Zero Hedge

Porsche Sales Plunge Most In 16 Years

Porsche Sales Plunge Most In 16 Years

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

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

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

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

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

Compared with peers... 

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

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

The broader EU auto industry is struggling.

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: UN Dispatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China Leads Global Coal Power Additions Despite Renewables Push

China Leads Global Coal Power Additions Despite Renewables Push

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danish Intelligence Confirms The Russia-China Threat To Greenland

Danish Intelligence Confirms The Russia-China Threat To Greenland

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

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

AFP/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: United24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages