Today, I want to briefly add an important aspect lacking from most analyses concerning the repercussion of the Iran-U.S. war. This piece is a prelude to my updated and extended analysis of the geopolitics and power politics behind the war in the Middle East.

It starts with a notion that the reach of the “U.S. empire” is vast.

However, the means through which the U.S. exercises and maintains its empire are not generally well-known or acknowledged. There’s also a good reason for their absence from the public sphere, as they do not make a light reading, so to speak.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, probably the most influential political scholar thus far, described the global reach of the U.S. in a rather unabridged manner in his seminal piece The Grand Chessboard.

Read more

Not even all historians know, but Adolf Hitler announced to German high military command in 1933, right after he assumed power, that the aim of Germany is war. The Wehrmacht was created in 1935 (replacing the Reichswehr) to serve just this purpose.

No matter what the European leaders had done, we would have had the Second World War regardless. However, a diplomatic play altered the planned timing, essentially forcing Hitler to start a war earlier than he planned.

Many historians now consider that Nazi Germany was not in the peak of its strength when the war started in 1939. The Anglo-Polish Alliance, signed on August 25, 1939, right after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 23), threatened Hitler’s expansionist aims towards Poland and effectively forced him to invade Poland, in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This led to the premature onset of the Second World War on 1 September, 1939, while Germany would have reached full war capacity only between 1942 and 1945.

Essentially, Hitler was forced to start the war before the German economy and the Wehrmacht were fully prepared, which ultimately limited Germany’s military effectiveness and strategic options throughout the conflict. This is what, most likely, saved most of Europe and large parts of Russia from a prolonged Nazi rule.

Against this historical backdrop, something really strange is going on in Europe. Just yesterday, I discussed this with Sakari Linden, and he mostly agreed. It does not make any sense for the Kremlin to sit idly by when the U.S. military is bogged down in the Middle East.

Subscribe now

Many other geopolitical analysts I’ve talked to wonder the same thing. This is something even ordinary Russians have started to notice.

Iran decimated U.S. bases in the Middle East and forced the combined military might of the U.S. and Israel to “take a knee” in forty days. What the heck has Russia done in Ukraine for four years? Moreover, Iran achieved this with missile capacity it constructed while heavily sanctioned (over a period of about 40 years).

With her two “Oreshnik” strikes (see this and this), Russia has demonstrated possessing an unrivaled missile capability. Even with just a handful of these hypersonic IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles), Russia could easily destroy NATO bases, military warehouses, and weapons factories in Europe at will. We in the West simply do not have any means to intercept the “war blocks” of the Oreshnik, which impact at speeds of 12 mach (over 4 kilometers per second). In addition to the Oreshnik, Russia has a considerable stock of hypersonic missiles, which Western systems struggle greatly to counter (as seen in the Middle East).

One of the questions I’ve been asking repeatedly about the war in Ukraine for three years is, why does Russia allow the flow of NATO supplies to the front through western Ukraine? As noted by Grok Expert:

Russia has conducted repeated strikes on western Ukraine’s transport infrastructure—including rail hubs, oil depots, and logistics centers around Lviv, Brody, and other western sites—but has not mounted the kind of sustained, overwhelming campaign that would permanently sever NATO-supplied gear flows to the front lines.

The pro-Ukraine crowd argues that Russia lacks the capacity to conduct such a campaign, but this argument is flawed. Russia’s monthly missile, drone, and glide bomb production now largely exceeds consumption in the Ukraine war (as of April 2026).

The principal difference between the wars fought against the Western military machine in Ukraine and in the Middle East is that generals are fighting the latter, while President Putin himself has often fought the former. In other words, the former has been a political conflict, while the latter is a military conflict.

So, the question that I and an increasing number of analysts are asking is, wtf is President Putin doing in Ukraine?

The U.S. military is currently seriously weakened, and the support of Europe for the war in Ukraine is failing. Yet, based on the information I’ve received, the Russian media have started to prepare the Russian populace for a major war in 3-4 years’ time.

This makes absolutely no sense.

What makes this even more strange is that the deranged European leaders, including Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Olaf Scholz, and our own puppet of the WEF, Alexander Stubb, are pushing for the same. That is, a European war with the same time frame as Moscow: in 3-4 year’s time.1

How can this be?

The only reasonable explanation I have been able to come up with is that both leaders of the major European nations (+ Finland) and Russia are taking orders from the same entity. They have a plan that Europe needs to be at war within the next 3-4 years, and that’s it.

The issue this “entity” faces is Iran, which has shown us the emptiness of Western military power. From the Shadow War:

What I mean by this scenario is that the third world fire cannot come if the U.S. military hegemony is revealed as a mirage (as it has) and decimated. If the U.S. bases mostly disappear from Europe and from the vicinity of China, the likelihood of a WWIII erupting in the coming years would simply collapse.

[…]

… a near-total defeat of the U.S. in the Middle East would cast an existential shadow over the U.S. military might. If this were to lead countries and the U.S. to demolish most of the U.S. bases across the globe, to European countries re-establishing ties with Russia, and Israel to be pushed to a de facto surrender (or to destruction), waging a global war within the next few years would become practically impossible.

The Kremlin could do what Churchill did in 1939. That is, to remove the threat of war over Europe before it reaches its full potential. Let me hypothesize how this could be done.

Russia declares war against Ukraine and announces that all factories/bases in Europe supporting Ukraine will become targets if they do not stop their support operations. Russia could present their case in the U.N., stating that their national security is under threat because of the Western-supported strikes to their civilian infrastructure (effectively a war crime) and that they resort to force if this does not stop.

Most likely, the threat would need to be followed by a strike at one such base or factory. NATO could do very little in retaliation. Air or missile strikes on Russia would lead only to more destructive visits of Russian missiles. Resorting to nuclear weapons would bring nuclear holocaust to Europe. NATO would, most likely, just cave in.

The above action would naturally run the risk of the rearmament of Europe starting, but I would consider such a risk to be low. Europeans are not interested in the war, and Russia striking a military target and continuing to support its enemy, despite warnings, would make sense to them.

Europe will also be consumed by the energy crisis shortly. Peace in Ukraine, which the above would (most likely) bring, would be celebrated in Europe, but it would also reveal the rampant corruption in the EU (I am rather certain that the EU Commission has lent money to Ukraine it did not have). Combined with the root causes of the emerging energy crisis (green policies and sanctions against Russia to support a corrupt regime in Kiev), it could topple the EU, making it even more difficult to unleash another “European fire.”

My point is this. There’s absolutely no geopolitical or military reason for Russia to wait 3–4 years for the “Great War II” to commence. It can end the conflict in Europe before it even begins.

Unless, of course, President Putin serves the same master as (corrupted and deranged) European leaders.

Tuomas

Share

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must assess the risks and legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. Neither GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen can be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act, or omission or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

I’ve been following her since the summer, and I feel her. I championed President Trump heavily during the fall. I truly believed that, with the support of the “all-American golden boy” VP James David Vance and Elon Musk, he could bring the much-needed change to the world succumbing to deepening escalation. I was simply mistaken. To my defense, I wrote a piece to GnS Economics right after the election of President Trump for his second term warning about a possible judgment failure (a “Black Swan”) in the Middle East.

Subscribe now

So, in the Middle East President Trump will face some brutal realities. These include that fact that attacking Iranian nuclear facilities would, most likely, engulf the region into a darkness, freeze Europe, plunge the world into an economic depression of never-before-seen scale and possibly even set the world ablaze. Essentially, the changed realities imply that to achieve peace in the Middle East, President Trump would be forced to engage in direct talks with Tehran. This would be a monumental task considering that he ordered the killing of Qasem Soleimani, a commander of the Quds Force (one of five branches of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), with a drone strike while travelling to meet then Iraq Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi. Tehran has been unlikely to forget this.

So, a judgement failure in the Middle East leading to an eruption of a regional war and to the collapse of the global economy is probably the largest possible Black Swan risk in President Trump’s second term. We, however, are keen to think that brutal realities will stave him off from this course. Naturally, this cannot be guaranteed and the Middle East can burst into flames before he takes office.

Our warning was based on President Trump’s hawkish stance towards Iran, which he had held for some time. Moreover, he had spoken of “handling” the Iranian threat on the campaign trail. We also noted that:

Like we warned in April, Iran is a much more formidable adversary than many thought. With Russia backing Tehran, chances of defeating Iran in a war are slim to none. We are confident that President Trump will learn this, but the question is, will he learn in time?

Like we also have been noting, there seems to be a some strong background force pushing for deeper escalation. If they are able to influence President Trump, the risks of a judgement error grow notably. This is why we need to continue to be worried on the conflict in the Middle East getting out of hand.

And now, we are nearly there. What I mean by this is that we are only one to two mistakes away from the war engulfing the whole region. Such an outcome would play straight into the hands of the current ruling class of Israel in their pipe dream of a biblical “Greater Israel.” For the rest of us, it would mean an economic depression rivaling with the Great Depression of the 1930s.

That said, I am expecting a preemptive action from Iran in the coming days. I could be mistaken with this, but I think they have been laying the groundwork for this essentially since the start of the war. The recent “lunacy cycle“ of President Trump could be the trigger. In other words, I don’t think his threat will yield a desirable outcome, also because Israel has its own motives. Moreover, I don’t think President Trump knows with whom he’s “negotiating” in Iran. I would not be totally surprised if it was a CIA-Mossad-MI6 entity created to push the president over the edge in his rage. I just hope that if (when) we reach that point, the rest of his cabinet will act to prevent cataclysmic events from taking place.

But what happened to President Trump and all his promises to be a president for peace? I have my own theory about that, but that is the topic of another post. I would urge you to worry more on the approaching oil shocks, which are not far from turning into a supply-chain shock.

I want to end with a notion by ThePatrioticBlonde:

Regardless, have a great start of the week,

Tuomas

Share

P.s. I will, probably, keep a five-day Easter break (from Thursday to Monday) to write my book.

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must assess the risks and legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics and Tuomas Malinen cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act, or omission or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

Subscribe now

The main finding of my preliminary analysis is that the outcome of a nuclear exchange between the two countries will be determined by:

1. Initial conditions.

2. Commitment of the non-nuclear party (Iran).

What I mean by “initial conditions” are the capabilities that remain in both countries after the nuclear escalation commences. Commitment is crucial for the non-nuclear party (Iran), as the (direct) destructive power of her weapons is not so great, like those of the nuclear-armed party (Israel).

There also seems to be no rush to finish my model, as President Trump seems to have, once again, postponed the timeline for the “destruction of Iran.” The mainstream media is also catching up to what’s truly going on.

How will the war with Iran end? (Mar. 13), I noted that:

What I mean by this is that I consider it likely that President Trump will save his ego before the “U.S. empire.” This implies that it will be more important for him to show that he’s a great economic leader than what happens to world dominance by the U.S. (more so because it will not have the time to fully collapse during the remainder of this term). And this implies that, when markets and the economy truly start to tank, he will create some narrative to end the war (declare “victory” or “mission accomplished”) and even pull the U.S. troops from the Middle East, if needed.

Everything that has happened since has just made me more confident that my assessment was correct and that we’ll probably see the end to this war when the economy starts to tank. Let’s see. Speaking of which…

January home sales were naturally totally unaffected by the war. Maybe our forecasting model has been correct all along on the looming collapse of the U.S. economy, even though I have kept on doubting it? We’ll know soon enough.

We also published a major geopolitical Weekly Forecasts of GnS Economics yesterday. I extended my Grand (Unified) Geopolitical Theory there, while Patricia provided an update on the capabilities of Iran. Patricia has agreed to write us weekly from henceforth, which will add considerable depth to all our geopolitical analyses. :)

Over the weekend, we will learn whether President Trump makes yet another “surprise” move in Iran. This move could be an attempt to gain control over some of Iran’s nuclear facilities or an island in the Strait of Hormuz. I don’t think it is Kharg Island, because the U.S. troops would become sitting ducks there if they ever made it to the island. Moreover, if they were able to seize it, Iran would simply turn off the oil flow in the pipeline leading into the island and start an “artillery hunt” for U.S. soldiers. Some military analysts suggest it could be Larak Island, which is one of the current control points for the entry to the Strait. We need to acknowledge that any such action could lead Iran to take over the coastlines of Bahrain and the UAE and to seize U.S. assets with commando strikes across the Middle East.

The (dire) repercussions of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz are also becoming visible. Shell has warned that an energy crisis could hit Europe as early as next month. Australian farmers have reported that they’ve run out of diesel. Gasoline shortages are appearing across the East, and airlines have started to cancel flights. Most unfortunately, like we at GnS Economics warned already two weeks ago, this is just the beginning.

I will now start to run some statistical analyses leading to updated forecasts of gold and the global economic outlook. I want to send you into the weekend with my conclusion from yesterday.

The Straits Times reported that the mission capability of the aircraft carrier had been questioned:

That means it is not clear how well the Ford – and other ships in its class, which have yet to be delivered – can detect, track or intercept enemy aircraft, anti-ship missiles or small attack aircraft.

I am sure it was just a laundry fire and not, for example, an Iranian surface missile that rendered the most modern and largest aircraft carrier inoperable. Right?

Moreover:

It is not going well for the U.S. against Iran, but this is exactly what many U.S. generals and analysts warned would happen. Play stupid games, receive stupid (and macabre) prizes.

Share

Have a great weekend,

Tuomas

P.s. I would fill up every tank I have now. You should also acquire crucial medicines and plastic necessities. I would also keep at least a month’s worth of cash at home.

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must assess the risks and legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics and Tuomas Malinen cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act, or omission or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

While I was skeptical of any true ceasefire after the 12-day war and while I have been warning of the “2nd round” since October, what we now look to be heading toward is pure lunacy. We will detail the insanity of attacking Iran in the Special Issue of Weekly Forecasts, with Brazil-based geopolitical analyst Patricia Marins, published tomorrow. This entry acts as a primer.

The main point for everyone to understand is that one cannot establish a regime change in Iran by simply kidnapping or killing their leaders. This is because Iran is not a dictatorship in the sense that, for example, Venezuela was.

Read more

Read more

Quite a notion, would you say? President Trump seems to have struck a “nerve” of the Deep State again.

The reaction is no surprise, because there’s a high likelihood that the 2020 elections were fraudulent. We at GnS Economics issued a warning on this very thing on November 16, 2020.

[…]

We got some heat from our customers about the warning, but it was effectively rolled back (with some apologies) after the January 6 riots in Capitol Hill. To note, I hope that we get the GnS Economics website back online next month, where you fill find the warning with proper timestamps.

Let me now elaborate further on the background of our warning, which makes it very likely that Mr. Olsen will find a “super classified report” that is “completely out of context.” I am going to share information with you that we never made public before.

Read more

Read more

A year ago, we warned that the world was perilously close to global disaster and that any delay in reversing course increased the probability of catastrophe. Rather than heed this warning, Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic. Hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war, climate change, the misuse of biotechnology, the potential threat of artificial intelligence, and other apocalyptic dangers.

I hold both agreement and disapproval with their analysis.

Like I have explained to you previously, end-of-the-world scenarios have been in my life since I was eight years old, when my babysitter let me watch a documentary of a nuclear war. When my mother arrived home later that evening, I was naturally shocked to the core. I remember having nightmares about nuclear war for weeks. The same happened after Alien, which I watched as a preteen when my mother was in a late-evening meeting. Some years later, as a teenager, I saw The Terminator, which naturally played into the nuclear holocaust scenario, and in 1995 (or 1996), the Outbreak. Many watched these movies as entertainment, but not me. Only much later did I understand my profound interest in these movies. I considered them as likely to be signs or warnings of things to come.1 However, I do think that the Terminator scenario is quite far still and I don’t really believe in any kind of climate emergency anymore. In them, I disagree with the scientists of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, but they also have a point. The risk of a nuclear war erupting continues to grow.

Some days ago, I noted in X that I warned about the current and deepening chaos for several years, and now there was really nothing more for me to do than “eat popcorn” (emoji). I ended by noting that “Maybe you’ll listen to me more carefully next time.” The surging prices of gold and silver indicate that we are closing in on this (the “next time”). I think that the surge is caused by three converging trends:

Read more

Tuomas

Weekly Forecasts 3/2026: The failure of the superpower-structure and the control of Europe

Many have viewed the recent developments in the geopolitical (global) arena with worry. This, naturally, includes us. We have been analyzing, speculating on, and forecasting dire developments during the past two years, of which a worryingly high percentage has become a reality. What we will present, or start to sketch here, is a Grand (Unified) Geopolitical Theory mapping the geopolitical transition, or a rupture, as (blatantly) put by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Davos earlier this week This effort aims to connect seemingly unrelated yet coordinated geopolitical developments that have unfolded globally over the past 30 years, launched by the fall of the Soviet Union. The theory will have a central role in this section in the coming months.

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the failing of the superpower-structure, which had dominated the world since the Second World War. Many still consider that the creation of the supranational-structure, enshrined in the supranational entities, like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, was behind the long period without major wars in Europe and relative calm elsewhere. However, recent developments reveal that it was actually the superpower-structure that enforced the period of (relative) peace and prosperity in Europe and the ability of the supranational structure to function (somewhat) properly in the world. The failure of the one superpower, the Soviet Union, caused the ambitions of the other superpower (the U.S.) to be unleashed, leading us to the current predicament.

What makes this so detrimental for the world is the fact that the strongest “glue” holding an empire and a nation-state (or a state-nation) together is a threat. A threat of a foreign enemy attacking the values of the nation entity or destroying it. This leads to the first founding principle of the Grand (Unified) Geopolitical Theory, which is that the survival of an empire, a nation holding a global hegemony, requires an enemy, true or imagined. An “enemy” feeds the drive for policies undermining the needs of the people on behalf of investments in defense industries. It creates the justification for silencing dissidents and enacting control measures to “protect” the populace. Most importantly, however, a threat of an enemy creates a justification for strong leadership, which is oftentimes epitomized in the form of a strong leader.

Europe became the epicenter of the failure of the superpower-structure essentially right after the fall of the Soviet Union. The enlargement of both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and the creation of the European Union in 1993 are symptoms of this. In February 2022, the failure of the superpower-structure led to the first major war on the European continent since 1945.

Read more

I have mentioned before that neither I am not here to please you. My primary responsibility is to provide you with the most reliable forecasts possible. One cannot choose sides and still fulfill this duty effectively

That said, let’s break down my yesterday’s general analysis (worry) on President Trump. In the Weekly Forecasts 4/2025 of GnS Economics, we noted that:

It has been a trademark negotiation tactic of Donald Trump since the 1980s to shock his opponents in negotiations with preposterous proposition displayed in an aggressive manner. The aim of these have been to force concessions from his negotiation partners. This proved to be a highly successful tactic in many of Donald Trump’s crucial negotiations, like during his financial troubles, and “forced” restructuring of his debts by banks, in the 1990s.

When we apply this concept to the recent developments, something we could call ‘Trump-logic’ appears in some of his actions, while others continue to display deepening erratic behavior driven, most likely, by external pressures.

For example, the eagerness of President Trump to enact strikes on Iran could be seen as a campaign of extreme risk or a decisive tactic aimed both at Israeli and Iranian regimes, asking, “Do you really want this?” It can be seen as classic Trump-bullying, just with major stakes and enacted on the global stage. The same goes for Greenland. His adamant desire for Greenland could be an act aimed at securing more concessions from Greenlanders and Danes, as well as shaking the ‘lunatic fringe’ at NATO and the “European Coalition for War.”

However, when we enter actions around Ukraine and the Nobel Peace Prize, a troubling picture starts to emerge. In October, I noted:

It truly looks like the decisions on war in Ukraine are above the paygrade of the U.S. President. This is a perplexing and deeply disturbing thought, but it is firmly grounded on the actions (or non-actions, to be exact) of the administration of President Trump in Ukraine. There is a genuine lack of will to do what is necessary for reaching peace in Ukraine.

Regardless of whether you disapprove or approve of President Trump, you are forced to acknowledge that he has had the ability to end the war in Ukraine a year to the date today. Why has he not?

The war in Vietnam did not end because A) no U.S. president wanted to be the one that lost the war, and B) it was very beneficial for the military-industrial complex, which gained money and influence during every year the war raged on. I think we are at the same juncture with Ukraine with President Trump. He has become so keenly fixated on the ideal of “American greatness” and security that everything else is flying out of the window (“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace”). I think that the neocon faction has gotten to him, maybe alongside Israeli PM Netanyahu.

The fiasco surrounding the Nobel Peace Prize appears to me like an ego breaking under promises he cannot keep. “Receiving” a Nobel Prize given to someone else and attacking the Prime Minister of the country hosting the institution awarding the reward, regardless of how “strategic” the latter would be, are signs of failing logical reasoning and, in the worst case, crumbling mental health.

During the fall, many well-known MAGA members and former Trump supporters raised the issue that something seems to have changed in the policies of the Trump administration during April-May, epitomized by the fallout between billionaire Elon Musk and President Trump. Think, for example, of the “lecturing” President Trump and VP J.D. Vance gave to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on 28 February. For many of us who want the war to end, it seemed to pave a way towards issuing a threat of U.S. withdrawal from Ukraine if Kyiv does not capitulate. However, instead of forcing Ukraine to concessions, the U.S. and Ukraine signed a mineral deal at the end of April. In Failure in Istanbul, I warned this to have been a crucial mistake, but, retrospectively, it was also a sign of President Trump succumbing to the demands of the neocons and, possibly, the War Triad.1

This continues to raise the likelihood of erratic actions, like I warned yesterday. These include even a military action taken against Greenland, while I consider it unlikely at this point.

Tuomas

Share

Subscribe now

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor any of the authors can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor any of the authors cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

The news broke on Friday, when I was taking a day off from my entries here (as I noted to my paid subscribers on Thursday), but I only noticed this Sunday evening through another piece at the Jerusalem Post. It speculated on the risk that the Israeli missile defenses would not be ready for another onslaught by the Iranians. The piece is full of propaganda about the success of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) in destroying Iran’s missile launch capabilities and the damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear program.

Like I noted on Thursday, the new information I’ve received reinforces my previous view that the strike on Iran’s nuclear facility in Fordow (and Natanz and Isfahan) under “Operation Midnight Hammer” was a charade and part of a deal between Iranian and U.S. regimes to end the Israel-Iran war. After the initial success, Israel was getting hammered by Iranian rocket salvos, which led the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to issue a request to President Trump to broker a ceasefire. The situation naturally required some face-saving. From Fighting Iran, through Venezuela? (on 26 Aug):

It continues to be my view that the strikes on Fordow (and Natanz and Istafan) served two aims:

1. They provided an exit ramp for PM Netanyahu from the conflict, which was about to decimate Israel.

2. To quell domestic criticism of Zionists and their minions towards President Trump.

Iran “retaliated” by striking a Al-Udeid American base in Qatar. Several reports at the time confirmed that the U.S. had cleared the base of aircraft and other equipment before the strikes. These all look to have been done in an agreement.

Still, I urge you to read the piece of the Jerusalem Post, as it gives a concise picture of the propaganda spewed in the Israeli media while providing important hints about the backroom talks. From another piece published in the outlet yesterday:

I think that the “improper timing” summarizes everything here. The defense capabilities of Israel to withstand another missile onslaught are not ready yet, and the “demonstrations” in Iran did not succeed in their objective, at least not fully.

In October, I read an excellent analysis (I am not sure whether I reported it to you…), which stated that Israel would be ready (stockpiled) for another go sometime in January-February, the earliest, like Iran. The above essentially confirms this. That is, Israel would not have enough Arrow missiles (the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Iron Beam are mostly useless against ballistic missiles). These led us at GnS Economics to conclude in our consensus (most likely) scenario for 2026 that:

The second round in the war between Israel and Iran will flare up shortly after peace in Ukraine is found or when it is very close (the Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics may set the timing).

If this would hold, it would give both Iran and Israel another month to prepare.

Subscribe now

It is likely that the massive propaganda campaign on the demonstrations in Iran was about to push President Trump “over the edge” on Wednesday (a possible miscalculation from the CIA, MI6, and Mossad), forcing an intervention from Israeli PM Netanyahu. The actions of President Trump look to become more erratic by the day and bending the American global hegemony narrative pushed by the neocons.1 On this the attack against the PM of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre, on the Nobel Peace Prize and Greenland today stands in testimony.

I know that I have flip-flopped with my analyses and thus forecasts on the policies of President Trump, but now we are entering uncharted waters. The fact that, despite still possessing all the means to do so, he has been unable to end the war in Ukraine tells me that the neocon faction and the War Triad likely controlling European leaders are starting to get to him. Some also seem to consider that the Greenland annexation would be some stroke of genius to take the island and end NATO at the same stroke, but I highly doubt this. Moreover, the push for the Nobel Peace Prize is closing in on borderline insanity.

I think that President Trump is starting to crack under pressure, while his administration is becoming seriously overstretched with the multiple conflicts they are trying to handle, or start. The last part may even be the strategy of China and Russia (more on this later). Extreme stress and global overreach will inevitably lead to drastic errors in decision-making in the coming months. This is something I’ve been warning about since mid-November.

Moreover, as the approval ratings of President Trump have sunk, we can expect more irrationally rapid decisions and rants aimed at quick “victories” and conquests in the coming weeks and months, as “winning” is rather important for President Trump. Note also that the legally binding publication day of all of the Epstein files was 19 December, but only 1% of them have been published.

I wish you an excellent week,

Tuomas

Share

Subscribe now

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor any of the authors can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor any of the authors cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

As an interesting twist, a journalist reported in X that Iran would have effectively decapitated Starlink over Iran using Chinese tech. A search by Grok found multiple sources stating that this would have happened,1 and I am not surprised. I have long suspected that Beijing will be forced to start to draw a line in the sand on how far it allows the Trump administration to go in its meddling with allies crucial to the energy security of China. This holds especially now after the coup in Venezuela. The jamming could have been one factor behind the backing down of the ‘Trump-Netanyahu clique.’

After the failed destabilization effort, the propaganda campaign has continued. Recent claims put the death toll from the crackdown of demonstrations by the Iranian regime anywhere between 450 and 10000. The figures from the Iranian accounts tell a completely different story, with around 40-50 demonstrators and about a dozen policemen and military officers dead. Who do we trust here? Let me tell you one example clarifying my position.

When I was teaching Development Economics at the University of Helsinki, it led me to read about not just developing economies in more detail but also human rights issues in those countries. I stumbled into the White Scarf movement (also known as My Stealthy Freedom) in Iran. I became a supporter of this cause, and, if I remember it correctly, I even supported the movement financially with some small amounts (of this I am not sure, though). I did not doubt the movement, based on the atrocities we had heard from Iran.

Subscribe now

During the 12-day war, I frantically sought reliable accounts of what was happening not only in Iran but also in Israel, because all of Israel was under heavy media censorship (so was Iran, but not so extensively). I came across two Iranian accounts, which provided accurate information on the strikes by the IRGC on Israel, but also on the strikes by the IDF on Iran. I also came across reports by Westerners, especially U.S. citizens, who were or had been visiting Iran recently. They all told a very different story of what was happening in Iran. I learned that I had been misled about the true situation of women in Iran and that, as an Islamistic country, the Iranian society was relatively free. Yes, oppression of women can be heavy in the countryside, but cities are much more liberal than what has been told to us by the mainstream media.

So, after being lied to by our media for so many years, I am keen to believe the Iranian accounts on the demonstrations. I do not believe we have seen a massacre of civilians in Iran, and today reports of truly massive pro-Iran (note, mostly not pro-regime) demonstrations have been pouring in. I have not seen many reports on them in the MSM.

I think that the demonstrations were and continue to be a propaganda campaign aimed at providing an excuse to attack Iran again because they stand in the way of the Greater Israel plan of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, remember that I noted already in October 2023 that the winner of a full-scale war in the Middle East would be Russia, while everyone else would lose. This is how insane the plan is. What does PM Netanyahu have on President Trump?

Tuomas

Subtitle changed post-publication.

Share

Subscribe now

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor any of the authors can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor any of the authors cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

1

A response of Grok to a search with the command “Has Iran jammed Starlink lately?” at 5pm, 1/12/2026

Currently, there’s no point in adding anything, forecast-wise, on the situation in Venezuela, as it is so chaotic, even within the President Trump’s administration. However, I want to provide you with an analysis of the Venezuelan rare earth minerals as a motivation behind the coup I mentioned yesterday. It is detailed in an excellent piece by piece by Tracy Shuchart I urge you to check out (it’s free to read). An excerpt:

The Orinoco Mining Arc, spanning 111,843 square kilometers across Bolívar and Amazonas states, contains documented deposits of coltan (tantalum ore), cassiterite (tin ore), rare earth elements, bauxite, gold, and speculative lithium reserves.

Coltan is essential for manufacturing tantalum capacitors used in every advanced electronic system, including military communications equipment, missile guidance computers, and radar systems. Rare earth elements enable the permanent magnets required for precision-guided munitions, aircraft actuators, and electromagnetic systems. Cassiterite provides tin for solder in all electronics assembly, including defense systems. Bauxite feeds aluminum production for aerospace applications.

Tracy also provides important analysis of the decision process behind President Trump’s decision, although I disagree with her on some key points. Let’s return to this tomorrow.

Tuomas

— — — —

Original, published on 1/5/2026.

That was fast! In the consensus (most likely) scenario of GnS Economics for 2026, published on 31 January, we predicted that:

President Maduro will be forced out of power in Venezuela, relinquishing the Venezuelan oil fields (the largest reserve in the world) to U.S. control.

Now, we are nearly there. What I mean by “nearly” is that his recent threats aimed at the interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, suggest that President Trump is not planning to take control of Venezuela. Moreover, on December 22 I wrote that:

Considering the above, we can consider the regime change in Venezuela a near certainty. However, Moscow will not take it lightly, as Venezuela was (is) its strongest ally in Latin America. Thus, the approaching U.S. coup d’etat in Venezuela will have repercussions for Iran and Ukraine.

Now I have received information that both corroborates and debunks this.

But naturally everyone is interested, what occurred on Saturday night in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital? While some important details are still missing, we already have information indicating that the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro was not a military operation per se but an agreed-upon extraction, with military assets. Moreover, it also looks that the operation was, most likely, agreed upon not just with the Venezuelan leadership but also with the Kremlin and possibly with Beijing.

Read more

President Maduro will be forced out of power in Venezuela, relinquishing the Venezuelan oil fields (the largest reserve in the world) to U.S. control.

Now, we are nearly there. What I mean by “nearly” is that his recent threats aimed at the interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, suggest that President Trump is not planning to take control of Venezuela. Moreover, on December 22 I wrote that:

Considering the above, we can consider the regime change in Venezuela a near certainty. However, Moscow will not take it lightly, as Venezuela was (is) its strongest ally in Latin America. Thus, the approaching U.S. coup d’etat in Venezuela will have repercussions for Iran and Ukraine.

Now I have received information that both corroborates and debunks this.

But naturally everyone is interested, what occurred on Saturday night in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital? While some important details are still missing, we already have information indicating that the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro was not a military operation per se but an agreed-upon extraction, with military assets. Moreover, it also looks that the operation was, most likely, agreed upon not just with the Venezuelan leadership but also with the Kremlin and possibly with Beijing.

Read more

My deeper involvement in geopolitics since September 2022 has brought me some truly interesting contacts with people who have extensive connections in both politics and the intelligence community. Naturally, one must be cautious with information from these sources, especially from those who have worked with the intelligence community, as it may be given to mislead you or distract you from their plan. My solution to this dilemma has been to establish an independent network of “informants.” I am still in the process of developing the network to a level that satisfies me and ensures rigorous cross-checks for all information, but the current network has already provided some interesting and accurate insights. This is my X post from 8 September (written in my typical, provocative way).

I don’t have any information, whether there was an actual vote-rigging, but the banning of pro-Russian parties just before the elections, indicates that there was at least a hint of truth in the information I received.

Before we enter what my sources are currently whispering, I want to remind you that this will be my last article to become freely available (tomorrow) in my pre-Christmas campaign. In other words, my lengthy Christmas piece on the ‘everything bubble’ you receive tomorrow will be for my paid subscribers only. You can continue reading my analyses and forecasts through my Christmas present. :)

There are two crucial pieces of information. The first one is that the U.S. is (allegedly) currently arming Taiwan the same way (speed and scope) as it did before the war between Ukraine and Russia started. At this point it is irrelevant who you consider to be the aggressor (China or the U.S.), but if the above is accurate, the U.S. is the one actively climbing the escalationary ladder. Noting this, I consider it unlikely that China will come to the aid of President Nicolas Maduro. China simply does not want to agitate the U.S. any further (while there’s a line somewhere, naturally). I also consider that the aggression of the U.S. aimed at Venezuelan tankers heading to China is a sign towards Beijing not to intervene. However, there will be a line “in the sand” considering Taiwan after which Beijing will react. At this point, I don’t have the knowledge nor information to assess where it lies, but it definitely exists. Beijing’s ambitions towards Taiwan are clear.

The other piece of information, coming both through some semi-public and my private channels, is that the MI6 (British foreign intelligence service) is preparing for a false flag operation to be conducted during the first months (Jan-Mar) of the year. I have warned on this possibility multiple times (see, e.g., this, this, and this). With such warnings, one should acknowledge two things: 1) they may be totally bogus, used either to distract you or simply to fool you, and 2) such operations are always uncertain, even if the information on their planning would be accurate.

What I mean by the latter is that there are often several options at play. Like I noted in the Deep War, there are likely to be (at least) four options for where we continue from here (in the article I present a fifth, which I consider unlikely at this point):

1. An economic crisis.

2. Another front against Russia.

3. The second round of the Iran-Israel war.

4. A false flag attack.

At this point, I will not speculate on these any further, but just note that the global ‘deep elite’ cannot really let the investigations on their actions for the past five years to commence.1 Before the start of the SMO (Special Military Operation) in Ukraine, a momentum had started to build to investigate the actions of political leaders and leading civil servants on their conduct and decisions during Covid. The investigation was all but buried after the war in Ukraine started, and the Western leaders were hailed as “defenders of the free world.” This line of reasoning implies that the war in Ukraine cannot end before some other conflict or crisis is ready to start to shield the deep elite and their minions from investigations (note also that my sources indicate that Israel would be ready to start another campaign against Iran in around February/March).

Or, then I am just paranoid, and everything we see is due to stupidity and bad leadership. I simply cannot believe that anymore.

Tuomas

Minor post-publication corrections made on 12/23/2025.

Share

Subscribe now

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor any of the authors can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor any of the authors cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

According to the information I have collected from several sources, the shale gas and oil revolution in the U.S. is ending. The output is still growing, but at declining rates; the merger and acquisition boom is over and many investors burnt their “fingers” during the boom. The last indicates that financing is drying up. Moreover, it looks like $55 per barrel is the threshold for shale oil operators to cover the cash-cost profile at a sufficient level. Because we’re heading into a recession, which will push oil prices down, we can expect a drastic decline in R&D and investment activity in the shale oil sector. These imply that the peak shale oil is at hand in the U.S.

In other words, the U.S. has gone through a massive shale oil boom, as shown by this figure from the U.S. Department of Energy. But now it looks to be ending (it may have even peaked).

This relates to President Trump’s actions in Venezuela through his primary policy goals:

1. Obtaining peace (wherever possible).

2. Securing the continued prosperity of the U.S.

In some cases, like with Venezuela, these are contradictory. The interests of a global empire oftentimes trump local ones (like in Greenland) and need to be sustained with the strength of arms.1 This is the way it has been since the Roman Empire and Pax Romana, which was based on military force and economic superiority (some also argue culture, with which I mostly agree) and it was created with centuries of continuous wars. However, I also think that President Trump has a third, hidden motive, but I will reveal it only after it comes into play.

I think that President Trump is essentially trying to create another period of Pax Americana, whose first version ran from 1945 (the end of WWII) until the Gulf War (1991). I, most unfortunately, currently think he will fail in his efforts due to both the pressure of the ‘War Triad’ and economic realities. This holds especially if we are at peak shale oil.

Considering the above, we can consider the regime change in Venezuela a near certainty. However, Moscow will not take it lightly, as Venezuela was (is) its strongest ally in Latin America. Thus, the approaching U.S. coup d’etat in Venezuela will have repercussions for Iran and Ukraine. More on those later.

Tuomas

Minor post-publication grammatical corrections made on 12/22/2025.

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor any of the authors can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor any of the authors cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

So, while hopeful that the continuous and undemocratic expansion of the EU will stop, I am expecting that the EU leaders will push through some funding package, which can be very “creative.”

This is essentially what we got, but the plan was not very creative. Only desperate. Yesterday I also noted that:

I currently can think of only two options to finance the obligations the Commission has made to Ukraine:

1. The confiscation of the assets of the Bank of Russia (or some legal play effectively establishing the same).

2. Issuing further Eurobonds.

Neither of these actions occurred due to the issues I raised yesterday; however, the main point is that the European financial infrastructure, which has existed for around 800 years and has withstood a countless number of wars, remains intact. However, the “gauntlet” of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen may have sown the seeds of the destruction of the EU.

What Mrs. von der Leyen did with her desperate and outright malevolent push to use the frozen assets of the Bank of Russia to fund Ukraine is that she created a notable rift within the EU. She did not attack just those who are reliant on Russian energy (Hungary and Slovakia), but she also attacked those who guard and gain income from upholding the European financial architecture (most notably Belgium). Mrs. von der Leyen showed that she isn’t concerned about either of these. In essence, she showed that the current EU leadership and its background forces aren’t truly concerned about the interests of the member states of the EU.

One should not overlook how much damage losing trust in the central leadership creates in a political union. This is essentially the reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Its populace lost trust in how the Soviet Politburo conducted economic policies. From the 1970s on, the Soviet Union was kept standing with a lie that it was no better elsewhere. When the first Soviet tourists were able to travel to Israel in the 1980s, this lie was shattered, and the Union never survived it. The lost Afghanistan war and inner struggles within the leadership were mere sideshows at the side of the catastrophic breaking of trust with the Soviet leadership.

During the past few weeks, Mrs. von der Leyen created it within the EU. A collapse of trust from which the Union may never recover. Like with the Soviet Union, it may take some time for this to actualize, but the first steps towards the disintegration of the European Union were probably taken yesterday.

Have a great weekend,

Tuomas

Share

Subscribe now

A minor post-publication edit made on 12/19/2025.

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor any of the authors can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor any of the authors cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

Several X accounts have noted that the European Commission would already have used the money, not as loans, but as effective guarantees of loans issued to Ukraine. As noted by economist Thomas Kolbe (through Zerohedge), Without credit guarantees, Ukraine would already be insolvent. A disorderly collapse of the state would hit the European banking system like a nuclear detonation.

I would not call it a nuclear detonation, but losses would likely be massive, and most of them would hit the EU and European banks. President Donald Trump also wants to use the frozen assets of the Bank of Russia (Bor) as a negotiation settlement. As explained, rather scandalously, by Joshua Reid, such a move would expose the accounting (fraud) scheme the European Commission has been running. He argues that:

Asset freezes repurposed as leverage, sanctions transformed into financing tools, permanent emergency governance, and debt-backed escalation. Without those mechanisms, the EU’s war-financing model becomes difficult to maintain.

I have to admit that I don’t currently possess the knowledge to assess the effects of President Trump’s move in such depth, but his analysis seems plausible. The U.S. has provided a massive amount of funding to Ukraine, which has been backed by unknown quantities of lending (effectively leveraged against the “collateral” of Ukraine remaining solvent) from European and U.S. banks. If peace comes and frozen assets of BoR are used as a settlement, the EU cannot use them in any shape or form (but maybe with some margin).

Before the summit, it was rumored that the permanent immobilization of the assets of BoR, which reportedly consist of both assets of the Russian government and private entities, would have been taken off the table (see, e.g., EURACTIV). I am hopeful but also realistic. If a solution to the Ukraine funding issue is not found, continuation of the war in Ukraine becomes a practical impossibility (if President Trump holds his line), and there’s an actual risk of the EU’s financial structure collapsing. I don’t think even Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who has been a cunning “deal-forcer” in the EU ranks, would be able to survive it. Hence, “realism.”

Subscribe now

I currently can think of only two options to finance the obligations the Commission has made to Ukraine:

1. The confiscation of the assets of the Bank of Russia (or some legal play effectively establishing the same).

2. Issuing further Eurobonds.

If #1 were to go through, it would, most likely, lead to a serious deterioration of the trust in the European financial architecture (I will discuss those if the proposition passes). #2 is still a political no-go. Just before the Recovery Fund, which turned into the NextGenerationEU, narrowly passed the Finnish Parliament, Valdis Dombrovskis, Commissioner for Energy and Productivity, noted in X that it is clear to the Commission that the Recovery Fund (RRF) is “nonrecurring, unique, and strictly limited.” The RRF essentially created mutual debt and eurobonds. I am rather certain that issuing more of them would require a unanimous decision of the member states again (I am not 100% sure of this, though), which would take too long. In any case, pushing through further EU debt, for the needs of Ukraine, would be difficult, and it would also serve as an effective breaching of the pledge of the EU’s high leadership.

So, while hopeful that the continuous and undemocratic expansion of the EU will stop, I am expecting that the EU leaders will push through some funding package, which can be very “creative.” We’ll know soon enough.

Tuomas

P.s. Just when I am about to publish this, Al-jazeera reports that the Summit is on “knife-edge.” Let’s see what comes.

Share

Subscribe now

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as of the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry, and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice nor advice on the safety of banks. Neither GnS Economics nor any of the authors can be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision or decision on banks they hold their money in. Readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial, or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor any of the authors cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.

1. The looming collapse of the regime of President Zelenskyy.

2. Some European leaders are pushing for direct confrontation with Russia (the risk of a false flag).

3. Russia and the U.S. (and China) engaged in peace negotiations.

Read more