Jared Kushner’s Diplomacy for Hire

Philip Giradi
Nov 6, 2026

Many observers of the highly dysfunctional President Donald J Trump administration have noted how a major contributing factor for the foreign policy disasters might well derive from the appointment of two real estate billionaires personally linked to the president as its top negotiators. That Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner had no diplomatic experience right from the beginning the presumption should have been a given that they would be managed and consistently out-maneuvered by their counterparts from other countries. That Kushner possessed unique access to Trump and might be inclined to give him bad advice in return for business “favors” also should have been reckoned by Congress and the national media.

In fact, there have been a lot of good reasons to be most particularly suspicious of son-in-law Jared Kushner given his history of shady business dealings. Indeed, any concerns have proven to be valid with one only needing to cite the complete failure of the two presidential special emissaries judging by their involvement in the so-called peace negotiations relating to the conflicts in Russia-Ukraine and in the Middle East. In both cases, the situation seen from a perspective of US actual interests, has deteriorated in spite of clear evidence that other parties to the negotiations were seeking a solution.

Kushner, an unashamed Israel Firster, like his partner in crime Witkoff, did everything he could to protect war criminal Israel and those Arab states considered to be friends and was ineffective in dealing with the Russians, who rightly do not trust him. Kushner’s family is meanwhile extremely close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who used to stay at the Kushner family home in New Jersey some years ago when he was in the US. The Kushner family foundation has also been funding Israeli settlements on the Palestinian West Bank, which is illegal, all of which makes Jared a ridiculous choice as US designated negotiator.

Kushner is, of course, married to Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism which is how he was able to step up into his White House designated position. He also was and is a business partner of the president and his family. Reckoned altogether, it has meant that Jared Kushner has been able to exploit his status with the White House to take steps to enrich the Trump family as well as himself and his own family through both connivance and manipulation of his interlocutors in the foreign policy world, most particularly in the Gulf States.

To cite only one example of how politics, Israeli interests and the profit motive all come together one only has to review Kushner’s glowing account of the splendor of a future redeveloped Riviera style resort, quite likely to be named after Trump and featuring a gilded statue of the president, constructed on the rubble remains of old Gaza that will cover or otherwise dispose of tens of thousands of Palestinian bodies. It is a developer’s dream that is too disgusting to contemplate and is the mark of the man, unfortunately. Kushner’s participation in Trump’s phony Board of Peace has been little more than a cover story giving Netanyahu license to kill coming from America’s president, a man also owned by Israel, who believes that the only real thing that matters is ignoring his responsibilities as president and manipulating his position to make money, lots of it!

Jared Kushner has apparently inherited genes that make him acquisitive beyond all reason. His father Charles is currently serving as Trump appointee US Ambassador in France, where he speaks no French and is constantly complaining about antisemitism in the country. He was previously convicted and served nearly two years in prison more than a decade ago in a felony tax fraud case that grew into a bizarre tale involving sex tapes including the hiring of a prostitute. Kushner had hired the woman to seduce his brother-in-law who was testifying against him over the fraud charges, arranging to record a sexual encounter between the two and send the tape to his sister to force the relative to back off. Charles subsequently received a full pardon from Trump after contributing heavily to the Trump presidential campaign and was subsequently given the ambassadorial post.

Real estate mogul Jared followed in his father’s footsteps to include possible involvement in the aftermath of the 2018 murder and dismemberment of US resident Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul by Saudi agents when he reportedly became the White House’s most ardent defender of the Saudi monarchy in exchange for an offshore substantial dollar bank account arranged by Riyadh. As a result the murder of an American resident by the Saudis was never seriously challenged.

And Jared has also been in the news lately over a not-altogether-legal scheme involving the Rothschild banking dynasty that was coordinated with corrupt local officials to acquire an island offshore of Albania to develop into an Adriatic Sea luxury resort. Local people were revolted by the development itself and the corruption involved and turned out in their tens of thousands to protest, forcing the government to back down on the deal.

Corruption might be Jared’s middle name! Beyond the development projects erected over both environment devastation and a mountain of dead bodies, the tragedy of Jared Kushner is his destruction of his slice of US foreign policy out of deference to Trump and his own family interests, which also meant making billions of sometimes insider trading generated dollars as part of the process. A new book by Matthew Cole on his perfidy has just appeared entitled “Princes and Thieves.” There have also number of articles on it and related issues, one of which by Charles P Pierce in Esquire magazine bore the possibly appropriate title “Jared Kushner Is the Worst Thing to Ever Happen to This Country, Maybe the World” subtitled “A new book reveals the extent of his shady dealings in the Middle East.”

The book makes the claim that Jared Kushner conducted something like diplomacy for profit without regard for actual American interests, behavior that might be regarded as treasonous by many. Also considering that Jared was privy to intelligence secrets through his White House access, one might reasonably argue that he shared such information with his “investors” from the Persian Gulf and Israel, meaning that he was engaged in espionage. A major revelation is how he and several United Arab Emirate leaders conspired during Trump’s first term in office to establish a $2 billion in slush funds as part of a plan to influence US foreign policy in the region.

Kushner’s ties to Gulf money have also drawn scrutiny more recently. After leaving the White House in 2020, his private equity firm, Affinity Partners, received a $2 billion investment from a Saudi sovereign wealth fund led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a deal that has drawn scrutiny from ethics watchdogs. Affinity has also invested in an Israeli weapons manufacturer, making one question his sincerity in “negotiating” to bring a peace settlement with the Palestinians.

Jared Kushner certainly knew then and knows now that any efforts made by him to shape US policy that came from a foreign government that had provided him with money would make him an agent of a foreign power and require his registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. The act requires citizens who lobby in that fashion to declare themselves and the country they are working for to the Justice Department.

Once registered, the individual or group would be required to observe complete transparency over the sources of its income and it political contacts with foreign officials. It is presumed that Kushner might be investigated and charged by the new Congress that will be installed as a consequence of the recent election regarding any number of crimes but even if it does happen in the next two years he will likely be pardoned by Trump.

What does Jared Kushner have to say about his behavior? Inevitably, he has denied the claims made in the Cole book, though he has refused to be interviewed on the subject. His lawyer has promised lawsuits however and has already filed one against Vanity Fair, which published an article by Cole on the subject. The book’s claims are in fact supported by descriptions of the access of Cole’s often anonymous sources in his notes, citing, for example, “a confidential source with direct knowledge” and “author interview with source who attended the meeting.”

What is already known confirms that Kushner’s key relationship initially, beyond that with Israel, was with the UAE’s president, Mohammed bin Zayed (widely known as MBZ). It developed after the first election of Donald Trump in 2016, with Kushner being identified as the key player supported by the substantial secret bank account to be able to influence the new president on Middle Eastern policy. Per Cole, four senior officials from Trump’s first term, including two national security advisers, stated to him that they knew of no presidential approval for Kushner to have access to any foreign government’s bank accounts which means the UAE relationship was secret right from the beginning.

A highly respectable source that has been plausibly identified by Pierce in his article relating to the Kushner-UAE relationship is, perhaps surprisingly, Dutch government intelligence. “Sometime in late 2017, the Netherlands Defense Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) made a startling discovery: A General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU) operative, a dark web hacker specializing in stolen bank data, was traveling to the UK for an espionage mission. When the Russian national arrived in England, the Dutch informed him that he had two options: he could work for them against the GRU, or the British would arrest him. Once in UK government custody, the operative would be charged with espionage. If convicted, he would spend years in a British prison.

The Russian chose to change his employer. Later that year, the Russian operative gave the Dutch spies access to one of the GRU’s most sensitive assets. Located in Rostov, Russia, the GRU’s hacking and cyber team operated a remote server on which they stored some of their bounty. During their search through these secret files, the Dutch found something astonishing: screenshots of Jared Kushner’s iPhone. As they monitored Kushner’s phone, they discovered he used it to log in to a UAE bank account. By the time the Dutch spies had visibility into the phone, the account had received hundreds of millions of dollars from a bank in Azerbaijan. Their initial assessment was that the bank account was affiliated with the government there.”

The connivance between MBZ and Kushner in what was to follow, whatever its provenance, would represent what must surely be the worst case ever of US foreign policy being managed clandestinely without any regard for the Constitution, the established federal government bureaucracy, nor both the president and Secretary of State, neither of whom were aware of the relationship.

In this case, Cole demonstrates how Kushner worked with the UAE to determine US policy across the Middle East and, in return, he was given full access to “slush fund” bank accounts set up for that purpose. Beyond the UAE, it is believed that Kushner used the money to cultivate relationships and come to secret agreements with Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Some of the money was apparently also used to establish friendly regimes in Egypt, Yemen, Qatar and Libya. One major objective was to support the rise of Mohammed bin Salman as crown prince of Saudi Arabia and, ultimately, the normalization of relations between Israel and many of the Muslim powers, the so-called Abraham Accords.

As it turned out, the UAE’s expectations were borne out by what followed. Trump did indeed make Kushner his senior adviser with a broadly conceived brief that included the pursuit of a final settlement in the Middle East that would benefit both Israel and the UAE. 

[…]

Via https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/jared-kushners-diplomacy-for-hire/

House Democrats flooded with calls opposing Hakeem Jeffries over pro-Israel stance

The Cradle

House Democrats are facing a wave of calls and emails urging them not to elect Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as House speaker following the party’s landslide victory in Tuesday’s elections, Axios reported.

Several lawmakers reported receiving hundreds of calls, with one describing the issue as their office’s top concern. The backlash reflects growing frustration among Democratic voters with party leadership, particularly Jeffries’ ties to pro-Israel organizations and corporate political action committees.

Some callers are pushing for Rep. Jamie Raskin, a prominent progressive Democrat, to replace Jeffries, although Raskin has expressed no interest in challenging him.

A Change.org petition opposing Jeffries had gathered nearly 900,000 signatures by Friday, amplified in part by actor Mark Ruffalo’s call for “a new speaker.” Meanwhile, incoming Ohio Democrat Don Leonard said he would be “shopping for a new leader” if Jeffries refused to change his pro-Israel position.

Despite the mounting pressure, Jeffries remains widely expected to secure the speakership after Democrats won a commanding House majority of more than 250 seats. He has maintained unanimous support from his caucus in previous speaker votes, and no challenger has emerged.

However, several incoming Democrats have declined to commit to supporting him, highlighting divisions within the party ahead of its leadership elections on 18–19 November and the House speaker vote on 3 January.

Via https://t.me/thecradlemedia/70671

UN probe exposes UAE training, deployment of Colombian mercenaries to fuel genocide in Sudan

(Photo credit: Reuters stringer)

The Cradle

NOV 8, 2026

UAE diplomat Lana Nusseibeh, a candidate for UN secretary-general, is accused of whitewashing Abu Dhabi’s role in the genocide in Sudan

A confidential UN report has found that the UAE hired Colombian mercenaries to fight alongside the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a militia that has been accused of committing genocide in Sudan, The New York Times (NYT) reported on 5 November.

The NYT obtained a UN report submitted to the Security Council last week. It says Global Security Services Group, a security firm closely tied to the UAE government, sent Colombian mercenaries to Sudan via territory controlled by Emirati proxies in Libya and Somalia.

The mercenaries had been trained at two military bases in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE, before being deployed to Sudan.

Global Security Services Group was founded by a senior official in the Emirati presidency. Its website describes the company as “a preferred security provider” for the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Presidential Affairs.

The UAE has also been accused of supplying the RSF with drones and weapons despite a UN arms embargo.

Emirati support for the RSF has helped fuel a conflict that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

After taking control of El-Fasher, a city in southwestern Sudan’s Darfur region, RSF militiamen massacred some 2,000 civilians in October 2025.

Satellite imagery showed large pools of blood from the massacre, while videos showed RSF militants executing civilians, including a wounded man surrounded by blood-stained corpses at a Saudi-funded hospital.

The World Health Organization (WHO) cited reports claiming as many as 460 patients and staff were massacred at the hospital.

Colombian mercenaries known as the Desert Wolves reportedly flew drones, trained fighters, and provided artillery support to the RSF as it laid siege to El-Fasher before the massacre.

Sudan’s Ambassador to the UK, Babikir Elamin, told The Telegraph at the time that UAE support for the RSF militia was “the single most important element in prolonging and enabling this genocide.”

In a report to the UN Security Council, Sudan’s government said the RSF had also received British small-arms targeting systems and engines for military vehicles.

The confidential report was delivered to the Security Council as Lana Nusseibeh, the Emirate’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, seeks to become the UN’s next secretary-general.

Cambridge-educated Nusseibeh represented the UAE at the UN for over a decade.

During that time, she reportedly worked to deny reports that the UAE supported the RSF in Sudan.

“Lana Nusseibeh has spent over a decade in roles acting for the UAE government and repeatedly whitewashing their abusive role in Yemen and Sudan, presenting Abu Dhabi as a humanitarian actor while dismissing or obscuring mounting evidence of its role in fueling abuses,” stated Bruno Stagno Ugarte of Human Rights Watch.

In an email, Nusseibeh said that ending the “terrible conflict” in Sudan would be her priority as secretary-general.

The UAE has intervened in Sudan via the RSF to control its deep gold deposits and project power in strategic areas on the Red Sea coast.

Sudan’s civil war began in 2023, when fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary RSF commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commonly known as Hemedti.

The war has devastated Sudan, leaving tens of thousands dead, displacing millions of people, and fueling a humanitarian catastrophe.

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/un-probe-exposes-uae-training-deployment-of-colombian-mercenaries-to-fuel-genocide-in-sudan

Yemen strikes Riyadh financial district in retaliation for Saudi massacre of dozens of civilians

(Photo credit: AFP)

The Cradle

NOV 8, 2026

The Yemeni army vowed that its operations will continue to ‘inflict severe pain’ on the kingdom in response to its deadly war

The Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) announced a series of missile and drone strikes on Riyadh’s financial district on 8 November, as well as several other military operations targeting Saudi Arabia and its allies inside Yemen.

Saudi Arabia’s Energy Ministry confirmed an “attempted” attack on an Aramco building in Riyadh, saying it was damaged by “falling shrapnel.”

“The first operation targeted King Khalid International Airport, Aramco storage tanks, and the Financial District in the capital of the Saudi enemy, Riyadh. The strikes scored direct and precise hits … causing extensive damage to the targeted sites,” the YAF statement says.

Sanaa also announced strikes on Aramco in Abqaiq, in eastern Saudi Arabia.

Other operations targeted Saudi troop concentrations near Yemen’s Al-Jawf, Marib, and Lahj provinces – resulting in “a large number of dead and wounded.”

The YAF vowed to continue operations and said its forces “will inflict severe pain” on Saudi Arabia.

Sanaa said the attacks are a response to Saudi massacres in the Souq al-Hadara market in Al-Waziiyah and in residential buildings in Bani Hushaysh, which left more than 120 people killed and wounded, most of them women and children.

“Saudi warplanes carried out 105 airstrikes and missile attacks over the past 24 hours, targeting civilian sites in the capital, Sanaa, and the governorates of Al-Jawf, Taiz, Amran, Hajjah, Saada, Marib and Lahj,” the YAF said on Saturday night.

In July, Saudi Arabia escalated its decade-long war on Yemen, triggering a major retaliatory campaign by the Ansarallah-led YAF.

Oil refineries, energy storage sites, military bases, and airports across the kingdom have been targeted.

In September, Sanaa’s forces seized the Bab al-Mandab Strait, much of the western Yemeni coast, and several Red Sea islands.

Yemeni operations have significantly impacted Saudi Arabia’s economy.

The kingdom’s General Authority for Statistics announced on 1 November that the Saudi economy has shrunk by 3.8 percent due to the wars on Iran and Yemen and their impact on energy output.

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/yemen-strikes-riyadh-financial-district-in-retaliation-for-saudi-massacre-of-dozens-of-civilians

Tech Stocks Had a Terrible Day. What’s Coming Could Be Worse.

Brian Shilhavy

From The New York Times.

Excerpts:

We’ve been here before. As with so many other transformational inventions — railroads, electricity, the internet — outsize enthusiasm for artificial intelligence is supporting a level of spending that’s gotten ahead of plausible profit expectations, a defining characteristic of a financial bubble.

Now that the stocks of some A.I. builders and suppliers are wavering, we think it’s important to ask the next critical question.

What happens to the American economy if this bubble bursts? The damage could run deep.

It was just over a year ago when we argued that the enormous sums being poured into A.I. are reminiscent of the go-go internet era of the 1990s and the housing boom of the 2000s, both of which turned out to be financial bubbles whose bursting spilled over into the broader economy, leading to job and income losses that affected most Americans.

Now, we’re already starting to see signs that this latest boom may be fading: The tech-heavy Nasdaq index fell by more than 5 percent Thursday and is down nearly 10 percent since Oct. 1. Growing investor nervousness led the prominent A.I. lab OpenAI to dial back its latest funding round target by $10 billion.

What happens if the A.I. boom goes bust?

There’s a consensus building among investors, academics and market analysts that any downturn would be relatively mild, similar to what happened in the early 2000s, after the dot-com bubble burst.

The inflation-adjusted value of the overall economy, or real gross domestic product, shrank less than half a percent. And while unemployment rose, it was considerably lower than it was at the peak of the financial crisis.

Unfortunately, this consensus looks too optimistic.

First, the A.I. bubble is by all measures substantially larger than the dot-com bubble; the stock market has increased by more than it did between 1996 and 2000 and is currently worth 240 percent of G.D.P., versus 160 percent at the peak of the dot-com bubble.

This difference in magnitude means that if the stock market fell as much as it did over the course of the dot-com bust, the amount of lost wealth could translate into a reduction in real consumer spending that would be twice as large. That reduction would show up as a lower demand for goods and services, which could in turn reduce business investment, hiring and overall growth.

Our current economy is also more fragile than it was back in 2000.

Hiring has been sluggish and real wages are falling, the latter because of elevated war-induced inflation. The Federal Reserve has been gradually raising interest rates, leading to higher borrowing costs and potentially dialing back economic activity.

Additionally, today’s fiscal conditions and outlook are much worse. In 2001, the federal government ran a budget surplus of 1.2 percent of G.D.P.; today, it is running a historically large deficit of 6.2 percent of G.D.P. That could limit Congress’s willingness to inject even more borrowed money into the economy to offset any downturn.

To get a rough read on the magnitude of the damage triggered by what an A.I. bubble burst might do to the economy, we ran the same economic model that the Federal Reserve uses to simulate the workings of the macroeconomy.

The results confirmed our concerns.

Mapping a dot-com-style sell-off onto today’s markets would lead real G.D.P. to fall by more than three times as much as it did during the 2001 recession: 1.4 percent versus 0.4 percent. The unemployment rate would steadily climb from its current rate of 4.2 percent to above 7 percent.

Back when we first expressed our concerns about the stability of the A.I. investment boom, we noted that the companies building the A.I. models and the infrastructure to support them were mostly spending their own cash, meaning a bust would hurt them but not their lenders.

That’s no longer the case: $445 billion worth of A.I.-related debt, or 1.4 percent of G.D.P., was issued in the first eight months of 2026 tech stock.

Via https://nytimes.com/2026/11/06/opinion/nasdaq-tech-stocks-ai-bubble-dot-com-bust.html

Finland launches criminal probe into Google data center project

Finland launches criminal probe into Google data center project

 

RT

30 Oct, 2026 05:49

The US tech giant cleared hundreds of hectares of forest for planned facilities before completing environmental impact assessments

Finnish police have launched a criminal investigation into suspected environmental violations at a planned Google data center site, where hundreds of hectares of forest were cleared before the completion of mandatory environmental impact assessments.

The Oulu Police Department announced on Thursday that it is investigating suspected environmental damage at the site in Muhos, northern Finland, following complaints about the activities of Google’s local subsidiary, Tuike Finland.

According to Finnish public broadcaster Yle, police have received five requests for an investigation, including one from the Finnish Supervisory Agency (LVV), which oversees environmental permits and assessments.

Investigators identified possible irregularities in drainage and water management at the construction site. The authorities are examining whether the work violated environmental legislation and caused damage to surrounding waterways.

Google has acknowledged that it cleared around 330 hectares of forest in Muhos and nearly 200 hectares at another planned data center site in Kajaani, despite environmental impact assessments for both projects remaining incomplete.

Ecologist Mari Annala of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation told The Guardian that Google cleared an estimated 250,000 trees in Muhos and another 150,000 in Otanmaki, bringing the total to 400,000.

Earlier this month, Finnish regulators ordered the company to suspend preparatory work at both locations, citing concerns about extensive logging, excavation, and drainage. The company confirmed on October 14 that it complied with the order.

The LVV has also warned that excavation and drainage at the Muhos site could release acidic, metal-contaminated water because of the area’s black shale deposits. The regulator has demanded a more detailed water management plan by November 5.

Google’s Finland country manager, Antti Jarvinen, apologized earlier this month for the extensive forest clearing but maintained that the company acted according to its understanding of Finnish law.

“I am extremely sorry that we are in this situation,” he told Finnish public broadcaster Yle.

Jarvinen said Google worked with the authorities and experts but declined to identify which officials were informed about the clearing.

The controversy comes amid growing opposition to data center construction in the US, where people have protested against the enormous electricity and water demands, potential environmental damage, and rising utility costs of the facilities. In Virginia, hundreds of demonstrators recently demanded a halt to new projects. In Arizona, people have opposed planned facilities over concerns about water shortages and electricity costs.

Via https://rt-english.com/news/648105-finland-probes-google-project/

Houthis Demand $51 Billion to End War with Saudis

Houthi Attacks on Saudi Arabia as of Oct 30, 2026 at 2PM ET | ISW

Saudi Arabia approached the Houthis to determine what it would take to negotiate an end to the fighting. The answer was $51 billion, supposedly compensation for years of Saudi military operations and the blockade of Yemen. Other figures have reportedly been discussed, but the Houthis are demanding tens of billions of dollars and recognition of their authority over Yemen. This would require Riyadh to abandon the internationally recognized Yemeni government it has supported for more than a decade. The Houthis are effectively demanding that Saudi Arabia pay an enormous sum and accept an Iranian-backed adversary along its southern border.

Saudi Arabia launched its military intervention in Yemen in 2015, believing its superior military capabilities and financial resources would defeat the Houthis. More than eleven years later, the Houthis are demanding payment from the Saudis to stop fighting. They have expanded their territorial control, threatened shipping through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and demonstrated the ability to attack Saudi oil infrastructure, airports, and pipelines. Riyadh has spent billions purchasing advanced Western weapons, yet relatively inexpensive missiles and drones continue threatening assets worth billions of dollars.

The Houthis have already demonstrated their ability to threaten Saudi Arabia’s energy infrastructure. Attacks earlier this year temporarily disrupted the kingdom’s East-West pipeline, which carries oil from the eastern production regions toward Red Sea export facilities. That pipeline is particularly important because it allows Saudi Arabia to bypass the Strait of Hormuz when Persian Gulf shipping becomes dangerous. With Iran threatening Hormuz and the Houthis operating near Bab al-Mandab, Saudi Arabia faces pressure on both of its major maritime export routes. The kingdom’s geographical position, which once made it an indispensable energy supplier, has become a source of vulnerability.

The United States has also demonstrated the limits of its security guarantees. In September, Mohammed bin Salman reportedly asked President Trump for military assistance against the Houthis. Washington declined to conduct direct strikes on the group’s behalf, although it offered intelligence and targeting support. Saudi Arabia has spent decades maintaining a strategic relationship with the United States based largely upon energy security and military cooperation. Now Riyadh is discovering that an American security partnership does not guarantee American intervention whenever Saudi interests are threatened. Washington is already deeply involved in the conflict with Iran and has little appetite for opening another major military front.The financial implications extend far beyond the immediate cost of military operations. Mohammed bin Salman has promoted Vision 2030 as a strategy to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependence upon oil revenues by expanding tourism, entertainment, technology, manufacturing, and international investment. The kingdom has committed enormous sums to these ambitions through its Public Investment Fund. However, economic diversification requires capital, and that capital must ultimately come from somewhere. Oil revenues remain essential to financing government expenditures and the investments intended to create an economy less dependent upon oil.

