Each quarter, I prepare a detailed deck and call for Ritholtz Wealth Management clients.1 I start with about 100 ideas and charts, then cut them down to 30 charts and 30 minutes. (Shout out to Chart Kid Matt for his excellent work) Selecting lots of great charts is easy, but curating them into a short, easily consumable deck is the challenge.2

As I do my research in the weeks leading up to the end of the quarter, I have to fight my way through a lot of inaccurate financial data, baseless opinions, and misleading commentary. Much of it is not useful; some is out of context, and lots simply wrong. I fear that too much of what I see, read, and hear will lead its consumers to poor investment outcomes.3

I pulled five charts from the deck to share with you; they counter some of the misinformation out there. I hope you find these useful and thought-provoking.

 

2025 US Equities Up Broadly

U.S stocks had a solid year, with the S&P 500 up 17.9% and the Nasdaq 100 gaining 21.0%. As yyou can see in the chart at top, gains broadened out beyond the Communication and Technology sectors (33.6% and 24%), to the Industrials (+19.3%), Utilities (+16%), Financials (+15%), and Health Care (+14.6%). There were solid gains across most sectors, with Real Estate (3.1%), Staples (3.9%) and Discretionary (6.0%) as the major laggards.

There were only 153 stocks in the S&P 500 that beat the index average; 350 were below 17.9%. That’s narrower than I prefer, but not fatal.

No SPX sector was in the red for 2025.

The bigger news was global: After 15 years of U.S. equity dominance, the rest of the world began to catch up: International stocks rose 33% in 2025. This shift was driven in part by a weakening U.S. dollar, down almost 10%. Global trading partners are repatriating capital due to dissatisfaction with U.S. trade and security policies. While U.S. earnings remain solid, the market is benefiting from diversification as international equities catch up

 

Market Concentration

 

The most surprising chart in the entire deck is this one: Only 2 of the “Magnificent Seven” outperformed the index. TWO! After hearing for so long from the Concentration Bears that the Mag 7 would be the end of us all, this single datapoint perfectly frames that argument.

Perhaps the Mag 7 dominance is fading; if five of these seven companies underperformed the S&P 500, that means the other 493 companies are catching up in both price appreciation and (eventually) earnings growth.

 

Valuation

 

I wonder if the persistent “bubble callers” would be surprised by this chart: Valuations are (mostly) flat: Unlike the dot-com era, which saw P/E multiples expand so dramatically, P/E multiples have remained flat for the past five years. Forward P/E ratios for core AI companies like Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have also remained stable or declined.

 

Debt

 

Bubbles are typically driven by excessive leveraging, but current debt growth remains a fraction of what was seen in 1999–2000. Debt was essentially flat for five years, with only a 9% increase in 2025. Compare this to the last few years of triple-digit debt growth in the 1990s: +111%, +152%, and +187%!

 

Earnings

 

If you could only see one data point to guess how markets have performed, it would be earnings.

Earnings grew at a robust pace. Unlike the dotcom era, the AI “boom” is supported by tangible business results rather than pure speculation. For example, despite predictions that AI would kill its core business, Google successfully integrated AI into search and saw its stock rise 65% in 2025.

 

 

 

See also:
The Concentration Bears Have Steered You Wrong
Josh Brown
Downtown, Dec 13, 2025

The Probability of Loss in the Stock Market
Ben Carlson
A Wealth of Common Sense, January 9, 2026

 

Previously:
10 Datapoints for Thanksgiving (November 26, 2025)

Rational Exuberance? (November 24, 2025)

A Short History of Bubbles (October 24, 2025)

The Probability Machine (August 28, 2025)

All Time Highs Are Bullish (June 26, 2025)

 

 

__________
1. If Compliance gives me the OK, I’ll release the full deck and call in the near future.

2. “I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.”  – Blaise Pascal, “Lettres Provinciales,” 1657.

3. I even wrote a book about the impact of all of this bad information!

 

 

 

The post Stocks, Bubbles & Market Myths appeared first on The Big Picture.

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

• 10 Breakthrough Technologies: Here are the advances that we think will drive progress or incite the most change—for better or worse—in the years ahead. (MIT Technology Review)

• $25 Billion. That’s What Trump Cost Detroit. It is pretty difficult to futureproof your company against stupid. This is exactly what the American automobile industry is facing as a result of President Trump’s gratuitous war against electric vehicles, which is forcing manufacturers to return to an increasingly outdated past. (New York Times) see also EVs grew more in ’25 than ’24, despite constant lies saying otherwise. In 2025, the world sold 20.7 million EVs – 3.6 million more EVs than it did in the previous year, according to a new report by Rho Motion. That’s a larger increase than last year’s 3.5 million increase, which was also higher than the previous year, showing that EVs keep growing despite unprecedented attacks against them by governments, media and even by automakers themselves. (Electrek)

• The YouTube Vibecession: By the numbers, everything is going great for creators. So why are so many of them scared it’s all about to fall apart? (New York Magazine)

• Steak Is Expensive, and Now It Rules the Food Pyramid: New dietary guidelines raise affordability concerns, but some US officials say customers have choices. (Businessweek free)

• The Oligarchs Pushing for Conquest in Greenland: Trump’s fixation on filching the island territory from Denmark may seem like the demented ravings of a mad king. But to a cohort of plutocrat weirdos, it makes perfect sense. (New Republic)

