATO. While in Estonia, I visited the grave of a young soldier, Sgt. Andres Nulamae, who had been assigned to our command in Baghdad. The Baltic soldiers were some of our best, and they sacrificed alongside us. Because that’s what allies do.
But something about Lithuania struck me when I visited over a decade ago. Like other European nations, I was often treated to a cultural program after an official visit ended. Lithuania was no exception. In Vilnius, a young woman maybe in maybe her early twenties gave me a guided tour of their capital. During a discussion she told me how, as a small girl, she watched her father stand with thousands of others in the city square in 1991 as Lithuanian civilians stared down the Soviet military in their pursuit of freedom and independence. Her father was lucky not to have been one of the 14 civilians killed—instead, a Soviet tank crushed his foot, and friends carried him home. His wife pleaded with him not to return to the protests, reminding him of their two young children. But he responded, “I must go out there because I have two children who must be free from the Russians.” That story left a mark on me. Lithuania’s fight for freedom isn’t distant history; it’s a living memory that shapes their national character and their commitment to sovereignty, just like Ukraine’s. It’s recent and raw. My guide’s voice didn’t tremble as she told me the story—but I got emotional listening to it.
The memory of 14 unarmed Lithuanians giving their lives to face down Russian armor in the cold days of January 1991 lives not just in their history books but in their bones. It’s why Lithuania practically beat down NATO’s door before being allowed to join in 2004. And it’s why they’ve contributed forces to U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported allied deployments in their own country, and welcomed our training rotations with professionalism and warmth. It’s a big part of the reason they’re among the most generous supporters of Ukraine, even as the United States is faltering.
TODAY, LITHUANIA ALSO FINDS ITSELF in a position of immense strategic importance—and danger. Along with Poland, it flanks the Suwałki Gap, a narrow corridor running between Poland and Lithuania that separates Belarus from Russia’s heavily militarized exclave in Kaliningrad. In military terms, it’s a choke point. In political terms, it’s possibly the next target. If Putin ever decides to further test NATO’s resolve, Lithuania is a likely victim, not because it’s weak—but because it’s essential. Seizing the Suwałki Gap could cut off the Baltic States from land reinforcement, isolating them and presenting the world with a fait accompli. It’s the kind of gamble a cornered autocrat like Putin might take.
That’s why our soldiers—infantry, armor, artillery, and yes, wrenches—train with other nations in Lithuania. Deterrence isn’t just a strategy; it’s a presence that builds trust. It’s the sound of tank engines firing up in the early morning, the sight of NATO armor crossing a frozen training range, and the knowledge that if a bolt shears or a track throws, there’s someone there who knows exactly what to do.
The recovery operation that followed this recent tragedy speaks volumes about the strength of our alliances. Over the course of six difficult days, American, Lithuanian, and Polish forces worked side by side to recover the Hercules from the peat bog. It was a grueling, multinational effort involving logisticians, mechanics, and engineers. The terrain was waterlogged, deep, and unforgiving—but they kept at it. That’s what allies do. They show up when it’s hard.
There is a quiet cost to readiness, and these soldiers—those who sacrificed their lives during training and those who stayed with it during recovery operations—paid it in full. Because alliances are not just pieces of paper. They are people who roll up their sleeves and go out to do the hard jobs. Allies are built on shared values, common purpose, and the kind of moral clarity that leads a Lithuanian father to walk back into a square facing Russian tanks, not despite his children—but because of them.
We remember the fallen not only to mourn them, but to remind ourselves of the kind of ally we aspire to be. The kind that shows up, holds fast, and never lets the mission fail.
Comment: I didn’t print the first half of General Hertling’s essay. It’s a marvelous tribute to the kind of soldiers we lost in that Lithuanian bog… the wrenches as he put it. I didn’t know many wrenches during my career, but I knew the spoons that General Hertling also mentioned. The ones who cooked and served up that marvelous SOS on a cold morning, the ones who made sure we had hot coffee and soup on the DZ in the middle of the night. The Army would not run without the wrenches and spoons keeping the men and machines of war running. At least that was the case when I was in. Contractors have since replaced a lot of those wrenches and spoons, but not all. And we lost four of them last week.
The part of General Hertling’s essay that I did print explains the meaning and significance of having true military allies. It’s something I’ve experienced as both an Infantry and a Special Forces Officer. I’ve even experienced it as an intelligence officer. I value those allies… so I guess that makes me just another sucker and loser.
Plenty going on in the world. Write about what tickles your fancy. I’m happy that Ovechkin is now four goals away from breaking Gretzky’s goal record. Predictions are now that he will do it on 13 April against the Columbus Blue Jackets. I’m amazed how politics is tarnishing Gretzky’s image right now. He’s “The Great One” for God’s sakes! And Ovi is being wildly cheered on across America. He’s Russian and a close acquaintance of Putin! You gotta love hockey.
Oh, by the way, happy Liberation Day to all you true believers.
18th Century Western economies were characterized by Mercantalism, an economic system that sought to carve up the world’s resources and territory for the benefit of the “homeland,” and led to the egregious race to colonize the non-western world. Upon learning of this tragedy, Trump has apparently declared, “Cool, let’s do it!”
On Thursday [13 March 2025], the Wall Street Journal, of all media outlets, published a piece relaying the growing concerns of American business leaders over Trump’s economic policies and the direction they are taking the economy. Predictably, Trump threw a tantrum on social media replete with name-calling, and among the epithets hurled at the Journal was this nugget: “Their (WSJ!) thinking is antiquated and weak.” It is awfully rich to see Trump call the Wall Street Journal’s promotion of free trade economic policies as “antiquated,” especially when his own economic policies are ripped right out of the 18th century.
In the 18th century, most Western European economies were characterized by what is known as Mercantilism. Mercantilism is an economic system that was distinguished by the notion that trade and economic prosperity is a zero-sum game. Fundamentally at odds with the belief so recently held by Republicans that in a Laissez Faire economic system “all boats will rise,” Mercantilism focused on the idea that there was only so much wealth to go around, and each country or nation had to grab for itself as much as it could get. 18th century Mercantilist states frequently levied high tariffs against the importation of goods into their countries. They sought to maximize their own exports and minimize imports, obsessing over what they saw as a “favorable balance of trade,” and building monetary reserves. These Mercantilist states often hoarded gold and silver, and sought to accumulate resources, both natural and manufactured.
This sounds exactly like the system Trump seeks to establish. He obsesses over America’s balance of trade and the idea that we are importing more than we export. He recently celebrated the “amount of revenue” we are reaping through his tariffs, and claims that, if we are not extracting more value than other countries out of our foreign trade, they are “winning” and we are “losing.” These sound like reasonable economic policies, right? Sure, except for the fact that Mercantilism is a largely discredited economic system, and even if it wasn’t, Trump isn’t even following it correctly, to boot! For one, the protective tariffs of a Mercantilist system only work if the government subsidizes and provides extra support and incentive to domestic manufacturing and industries where tariffs are being levied against their foreign counterparts. I explain here how badly Trump is misusing and fundamentally misunderstands tariffs, but if all you are going to do is levy 50% tariffs on foreign imports without providing support to the domestic production of those same goods, the only thing you are doing is raising prices for consumers. Any revenue generated from those tariffs is simply being added to government reserves and hoarded by the Trump Administration and its cronies.
More concerning, though, are the many problems associated with Mercantilism. Government intervention in a Mercantilist economy was very heavy-handed in the 18th century. The many trade restrictions inevitably led to the establishment of monopolies and subsequent rise in consumer prices. Britain’s East India Company (yes, the same East India Company that played a key role in the Boston Tea Party) was the multinational mega-corporation of the 18th century. The restrictions on trade led governments to play favorites, to grant de facto monopolies. The stories of these companies in the 18th century are rife with tales of fraud and corruption. But tellingly, these monopolistic tendencies also tamped down or even eliminated competition and significantly stifled innovation. They prioritized short-term gain over long-term growth. And they also served to accumulate resources in fewer and fewer hands, and this is where many of the most chilling effects of Mercantilism lead.
Comment: This is a short extract from an article by an unnamed historian writing under the pen name of Peter Porcupine. He’s a recent, but prolific writer for Daily Kos. Besides being a clear and concise explanation of mercantilism, this article struck me, not as much for its description of Trump’s economic and trade policies, but for the head long rush back to the age of empires. And it’s not just the US that’s heading in this direction.