We are now seeing the consequences of attempting to finance too many ambitious projects simultaneously. The kingdom has already scaled back elements of its NEOM development, the futuristic megaproject originally promoted as a centerpiece of Vision 2030. Rising construction costs, changing priorities, and the enormous financial requirements of the project have forced officials to reconsider its scale and timetable. Saudi Arabia cannot indefinitely finance expensive infrastructure, international investments, military operations, and domestic obligations without confronting the limitations of its available resources.

The collapse of LIV Golf is another example. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund poured more than $5 billion into the golf league to challenge the established professional golf industry and expand the kingdom’s international sporting influence. The project attracted prominent players with enormous contracts and prize money, but it failed to establish a sustainable financial model. After the Saudi fund withdrew financial support, LIV filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September. A proposed restructuring backed by as much as $300 million from BC Partners has now reportedly collapsed, leaving the league facing liquidation.

There is a difference between possessing valuable oil reserves and having the ability to sell that oil reliably into international markets. Saudi Arabia can hold enormous petroleum resources underground, but those resources cannot finance government expenditures if pipelines are damaged, export terminals are threatened, or shipping routes become inaccessible. The market may respond to supply disruptions by pushing oil prices higher, but higher prices do not automatically compensate a producer that cannot deliver its product. This is why control over transportation routes has become so important in the conflict.

Iran also benefits strategically from the pressure upon Saudi Arabia. The Houthis are aligned with Tehran, although they possess their own political objectives and are not merely an extension of the Iranian government. Their operations complicate Saudi Arabia’s security calculations while forcing Riyadh to divert resources toward protecting its infrastructure. Iran does not need to defeat Saudi Arabia in a conventional military confrontation to impose substantial economic costs. The continuing threat of attacks can discourage investment and undermine confidence in the kingdom’s ability to guarantee the security of its ambitious development projects.

The Houthis are demanding $51 billion because they believe Saudi Arabia has more to lose from continued fighting than they do. Whether Riyadh ultimately pays anything approaching that amount remains uncertain. But the fact that such a demand is being discussed after eleven years of military intervention reveals how dramatically the balance of leverage has shifted. Saudi Arabia may possess the larger economy and military, yet its opponent is threatening the infrastructure upon which that economy depends.

This is the economic reality of modern warfare. A government can spend billions acquiring military superiority and still find itself vulnerable to a far less wealthy adversary capable of disrupting critical infrastructure. The Saudis are discovering that military power, financial reserves, and ambitious investment programs cannot substitute for regional stability. As the war continues, the kingdom will be forced to decide which commitments it can afford to maintain and which ambitions must be sacrificed.

[…]

Via https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/houthis-demand-51-billion-to-end-war-with-saudis/

Endgame: When CIA Proxy War Runs Out of Ukrainians!

The Endgame: When the CIA Proxy War Runs Out of Ukrainians!

Seth Ferris, November 07, 2026

History shows that wars launched in expectation of quick capitulation often end in disaster — and the Ukraine conflict, driven by CIA operations and Western strategic miscalculation, is approaching that reckoning.

From Napoleon’s march on Moscow to Hitler’s catastrophic invasion of the Soviet Union, strategic arrogance, political miscalculation and the underestimation of Russia’s capacity to absorb punishment have repeatedly produced consequences far removed from the expectations of those who started the wars.

Ukraine as CIA Project

As battlefield realities shift and diplomatic negotiations expose growing divisions in Washington and Europe, the Ukraine conflict is approaching a strategic reckoning. Trump talks peace, Moscow holds its ground, Kyiv faces mounting manpower and political pressures, and the U.S. intelligence establishment appears to be pursuing a far more confrontational agenda.

I think it’s no secret the Ukraine war is a CIA war. I doubt Trump can do anything himself anyway. I’ve wondered for a while if the anti-Russia pro-war EU isn’t also being manipulated by the CIA. When they run out of Ukrainians, they need another source of cannon fodder.

A proxy war can be prolonged by outside powers, financed by taxpayers and fought by another country’s population. But it cannot be made winnable simply by refusing to acknowledge that the original strategy has failed

All the while Trump talks peace as the CIA fuels the war in Ukraine, as the title of a recent commentary explains so well. The central problem is not Trump or Putin. It is an intelligence apparatus that appears to have an agenda of its own. The war continues not simply because of political disagreements between Washington and Moscow, but because elements of the U.S. national security establishment have institutional interests that run counter to ending it.

While Trump calls Zelensky “more difficult to deal with” than Putin and urges Ukrainians to elect new leadership, his CIA is reportedly pursuing operations against Russia more aggressively than under Biden. The contradiction is striking: the CIA is helping Ukraine target Russian oil refineries even as Trump pursues deals to sell Russian diesel.

Meanwhile, his intelligence chief travels to Moscow to tell the Russians they cannot win, while reports suggest intelligence analysts are reluctant to tell the president what they actually think. This is not a coherent peace strategy. It is a government sending contradictory signals, with an intelligence agency seemingly operating according to its own rules and priorities.