• Inside the Mad Dash to Save Saks, America’s Last Luxury Retailer: Putting Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus together was supposed to create a luxury powerhouse. Just over a year later, unpaid debts triggered its bankruptcy. (Wall Street Journal)

• The secret to being happy in 2026? It’s far, far simpler than you think … Stop stressing about self‑improvement or waiting until you’re on top of everything. This year give yourself permission to prioritise pleasure. (The Guardian)

• Trump Has No Plan for Venezuela: How the Trump administration’s contempt toward planning all but ensures a mess in Venezuela. Plus: Donald Trump’s predatory worldview and Rudyard Kipling’s “Recessional.” (The Atlantic)

• Life Under a Clicktatorship: What happens to government when everything is content? (Can We Still Govern?) see also What We Choose to Nazi: The Department of Labor is posting Heroic Realism propaganda. What, exactly, are they telling us? (The Bulwark)

• The untameable Victor Osimhen: The volcanic temperament and irresistible brilliance of the footballing star converge as the Super Eagles close in on continental glory. (Africa Is A Country)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Nobel laureate Richard Thaler and his University of Chicago Booth School colleague Alex Imas on the update and reissue of his classic book The Winner’s Curse.

 

Exxon CEO Calls Venezuela ‘Uninvestable’ 

Source: Bloomberg

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

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

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

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

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...

Deterrence as usual- this is less a threat asessment than a review of the militarily un-alarming by commercially ominous status quo. You might as wll have quoted FA & The Economist.

— Russell Seitz (@RussellSeitz) January 13, 2026

BREAKING: The odds of the U.S. acquiring Greenland hit 25%, as the Trump admin floats offer valuing Greenland at over $10 million per resident. pic.twitter.com/EGgRQqrFww

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) January 14, 2026

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?

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

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.

Oreshnik is such a nothingburger that Macron says France needs an equivalent ASAP while looking like this. https://t.co/DZxj3YN3KY

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) January 15, 2026

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

A Greenland-To-Patagonia Defense Axis

Authored by Rick Fisher via The Epoch Times,

While President Donald Trump’s ambition to control Denmark’s massive territory of Greenland has many strategic merits, it is also politically problematic and risks wasting scarce political capital that could be directed toward a far greater prize.

A far more decisive use of the administration’s three years of limited political capital would be to assemble a Greenland-to-Patagonia defense axis of cooperation that secures the Western Hemisphere from Russian and Chinese missile attack for generations to come.

The military-strategic value of Greenland to the defense of the United States—especially to the future of Trump’s “Golden Dome” national and allied missile defense program, as well as preventing Russia–China control of the Arctic—is undeniable.

When viewed from a Polar perspective of the Earth, Greenland offers an ideal location for long-range ground-based radar and ground-based missile interceptors to shoot down Russian and even some Chinese nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) before they cross the North Pole and enter Canadian and U.S. territory.

So far, both Denmark and the government of Greenland are not willing to sell their territory to the United States, while a 1951 U.S.–Denmark defense agreement grants the United States broad rights for defense-related construction.

Furthermore, the former Thule Air Base, now the U.S. Pituffik Space Base, on Greenland already provides critical warning of a Russian missile attack and helps enable U.S. superiority in space.

Pressing the issue risks a crisis.

Should it force the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to expel Washington, how long before Russia is tempted to escalate its aggression against Ukraine and then against Poland and the Baltic states?

Also possible would be an immediate Europe–Russia condominium that Russia and China would exploit by shifting significant Russian forces to support a Chinese attack on Taiwan, including the deployment of more Russian and Chinese forces to threaten key U.S. bases in Alaska, Seattle, and along the U.S. West Coast.

A far more productive use of U.S. political capital would be to enlist key NATO members, starting with Denmark and the UK, to expand the scope of the Golden Dome national missile defense by making Greenland part of a hemispheric defense network and engaging the major democracies of Patagonia—Argentina and Chile—to build early-warning and missile-interceptor bases on their territories to defend against Chinese missiles with South Polar trajectories.

In May 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released a rare future estimate of Chinese and Russian nuclear missile threats against the United States, underscoring the need for Trump’s Golden Dome initiative.

DIA predicted that by 2035, China would have 60 Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems (FOBS) or nuclear missiles that achieve orbital altitude to exploit flight trajectories over the South Pole, in the expectation that southern approaches to U.S. targets will be less defended.

But there is a more profound future Chinese missile threat that would justify investment in a hemispheric missile defense capability, especially one that would justify the radar and missile reach attainable from Patagonian bases.

This is the quickly looming threat of weaponized Chinese reusable space launch vehicles (SLVs), now under development by about 15 Chinese state-owned and “commercial” SLV companies.

What these companies build and what they do is ultimately controlled by the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The commission controls the People’s Liberation Army’s Aerospace Force, which, in turn, controls all Chinese space activities.

A Long March-2F carrier rocket, carrying the Shenzhou-20 spacecraft and a crew of three astronauts, lifts off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in the Gobi desert, in northwest China, on April 24, 2025. Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images

In December 2025, two Chinese SLV companies—LandSpace (commercial) and the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (state-owned)—tested their first reusable first-stage SLVs; both failed to recover for reuse, but further tests are expected this year.

In 2026, Chinese sources indicate that up to eight additional “commercial” Chinese SLV companies may begin testing reusable SLVs.

In addition, the PLA could order these Chinese SLV companies to develop SLV second stages capable of carrying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) nuclear warheads over Antarctica and into Latin America to attack the United States.

At least two Chinese SLV companies intend to develop first-stage reusable SLVs nearly as large as the U.S. SpaceX Corporation’s Starship—that could put payloads as large as 100 tons into Low Earth Orbit, or potentially very large space combat satellites armed with lasers or equipped to drop warheads.

Another threat is that the PLA will have access to enough reusable SLVs to conduct massive intercontinental strikes with non-nuclear missile warheads and Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) against the United States, NATO member countries, and other U.S. allies—a destabilizing prospect because China would be more tempted to use these weapons with a lower risk of nuclear retaliation.

It is in the interest of the defense of the United States and Europe that China not be able to exploit South Pole trajectory nuclear attack routes, just as it is in the interest of all Latin American states that Chinese nuclear or non-nuclear attack payloads not fly over or near their territories.

This highlights the need to engage Chile and Argentina to consider cooperation in building powerful long-range early warning radar and, if possible, missile defense bases on their territories that provide maximum coverage of potential Chinese missile routes over the east and west sides of Latin America.

It would also be advantageous to engage the UK on the construction of early warning systems and, if possible, missile defense sites in the Falkland Islands, which would provide coverage over a larger area of the South Atlantic and even Southern Africa.

On Jan. 9, China, Russia, and Iran began a third joint naval exercise with South Africa, an activity likely funded by China. Iran, in the midst of a serious economic and political crisis, was still able to send its largest warship.

The CCP has ambitions to expand its space cooperation in Africa, potentially building bases for Chinese reusable SLV companies that would have to obey military orders from the CCP and the PLA.

Initially, it is possible to conceive of the United States building large missile defense ships that could, with agreement, be stationed in Chilean, Argentine, and Falkland Islands ports, avoiding the requirement to build bases on their territories.

But even a minimal presence approach should also consider how to include participation from the military forces of at least Chile, Argentina, and the UK to jointly staff prospective missile defense facilities.

This, in turn, could open new opportunities for defense and space cooperation—all three are already signatories to the Artemis Accords, which promote transparent and peaceful behavior on the moon.

The prospect of greater “Patagonian” defense cooperation also offers the UK and Argentina opportunities to build greater confidence, which can facilitate economic cooperation across the greater Falklands area.

There is also greater hemispheric and U.S. interest in promoting a Falklands resolution process, inasmuch as China spent most of the last 15 years trying to sell leftist Peronist regimes in Argentina the weapons they would need to start a second Falklands War.

Promoting a hemispheric defense against current and future Chinese missile threats—and denying China trouble-making opportunities such as promoting a second Falklands War—can go far in dissuading Latin American states from granting the CCP and PLA any further access detrimental to hemispheric security.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 02:00

A Greenland-To-Patagonia Defense Axis

Authored by Rick Fisher via The Epoch Times,

While President Donald Trump’s ambition to control Denmark’s massive territory of Greenland has many strategic merits, it is also politically problematic and risks wasting scarce political capital that could be directed toward a far greater prize.

A far more decisive use of the administration’s three years of limited political capital would be to assemble a Greenland-to-Patagonia defense axis of cooperation that secures the Western Hemisphere from Russian and Chinese missile attack for generations to come.

The military-strategic value of Greenland to the defense of the United States—especially to the future of Trump’s “Golden Dome” national and allied missile defense program, as well as preventing Russia–China control of the Arctic—is undeniable.

When viewed from a Polar perspective of the Earth, Greenland offers an ideal location for long-range ground-based radar and ground-based missile interceptors to shoot down Russian and even some Chinese nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) before they cross the North Pole and enter Canadian and U.S. territory.

So far, both Denmark and the government of Greenland are not willing to sell their territory to the United States, while a 1951 U.S.–Denmark defense agreement grants the United States broad rights for defense-related construction.

Furthermore, the former Thule Air Base, now the U.S. Pituffik Space Base, on Greenland already provides critical warning of a Russian missile attack and helps enable U.S. superiority in space.

Pressing the issue risks a crisis.

Should it force the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to expel Washington, how long before Russia is tempted to escalate its aggression against Ukraine and then against Poland and the Baltic states?

Also possible would be an immediate Europe–Russia condominium that Russia and China would exploit by shifting significant Russian forces to support a Chinese attack on Taiwan, including the deployment of more Russian and Chinese forces to threaten key U.S. bases in Alaska, Seattle, and along the U.S. West Coast.

A far more productive use of U.S. political capital would be to enlist key NATO members, starting with Denmark and the UK, to expand the scope of the Golden Dome national missile defense by making Greenland part of a hemispheric defense network and engaging the major democracies of Patagonia—Argentina and Chile—to build early-warning and missile-interceptor bases on their territories to defend against Chinese missiles with South Polar trajectories.

In May 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released a rare future estimate of Chinese and Russian nuclear missile threats against the United States, underscoring the need for Trump’s Golden Dome initiative.

DIA predicted that by 2035, China would have 60 Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems (FOBS) or nuclear missiles that achieve orbital altitude to exploit flight trajectories over the South Pole, in the expectation that southern approaches to U.S. targets will be less defended.

But there is a more profound future Chinese missile threat that would justify investment in a hemispheric missile defense capability, especially one that would justify the radar and missile reach attainable from Patagonian bases.

This is the quickly looming threat of weaponized Chinese reusable space launch vehicles (SLVs), now under development by about 15 Chinese state-owned and “commercial” SLV companies.

What these companies build and what they do is ultimately controlled by the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The commission controls the People’s Liberation Army’s Aerospace Force, which, in turn, controls all Chinese space activities.

A Long March-2F carrier rocket, carrying the Shenzhou-20 spacecraft and a crew of three astronauts, lifts off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in the Gobi desert, in northwest China, on April 24, 2025. Pedro Pardo/AFP via Getty Images

In December 2025, two Chinese SLV companies—LandSpace (commercial) and the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (state-owned)—tested their first reusable first-stage SLVs; both failed to recover for reuse, but further tests are expected this year.

In 2026, Chinese sources indicate that up to eight additional “commercial” Chinese SLV companies may begin testing reusable SLVs.

In addition, the PLA could order these Chinese SLV companies to develop SLV second stages capable of carrying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) nuclear warheads over Antarctica and into Latin America to attack the United States.

At least two Chinese SLV companies intend to develop first-stage reusable SLVs nearly as large as the U.S. SpaceX Corporation’s Starship—that could put payloads as large as 100 tons into Low Earth Orbit, or potentially very large space combat satellites armed with lasers or equipped to drop warheads.

Another threat is that the PLA will have access to enough reusable SLVs to conduct massive intercontinental strikes with non-nuclear missile warheads and Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) against the United States, NATO member countries, and other U.S. allies—a destabilizing prospect because China would be more tempted to use these weapons with a lower risk of nuclear retaliation.

It is in the interest of the defense of the United States and Europe that China not be able to exploit South Pole trajectory nuclear attack routes, just as it is in the interest of all Latin American states that Chinese nuclear or non-nuclear attack payloads not fly over or near their territories.

This highlights the need to engage Chile and Argentina to consider cooperation in building powerful long-range early warning radar and, if possible, missile defense bases on their territories that provide maximum coverage of potential Chinese missile routes over the east and west sides of Latin America.

It would also be advantageous to engage the UK on the construction of early warning systems and, if possible, missile defense sites in the Falkland Islands, which would provide coverage over a larger area of the South Atlantic and even Southern Africa.

On Jan. 9, China, Russia, and Iran began a third joint naval exercise with South Africa, an activity likely funded by China. Iran, in the midst of a serious economic and political crisis, was still able to send its largest warship.

The CCP has ambitions to expand its space cooperation in Africa, potentially building bases for Chinese reusable SLV companies that would have to obey military orders from the CCP and the PLA.

Initially, it is possible to conceive of the United States building large missile defense ships that could, with agreement, be stationed in Chilean, Argentine, and Falkland Islands ports, avoiding the requirement to build bases on their territories.

But even a minimal presence approach should also consider how to include participation from the military forces of at least Chile, Argentina, and the UK to jointly staff prospective missile defense facilities.

This, in turn, could open new opportunities for defense and space cooperation—all three are already signatories to the Artemis Accords, which promote transparent and peaceful behavior on the moon.

The prospect of greater “Patagonian” defense cooperation also offers the UK and Argentina opportunities to build greater confidence, which can facilitate economic cooperation across the greater Falklands area.

There is also greater hemispheric and U.S. interest in promoting a Falklands resolution process, inasmuch as China spent most of the last 15 years trying to sell leftist Peronist regimes in Argentina the weapons they would need to start a second Falklands War.

Promoting a hemispheric defense against current and future Chinese missile threats—and denying China trouble-making opportunities such as promoting a second Falklands War—can go far in dissuading Latin American states from granting the CCP and PLA any further access detrimental to hemispheric security.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/16/2026 - 02:00

Trump Kicking BRICS Out Of The Americas

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

Since the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the U.S. dollar has dominated global finance as the chief reserve currency. It’s used in international trade, sovereign lending, and central bank reserves.

This dominance allows the United States to borrow cheaply and wield great financial leverage globally.

Recent actions by the Trump administration, sometimes labeled a neo-Monroe Doctrine for its assertive posture toward perceived rivals, can be understood through the lens of preserving dollar supremacy against challenges from rising powers like China and Russia.

The Rise of De-dollarization

Though the dollar remains dominant, its grip has been weakening over decades. According to IMF and central bank data, the dollar’s share of global foreign-exchange reserves has fallen from over 70 percent in 2000 to under 60 percent in recent years; this reflects broader moves by countries to diversify away from U.S. currency dependence. At the same time, China’s share has increased substantially.

Meanwhile, states are increasingly engaging in de-dollarization, which means reducing the use of the dollar in international trade and reserves. This trend is driven in part by a desire to decrease exposure to U.S. monetary policy and sanctions, including increased tariffs and unilateral economic measures against trading partners and adversaries.

BRICS: Geopolitics, Gold, and a Potential Currency Challenge

The group of emerging economies known as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) has been the focal point of rivalry to dollar hegemony. At various summits, the idea of a BRICS currency or common alternative currency, which have included the notion of backing it with gold as a means of anchoring value and appealing to nations wary of fiat currencies that, by definition, have no gold backing their value, but rather, convention, oil trade flows, and the global economic and military dominance of the United States.

While Kremlin officials have denied any imminent creation of a unified currency to dethrone the dollar, proposals for trade in non-dollar currencies and discussion of alternative settlement systems persist. The historical context of the gold standard and its connection to confidence in currencies is a big part of these discussions.

Trump’s Neo-Monroe Doctrine: Tariffs as Dollar Defense

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has made defense of the dollar a central part his foreign-economic policy. He has threatened 100 percent tariffs on BRICS nations or any country that backs a currency to replace the dollar in international trade. Clearly, the administration views dollar dominance as non-negotiable.

By linking trade access to acceptance of the dollar’s role, the administration is attempting to reinforce global reliance on U.S. currency for trade settlement and reserves. This strategy also links his broader tariffs and industrial policy agendas to maintaining dollar dominance in the world.

Dollar Supremacy, Oil, and US Strategic Power

The dollar’s special status has been reinforced historically by its role in oil markets known as the so-called petrodollar system. Because oil has been priced and traded primarily in dollars, global demand for U.S. currency has been supported by energy trade flows. The Trump administration’s recent strategic moves in oil-rich regions such as Venezuela have been interpreted by some analysts as efforts to bolster the petrodollar system and keep key energy resources within dollar-centric markets.

This makes sense from a currency preservation perspective. Although the United States has become a major producer and exporter of oil in its own right, efforts to maintain dollar pricing in energy markets remain crucial to preserving demand for the currency.

Trade, Savings, Innovation, and the Dollar’s Role

The dollar’s dominance provides huge benefits for the world as well as the United States. It reduces transaction costs for U.S. exporters and importers and reinforces the U.S. role in global value chains, but it also simplifies trade invoicing and settlement between other nations with less stable currencies. Its status as the primary reserve currency also underpins the liquidity and depth of U.S. capital markets, enabling inexpensive borrowing that fuels investment in technology and innovation. The dollar in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds has also been a safe haven for long term investing and savings for much of the world.

Dollar dominance also helps with American leadership in AI, computing, and finance, since dollar-denominated trade and financial infrastructure allow those to scale globally. A shift away from the dollar could fragment global capital flows and weaken the financing mechanisms that have historically supported U.S. technological leadership.

Military Power and Financial Leverage

Finally, the dollar’s status facilitates U.S. military power by making it easier to finance defense spending and sustain global force projection. If the dollar’s dominance erodes, financing a global military footprint becomes more expensive and complex, diminishing America’s strategic reach, to say the least. Analysts argue that preserving the dollar is therefore as much a defense priority as a financial one.

Without it, competing nations or groups of nations would rush in to fill the vacuum, leading to global instability.

Dollar and US Supremacy at Core of Neo-Monroe Doctrine

Viewed in this light, what some describe as Trump’s neo-Monroe Doctrine reflects not merely an ideological reassertion of hemispheric influence, but a strategic effort to defend U.S. dollar supremacy. With BRICS nations exploring alternatives, including proposals for a gold-linked settlement unit, and de-dollarization pressures growing, Washington faces mounting economic and geopolitical challenges. These factors help explain the administration’s aggressive stance on tariffs, trade, and strategic energy markets.

The survival of dollar dominance is not just about finance; it’s about maintaining a structural position that enables U.S. influence in global affairs—trade, sanctions, capital markets, and defense alike. As long as potential alternatives loom, U.S. policy will likely continue to frame the dollar as not just an economic asset, but a linchpin of national security and global leadership.

That is why the Venezuela operation is fundamentally about preserving a financial architecture that underpins U.S. economic and military power.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 23:50

PJM Trims Near-Term Load Forecast On Stricter Data Center Vetting, Economic Outlook

By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive

The PJM Interconnection scaled back its load growth forecast through 2032 compared to last year’s estimates, but the largest U.S. grid operator expects electric demand to surge past those expectations through the next decade, according to an annual report released Wednesday. PJM expects its summer peak load will grow by 3.6% a year to about 222 GW by 2036, up from its previous 3.1% forecast. The increase totals about 65.7 GW over the next 10 years.

In a change that affects PJM’s upcoming capacity auction, the grid cut its peak demand forecast for the summer of 2028 by 4.4 GW, or 2.6%. It also lowered its forecast for the summer of 2027 by about 4 GW, reducing a reserve margin shortfall for that capacity year to about 2.6 GW.

PJM’s reduced near-term load forecast was driven by updates to electric vehicle and economic forecasts and stricter vetting of planned data centers and large loads, according to the grid operator. 

Those changes reduced PJM’s peak load forecast for this summer by 0.7% from large loads, 0.5% from economic activity and 0.1% from EVs compared to the last long-term load forecast report, PJM said in a press release.

PJM uses its annual load forecast for transmission planning and to help determine how much capacity it should buy in its capacity auctions. PJM’s next base capacity auction, for the 2028/29 delivery year, is set to start June 30.

PJM’s downward revisions to its load forecast don’t indicate weakening demand for electricity, according to Jefferies equity analysts.

“We read the load revisions as reflective of pushouts/delays, NOT weakness in demand,” they said in a note Wednesday. “While we expect a 3-4 GW improvement in shortfall for [the] next two auctions, [the] market will still fall short — an accelerated backstop procurement is the way to go.”

Even if PJM secures an additional 10 GW in a procurement process, capacity prices will “comfortably clear” at the maximum price of about $530/MW-day in PJM’s next two capacity auctions, the analysts said.

Compared to last year’s forecast, PJM increased its 2031 summer peak load forecast for the Dayton Power and Light zone by 27%, or 1 GW, the Commonwealth Edison zone by 16.5%, or 3.7 GW, and the PECO Energy zone by 5.1%, or 0.5 GW.

In the same year, it cut its forecast for the American Electric Power zone by 10.4%, or 3.7 GW, the American Transmission Systems Inc. zone by 8.1%, or 1.2 GW, and the Pennsylvania Electric zone by 6.1%, or 0.2 GW.

The PJM zones with the strongest 10-year average annual summer peak growth forecasts are: PPL Electric at 6.4% (up from 5.9% last year); Dominion at 5.4% (down from 6.3%); AEP at 5.3% (down from 5.5%); DPL at 5.2% (up from 1.2%); and ComEd at 3.9% (up from 1.6%), according to PJM’s report.

After PJM stakeholders failed to agree last year on reforming the grid operator’s processes for adding large loads to its system, PJM’s board is expected to “outline its determination of a path forward on the [Critical Issue Fast Path] issues in the next few weeks,” PJM said in the news release.

Reforms may include changes to PJM’s process for considering large load forecasts.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 23:24

Muslim Nations Scramble To Acquire Pakistan's JF-17 Fighter Jet

Via The Cradle

Several Muslim-majority states are in talks with Pakistan to acquire the JF-17 fighter jet, co-produced with China, as they scramble to upgrade their air forces amid shifting regional security dynamics.

According to multiple reports from Reuters, Pakistan is in talks or has reached preliminary arrangements with Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and Bangladesh over fighter jets, drones, and related defense systems, with negotiations at varying stages.

via Reuters

Retired Pakistan Air Force air marshal Aamir Masood told Reuters that a preliminary $4 billion agreement had been reached with the Libyan National Army for an unspecified number of JF-17s and other trainer aircraft produced by Pakistan Aeronautical Complex.

Masood also said a separate $1.5 billion package was “effectively” finalized with Sudan’s government for light-attack aircraft, surveillance systems, suicide drones, and “possibly” JF-17s, claiming it could give Khartoum an edge over the UAE-backed Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

He added that Islamabad is discussing a $4 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. In September, the two nations signed a mutual defense pact “soon after Israeli warplanes bombed Hamas negotiators in Qatar.” 

Pakistan has also floated an “arms-for-debt” component of around $2 billion, Masood said, while warning signs of regional rivalries loom over Sudan, where backers diverge.

During a flash war with India last year, Islamabad showcased the battlefield performance of Chinese-made aircraft.

The battle involved more than 100 fighter jets, with Pakistan claiming it shot down five Indian aircraft, including three French-made Rafales. At the same time, US officials later confirmed that at least two Indian jets were lost, before a US-brokered ceasefire took hold.

The battle was described by analyst Pepe Escobar as "the largest and most high-tech air battle of the young 21st century," arguing that the clash produced no real winners and ultimately served the interests of outside powers rather than either side.

Islamabad’s defence diplomacy is driving new interest in the JF-17 fighter jet following Pakistan-India clashes.

So what is the JF-17 Thunder, what can it do, and why are so many countries showing interest? https://t.co/3XTrlJgtZX pic.twitter.com/SUMPxR8KrJ

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 10, 2026

According to an earlier report by Reuters, two Pakistani sources said “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are in talks to convert about $2 billion of Saudi loans into a JF-17 fighter jet deal,” and one added, “The jets were the primary option among others under discussion.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 20:55

"It Has Cast A Shadow Over The Permian": Drilling Slows In Texas As Venezuelan Oil Policy Raises Concerns

Efforts by the Trump administration to push more Venezuelan oil onto the global market, with the goal of lowering prices, are creating concern in West Texas, where producers say cheaper oil threatens drilling, jobs and local business activity, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.

Oil prices have fallen since last spring, recently dipping below $60 a barrel — a level at which many operators can keep pumping but often avoid starting new wells. President Trump believes exerting greater control over Venezuela’s oil industry could drive prices down to $50 a barrel, The Wall Street Journal has reported. At the same time, tariffs have raised costs for materials such as chemicals and steel tubing, according to Midland oil executives.

In the Permian Basin, the heart of U.S. fracking, drilling activity has slowed. “We’re definitely not drilling right now,” said Taylor Sell, chief executive of Element Petroleum.

The number of active rigs in the region is down 14% over the past year, according to Enverus. Companies have delayed new wells, cut staff and reduced worker hours. Kyle Patterson, engineering manager at Buckeye, said the company laid off about 10% of its workforce. “You can’t just sit around and wait for the market to come back,” he said.

The Journal writes that local industry leaders worry that prolonged low prices will increase U.S. dependence on imports. “It has really cast a shadow over the Permian,” said Ben Shepperd, president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association.

Some producers say they oppose relying on Venezuelan oil. “We are on a gold mine; we can produce enough oil to supply ourselves,” said Bubba Dobson, a Midland-based business representative who has seen his pay decline as drilling demand weakens.

The slowdown is affecting the wider economy. Hotel occupancy in the region fell 5.6% between November 2024 and November 2025, according to CoStar. As drilling activity declines, spending at local businesses has softened.

Veteran producer Paul Kenworthy said low prices have forced him to pause some projects, adding, “This is a boom-and-bust business.”