Putin’s Russia has been very emphatic that her near abroad is hers and hers alone. The now independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe is an aberration. They should either return to Mother Russia or acquiesce to her influence. I viewed Russia’s foray into Syria to be appropriate and welcome at the time to counter the immediate threat of ISIS. It flew in the face of our imperialistic “Assad Must Go” policy, but it was a prudent and wise policy until Russia either got tired of it or, more likely, became unable to continue the intervention. But now she’s getting rather froggy in Africa with her now expanded Africa Corps. The Africa Corps does harken back to the days of the British East India Company.
I think China views everyone as a competitor, even her “friends without limits” relationship with Russia has serious limits. She is definitely taking advantage of Russia’s current predicament. China also has ambitions beyond just reincorporating Taiwan into a greater China. She is pursuing a military and maritime expansion in spite of internal economic strains. Her investments abroad are legendary and includes port facilities throughout the world. I think the BRI is just part of this.
I would argue that the US has always had an expansionist and imperialist streak as early as the days of manifest destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. Monroe, by the way, was especially desirous of Canada. We became an empire almost by accident with the Spanish-American War. Our forays in Central America on behalf of the United Fruit Company was blatantly imperialistic and mercantilistic as Smedley Butler spelled out in his “War is a Racket” in 1935. Then, after WWII, we were the last country standing and took the mantel of world leadership which we kept since then whether the world wanted it or not.
The old concept of competing empires gave way to peer competitors, but the meaning hasn’t change much. This was addressed in the 2023 JCS paper entitled “Joint Concept for Competing” where strategic competition is the normal state rather than deterrence and warfare. Strategic competition is defined as a persistent and long-term struggle that occurs between two or more adversaries seeking to pursue incompatible interests without necessarily engaging in armed conflict with each other. Strategic competition is an enduring condition to be managed, not a problem to be solved. That sounds very much like the age of empires to me. The only difference is that this concept calls for close cooperation with allies rather than colonies or satellites. NATO was a centerpiece of this concept.
That is now changing with what may become the Trump Doctrine. We intend to go it alone in a competitive world. NATO and the Europeans may no longer be seen as allies, but only as economic competitors. We have become expansionist in outlook seeking to claim Canada as our 51st state, Greenland as maybe the 52nd and to reclaim the Panama Canal Zone as our own. China seems to be the reason why Trump believes we have to own Greenland and the Canal Zone. The real reason he wants Canada still eludes me. Fentanyl is an absolute bullshit reason and we already dominate Canada economically.
Another sign of a return to the age of empires is the shifting alliances among the empires. In the past, empires sought temporary alliances with other empires if only to keep other empires from gaining too much power or too big an advantage. Even fairly recently our policy was to ensure that Russia and China would not become too cozy. That idea may still be lurking in Trump’s mind, but the strategy has changed. Since he no longer views NATO as an alliance worth investing in and an independent Ukraine definitely as not something worth supporting or investing in, he sees no reason not to buddy up with Putin. His desires for Canada and Greenland are fully compatible with Putin’s desires for Ukraine. Why not be buddies? they’re cut from the same avaricious cloth.
China tells state firms to halt deals with Li Ka-shing and his family, Bloomberg News reports
(Reuters) – Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison will not sign a deal next week to sell its two port operations near the Panama Canal to a BlackRock-led group, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said, amid growing pressure from Beijing. China’s market regulator said it will carry out an antitrust review on the Panama port deal in accordance with law to protect fair competition and safeguard public interests, its official WeChat account showed late on Friday.
The telecoms-to-retail conglomerate owned by tycoon Li Ka-shing this month agreed to sell most of the global $22.8 billion ports business, including assets it holds along the strategically important Panama Canal, to a group led by BlackRock.
Definitive documentation for the two port operations near the Panama Canal was expected to be signed by April 2, according to the sale announcement made on March 4. One of the people, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter, did not elaborate, saying only that the definite documentation would not be signed due to “obvious reasons”. The person added the development does not mean the deal has been called off, and April 2 is not a hard deadline. The second source, who also declined to be identified for similar reasons, said talks are still very much underway.