Lack of Good Intentions

In reviewing the Ukraine playbook, whereby the Minsk accords were never intended to be honored by the west or their Ukrainian proxies, but were merely, in the words of the former German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to buy time for Ukraine to rearm and retake the Donbas by force. The rest is history that CIA concocted plan was destroyed by the Russian SMO starting in February 2022.

But still most of Europe, NATO, who were center stage to the mayhem that followed. They were like Hitler’s Willing Executors in having planned such a course of action. But now they cannot face facts, i.e., the situation on the ground, now that Russia is nearing a final push in reaching it strategic objectives. Turning away from Russia to the EU and US ruin has been brought upon Ukraine, and like a desperate gambler, Zelensky may now be betting the whole house in trying to recoup his losses and survive politically and physically.

It Is Time to End the War.

Even now, some of the more liberal news publications, including The Nation, are calling for an end to the war. Yet even in doing so, they wrap their arguments in a thick layer of political subterfuge. Rather than confront the underlying failures of Western policy toward Russia and Ukraine, they continue trying to shift responsibility onto Trump and Putin, portraying them as though they were somehow on the same team.

The article goes on to explain the failure of the proposed peace initiative largely through the prism of American domestic politics, while recycling the familiar and increasingly questionable narrative that Putin is somehow on his last legs. This is a convenient political storyline, but it is not a substitute for an honest assessment of the military balance, Russia’s strategic position, or the realities unfolding on the battlefield.

The central question is no longer who can win the propaganda war or which political faction can claim the moral high ground. It is how many more lives must be sacrificed before Washington and its European partners acknowledge that prolonging this conflict is not the same thing as winning it.

What Comes Next?

We shall have to wait and see what will happen—if anything. It is ironic that the pundits of war and peace are in denial in tandem with Ukrainian denials, one only has to check out the site of the Institute for the Study of War, which as of October 31, 2026 gives a narrow perspective of Russian offensives alongside claimed Ukrainian counterattacks and some localized advances.

History may ultimately judge the Ukraine conflict not simply by who prevailed on the battlefield, but by whether the governments that helped shape the confrontation ever seriously considered the political, economic and human fallout of a shooting war that diplomacy should have prevented—if that had been the desire.

Ukraine may now be confronting its own version of that historical reckoning.

The Minsk revelations, particularly Merkel’s acknowledgment that the agreements gave Ukraine time to strengthen its military, raise a fundamental question: was diplomacy ever intended to produce a lasting political settlement, or had it become an instrument of strategic postponement? If the CIA and other Western intelligence and security institutions were instrumental in shaping a longer-term strategy to weaken Russia through Ukraine, the battlefield has exposed the extraordinary risks of that calculation.

The extent of direct CIA operational control remains a question that will merit academic research as history is written. It is clear that Washington’s extensive intelligence sharing, military and its financial support prolonged the fighting Ukraine far beyond the point of diminishing returns.

And what of Europe?

Having committed its political credibility, economic resources and security architecture to this confrontation, European leaders now face an uncomfortable dilemma. How does one acknowledge strategic failure without admitting that years of policy, enormous financial commitments and Ukrainian lives may have been sacrificed to assumptions that proved disastrously wrong?

There is an even more disturbing question: if Ukraine can no longer sustain the human cost of the conflict, will European governments seek to expand their own military commitments rather than reconsider the strategy that brought them here?

Meanwhile, Zelensky faces a particularly consequential choice. Continuing the war carries mounting military, demographic and economic costs; negotiating carries enormous political risks. Yet prolonging a conflict simply to avoid confronting an unfavourable negotiating position could leave Ukraine with even less leverage and fewer options.

A government cannot indefinitely gamble the future of its country in the hope that the next Western weapons package, intelligence assessment or political promise will reverse the strategic and tactical reality on the ground.

And perhaps this is the most uncomfortable question of all: when the supply of Ukrainian soldiers, public patience and Western political goodwill begins to run out, who will be expected to pay the next instalment of this war?

If this conflict began as an attempt to contain Russia, it has become a test of the strategic judgment of the very governments that embraced that objective. The ultimate irony may be that, in seeking to weaken Moscow, the West has helped produce a militarized, devastated Ukraine, a more dangerous European security environment and a confrontation that has exposed the limits of Western power.

Who Decides the Endgame?

The endgame may not be determined by Washington’s rhetoric or Brussels’ declarations, but by what is happening on the ground—and what Russia is prepared to accept at the negotiating table.

The historical verdict will not be determined by press conferences in Washington, Brussels or Kyiv. It will be written by the territorial realities and the people left to live with the consequences.

A proxy war can be prolonged by outside powers, financed by taxpayers and fought by another country’s population. But it cannot be made winnable simply by refusing to acknowledge that the original strategy has failed.