While some residents support the administration’s broader policies, frustration is growing among business owners. “We thought he was going to help the economy here in West Texas,” said restaurant co-owner Nemecio Torres, whose revenue dropped about 30% last year.

Others say the downturn may deepen. “It’ll be a year until we really start feeling the pain,” said Pat Dennis, who sells oilfield tools.

In Odessa, where oil paychecks once dominated local commerce, store manager Ruby Ramirez said business has slowed sharply. “It’s an oil-field town,” she said. “The oil field’s not the oil field anymore.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 20:30

Waste Of The Day: California County May Have Made Illegal Gifts

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: A Dec. 18 report from the California State Auditor claims that Mendocino County is “vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse” after spending thousands of dollars on steakhouse dinners, unapproved donations and more.

The annual dinners are a trademark of local District Attorney C. David Eyster, who earned $211,484 from taxpayers in 2024, according to Open the Books’ payroll records.

Key facts: Law enforcement agencies can earn revenue by seizing property from convicted criminals, such as stolen cash or cars used to transport illegal drugs. California law requires local governments to use 15% of this asset forfeiture money to combat drug abuse and gang activity, but there are few restrictions on the other 85%.

Mendocino County held $1.5 million in asset forfeiture funding as of June 2025, but the funds have been used for several purchases that state auditors “believe” to be illegal gifts in violation of the California Constitution.

In February 2025, the District Attorney’s office spent $3,600 on an “End of the Year Debriefing and Training” at a steakhouse, where dinner was served to employees and their spouses. 

The office told auditors that spouses were invited to “foster a more inclusive and positive work environment.” The office also claimed that County CEO Darcie Antle approved the expense, but auditors found no evidence that was the case.

The District Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office also used asset forfeiture funds to donate nearly $23,000 to 11 private groups “with little oversight or accountability,” the audit claimed. There were no requirements that the donations be used to benefit taxpayers.

One of the donations — $560 to the 11-99 Foundation, which supports the families of California highway patrol workers — was the exact amount needed to pay for dinner for eight people at the nonprofit’s annual fundraiser. The audit “could not determine” whether county employees actually attended the dinner. But if they did receive food in exchange for a donation of public funds, legal concerns would likely be raised.

Two donations of $5,000 each went to St. Mary of the Angels Catholic School. Religious schools are banned from receiving direct subsidies under both the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, according to the audit.

State auditors reviewed a sample of 30 other payments Mendocino County made since 2020 — using tax revenue, not asset forfeiture — and found issues with 13 of them. These included missing signatures to approve $500 worth of seat cushions, missing receipts for $370 in travel costs, and a lack of written justification for buying a 75-inch television for $1,099.

Mendocino County has increased its spending by 30% over the last five years, according to the audit. Its tax revenue has remained “relatively unchanged,” leading to budget deficits for the last three years.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Summary: When a local government has an unbalanced budget three years in a row, lavish dinners for employees’ spouses should be the first expense to go.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 19:15

US Eyes Private Security Contractors To Protect Oil Assets In Venezuela

A top White House priority for Venezuela in the aftermath of Nicolás Maduro is restarting and ramping up the country's oil production. But that's a tall order given many years of decaying and neglected infrastructure. Despite that Maduro's VP, now acting President Delcy Rodriguez, is currently running the country, there are still fears there could be a power vacuum if hostile forces challenge Caracas.

There's not just the question of a political challenge, or even military insurgency which could further destabilize the country, but the role of the cartels. All of this political and security uncertainty surrounds the question of rebooting the ailing oil industry - which though sitting atop the world's biggest proven oil reserves, has a derelict and largely defunct infrastructure for getting it out of the ground and refining.

Major oil companies are now being courted by the administration, which must convince them they can operate in enough safety to be successful, not just for the coming months, but for years down the line. 

President Trump, however, is reportedly wary of placing American boots on the ground for what will be seen at home as another indefinite foreign occupation.

CNN reports Thursday that one administration plan being mulled right now is tapping military contractors, or mercenaries, to protect Venezuela's oil industry as American companies move in.

"Discussions about how to secure those assets remain in the early stages, sources said. Still, multiple private security companies are already jockeying to get involved in the US presence in Venezuela, according to a person familiar with the matter," the report describes. "Interest is high given the potential payday; during the Iraq War, the US spent some $138 billion on private security, logistics and reconstruction contractors."

CNN continues, "Last week, the Department of Defense put out a Request for Information to contractors about their ability to support possible US military operations in Venezuela, the person said." And already, "Contractors are also in touch with the State Department’s overseas building operations office to cite interest in providing security if and when the US embassy in Venezuela re-opens."

One military firm founder highlighted that going private is another aspect of "investment" in conquering and subjugating a foreign country Venezuela's energy industry "coming back" to the American people:

“Foreign investment comes back, and when it does, it brings a bunch of Navy SEAL dudes and Green Beret dudes and ninjas to keep them alive and safe,” Stern said. “It’ll look a lot like that in Venezuela.”

Turning to private contractors is certain to invite scrutiny. Over the past two decades, the US has relied heavily at times on private contractors, especially during the height of the Iraq War. But they were marred in controversy, from killing Iraqi civilians to allegations of war profiteering

Indeed, it's never a good look when Washington's talk of "liberating" a people from a "tyrant" quickly results in trigger-happy foreign mercenaries rolling into your local neighborhood barking orders backed by endless firepower - all for a cool hundreds of dollars per hour.