Negotiation for the overall deal that covers a total of 43 ports in 23 countries is on exclusive basis between CK Hutchison and the consortium for 145 days. Local media including Singtao Daily and The South China Morning Post first reported the news. CK Hutchison did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The conglomerate has been caught in China’s crosshairs in the highly politicised deal which is expected to garner the firm more than $19 billion in cash. Chinese authorities have reacted negatively to plans by the conglomerate to sell its ports assets, while the deal was hailed by U.S. President Donald Trump who said he wants to retake control of the strategic waterway. Over the past two weeks, pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao has published a series of commentaries criticising the deal for harming China’s national interests and depicting it as a betrayal of China and is a “perfect cooperation” with the U.S. strategy to contain China. China’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office reposted some of the commentaries on its website, which fueled speculation Beijing could take steps to try to scupper the sale.
A CK Hutchison unit operates two of the five ports adjacent to the Panama Canal, which manages about 3% of the global sea-borne trade. Panama first awarded the concession to the company in 1998 to run the ports and extended it for another 25 years in 2021. Beijing’s criticism of CK Hutchison’s move to sell its ports business is a precursor to heightened political scrutiny of major Chinese business divestments involving American buyers, analysts have said.
Bloomberg News, earlier in the week, reported that Chinese authorities had told state-owned firms to hold off on any new deals with businesses linked to tycoon Li and his family.
Comment: If I was a member of the Li family, I wouldn’t be making any long term plans. That last warning issued by the Chinese authorities is ominous. Someone could end up with a bullet in the head or making little rocks out of big rocks.
Seems the Chinese government does consider the CK Hutchison ownership of two ports at either end of the Panama Canal a strategic asset, not just another commercial arrangement. Until today, I thought The buyout of CK Hutchinson’s interest in the ports by Blackrock would defuse the issue. It wouldn’t have been an outright ownership by the US, but it would have ended Chinese ownership. The CK Hutchison Ports group operates 43 ports in 23 countries, including two of the four major ports that exist along the Panama Canal. The deal would have given the BlackRock consortium control over 43 ports in 23 countries, including Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Australia, Pakistan and elsewhere. The Blackrock ownership of all those ports would have given Trump something akin to a British East India Company.
Trump should have been briefed on this by now, but given how he’s been caught ignorant of major events lately, he may still think the Blackrock deal is a go. Wait until he catches up with reality. He will be livid. He’s going to go all Red Queen on China and Panama. Send the fleet! Drop the paratroopers! Or maybe he’ll do something with a little more finesse. But I’m not sure if his national security team is up for it.
Here are two videos of the construction of a Greenland style kayak. The first is how they were made by the Netsilik Inuit of western Greenland and the Arctic coast of Canada. The video is from “The Stories of Tuktu,” a video series shot by the Educational Services Incorporated of Canada. The series used color footage “of the Netsilik Eskimos at a time when southern civilization had not disrupted the ways of these people living at the Northwestern edge of Hudson’s Bay, the series presents an old man reminiscing about the daily activities of his youth. We learn about the ways in which the Inuit gathered food, made clothing, constructed sleds, kayaks and igloos, and raised their dogs. More important, perhaps, we acquire a sense of the land, harsh and yet beautiful, in which they lived, and of the social and religious customs which made their lives, so difficult and dangerous at times, still so beautiful and joyous.” The whole series is interesting, but this particular video shows how the kayaks were constructed using bits of driftwood scavenged over time from the barren shores of Arctic Canada.
Compare and contrast the kayak design and construction methods of Tuktu’s kayak to the modern work of Brian Schulz of Cape Falcon Kayak in building his West Greenland kayak. The design has hardly changed although Brian has access to an abundance of wood and modern tools, including power tools. He’s not limited to a mouth drill and crooked knife.
I find the continuity of the design and the methods of construction to be downright religious. But that’s just me. I built my first kayak out of scrounged materials, not driftwood, but scraps found around the barn and neighborhood. I built it to a xeroxed copy of a plan from “Popular Mechanics” using a handsaw, pocket knife, hand drill and fishing line rather than sinew, real or synthetic. I covered it with similarly scrounged canvas and painted it with house paint. It may not have been worthy of Tuktu or Brian Schulz, but it was great fun in my youth… and I think the spirit was there.