Via https://journal-neo.su/2026/11/07/the-endgame-when-the-cia-proxy-war-runs-out-of-ukrainians/

Protesters storm Microsoft data center construction site in Amsterdam

Amsterdam at war over 'erotic centre' plan | The Advertiser

RT

6 Nov, 2026 22:21  

Dutch police used tear gas and batons to clear the site, arresting a number of demonstrators

Hundreds of people protesting the construction of a Microsoft data center in Amsterdam breached the construction site and clashed with Dutch police, with a number of arrests reported. The demonstration was part of a broader campaign against energy-guzzling and water-intensive Big Tech infrastructure spanning a number of European countries.

On Friday, members of the Geef Tegengas group, along with pro-Palestinian demonstrators, used angle grinders to cut through the fencing surrounding the site in the Sloterdijk district; others climbed it, as reported by Dutch media.

As many as 500 activists entered the restricted area at around noon, according to the organizers, where they set off flares, sprayed graffiti, and climbed cranes and scaffolding to unfurl banners.

The activists demanded a halt to the construction of the 78-megawatt complex, which includes three data center towers and is being developed by Pure Data Centres for Microsoft. Geef Tegengas cites concerns over the facility’s heavy electricity and water consumption and the negative consequences it would likely have for local residents.

Several hundred more people gathered outside the construction site as part of a separate demonstration organized by the Fossielvrij Nederland climate group.

Palestinian flags were flown at the protest, with “Microsoft powers genocide” and “Free Palestine, F**k Microsoft” among the slogans. One of the activists told AT5: “energy-guzzling data centers are used for mass surveillance and violence. For instance, Microsoft hosts data from ICE and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces], among others.”

Riot police soon swarmed the area, using tear gas and batons to forcibly remove those refusing to vacate the construction site. A number of people were detained for trespassing and bused away, according to local media. One of the officers sustained minor injuries in the scuffles, the authorities reported.

Microsoft said that while it understands the contentious nature of the project and respects people’s right to protest, “we do not condone actions that violate the law or endanger people’s safety.”

The demonstration in the Dutch capital came as part of a pan-European protest campaign called ‘Stop Dirty Data Centers’. It unites more than 100 “civil society organizations and collectives deeply concerned about Europe’s technology trajectories and its plans to fast-track data centres,” with protests planned for November 6-7 in 16 countries, including the UK, Spain, Ireland, Poland, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, and France.

The campaigners call for an “immediate moratorium” on the construction of large-scale data centers in Europe “until social and environmental concerns are addressed.” The activists claim that the projects will compete with housing and local businesses for scarce water and electricity supplies. They also cite concerns over the risks that AI, powered by the data centers, could pose to the labor market and users’ mental health.

The Big Tech push to create more capacity for the booming AI industry in recent years has been met with growing suspicion and backlash globally.

In July, New York became the first US state to impose a moratorium on the construction of data centers using 50 megawatts or more. The issue also became a point of contention in several races during the US midterm elections.

Last month, hundreds of people protested outside a large-scale data center complex on the Indonesian island of Batam, accusing it of depriving them of drinking water, which the facility uses for its cooling system.

In September, civil rights groups in South Africa demanded a moratorium on the construction of data centers.

[…]

Via https://rt-english.com/news/648533-microsoft-data-center-amsterdam-protest/

Elon Musk About to Learn How Much America Hates Him

Elon Musk to offer $100 mln prize for 'best' carbon capture tech ...

From The Independent.

Excerpts:

Elon Musk, the “First Tech Bro”, has just found out the hard way that a spend of nearly half a billion dollars and control of a major social media platform cannot always change the political weather.

The grand iconoclast tried to make light of the Republican’s midterms catastrophe, posting early on Wednesday that his “election-interfering space lasers didn’t work”. A post telling followers to “Vote red (Republican) today” also, rather sheepishly, disappeared.

Musk is not a man who relishes failure. His spending went to a slew of candidates who failed to get elected in Texas, now the epicentre of his companies’ operations.
For a man whose wealth is estimated at more than $800bn, spending nearly half a billion dollars in campaign donations is surely loose change.

But the money was spent for a purpose beyond ideological alignment – Musk has an on-off relationship with Donald Trump, but one which has advanced his interests strategically. And how. Musk’s Tesla and SpaceX slumped following the US midterm elections, wiping out more than $100bn in combined market value.

Elon Musk is now in trouble.

In essence, two sides of the Musk sphere of interest have taken a battering. The first is his position as America’s most powerful “tech bro” power broker, a man who could shape the direction of politics and policy towards companies like his Starlink and SpaceX entities.

He was outdone by the more raw democratic force of voters disillusioned by Trump over the economy and the Iran war – and in many parts of the electoral map, also anxious about the impact of massive data centres to power the next stages of frontier technology.

The second is that it has laid bare how closely entwined his businesses are with the American state – businesses that rely on a steady flow of regulatory permissions, subsidies and support at the state and federal level to continue their extraordinary growth trajectory and power the next stages of artificial intelligence.

Via https://independent.co.uk/voices/elon-musk-donald-trump-midterms-republican-starlink-b3079726.html