US oil companies are up against significant risk, with few "guarantees" given the billions what will need to be invested...

Reality check Venezuelan oil: Geologists who have worked the area know that most of the 300 billion barrels of oil “reserves” touted for Venezuela are in the Faja - the Orinoco tar belt - where heavy, high sulfur crude has an API of 8.5 (if you are lucky). This heavy and extra… pic.twitter.com/dnx2ZFpVLA

— Jack Prandelli (@jackprandelli) January 11, 2026

But at the very least, US oil majors which get deeper in extracting Venezuela's oil will be hiring their own security, at least on some level. Whether the Trump administration gets directly involved in writing major contracts for mercenary firms remains to be seen. Usually Erik Prince is circling the Pentagon right about now.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 18:50

Devon-Coterra Tie-Up Would Create A New Permian Heavyweight

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com,

Coterra Energy is kicking the tires on what would be one of the biggest U.S. shale mergers in years, holding talks about a possible combination with Devon Energy, according to people familiar with the matter. Nothing is signed, nothing is guaranteed, but the market liked the idea enough to send shares of Coterra Energy sharply higher on the day.

The deal would be a classic all-stock shale mashup: two midsize operators with large footprints in the Permian Basin trying to bulk up as oil prices sit stubbornly around $60 a barrel.

Coterra carries a market value of roughly $20 billion, while Devon is closer to $24 billion.  

A tie-up of this size would put it firmly into megadeal territory by shale standards.

This is a Permian land grab, plain and simple.

Putting neighboring Delaware Basin acreage under one roof makes drilling cheaper and operations cleaner.

The timing matters.

After a quiet year for dealmaking, consolidation is starting to reappear as bigger players move past recent acquisitions and smaller independents look for ways to keep up.

A Devon-Coterra tie-up would immediately put the combined company among the Permian’s top-tier producers.

Devon has also been dealing with softer crude prices and the lingering question of how much Venezuelan oil might eventually re-enter the market. That kind of uncertainty rewards operators that are efficient, conservative with capital, and financially flexible. In that environment, scale matters.

For now, talks are ongoing and could still fall apart.

But even floating the idea sends a clear message: in a choppier oil market, size, simplicity, and execution are back in fashion.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 18:25

Lindsey Graham Drowns Sorrows After Trump Refrained From Iran Attack On 'No Guarantees'

NeoCon Senator Lindsey Graham wants to "go bigger" on Iran and is so disappointed that President Trump hasn't bombed it yet that he appears barely able to speak, with the color draining from his face.

Journalist Ryan Grim comments on the below video clip of Graham responding to the lack of action by the US, "His life force is being drained in front of us by the lack of bombing." When this armchair general is deeply disappointed and shattered by American non-action abroad, it without doubt means something good for America. 

If you want to know what I think about recent developments in Iran, watch this clip: pic.twitter.com/T9lwN8RwEE

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 15, 2026

Dear Lindsey, the adults in the room took over, now go cry outside...

The Wall Street Journal reports that "President Trump was advised that a large-scale strike against Iran was unlikely to make the government fall and could spark a wider conflict, U.S. officials said, and for now will monitor how Tehran handles protesters before deciding on the scope of a potential attack."

By that moment of the briefing, Iran's streets had already gone largely silent, with Iranian security services firmly in control, and Tehran leadership vowing not to hold any executions. In short the demonstrations, riots, and crackdown had ceased.

Continues the WSJ, "The U.S. would need more military firepower in the Middle East both to launch a large-scale strike, protect American forces in the region and allies like Israel should Iran retaliate, the advisers told Trump, the officials said."

Still, it seems the world was very close to the US launching yet another war more "precision strikes" against a nation we are not actually at war with (still a possibility though!). Per the WSJ:

Trump, without making a final decision on which action he would take, asked for military assets to be in place should he order a big attack, the officials said.

“The president and his team have communicated to the Iranian regime that if the killing continues, there will be grave consequences,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. “Only President Trump knows what he’s going to do and a very, very small team of advisors are read into his thinking,” Leavitt said.

But again, Lindsey's pain is America's gain.

Getty Images

Here he is Thursday talking to reporters (in the above clip): "Should it be bigger or smaller? I’m in the camp of bigger. Time will tell." He then asserted that "the regime’s days are numbered."

When in doubt... sanction higher, the D.C. blob mantra says...

The U.S. on Thursday imposed sanctions on five Iranian officials it accused of being behind the crackdown on protests and said it was tracking Iranian leaders' funds being wired to international banks, as President Donald Trump keeps the pressure on Tehran.

The U.S. Treasury Department in a statement said it imposed sanctions on the Secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security as well as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and law enforcement forces commanders, accusing them of being architects of the crackdown.

What might happen in the next major Iranian protest go-around? The Islamic Republic's severe economic woes, and with yet more US sanctions being unleashed on Tehran, won't be getting better anytime soon.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 18:00

Chaos Is The Strategy, And Too Many Are Helping It Succeed

Authored by Armstrong Williams via The Epoch Times,

Let’s dispense with the convenient fiction: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not the primary threat to our communities. The real danger lies in the growing normalization of disorder, intimidation and lawlessness—often wrapped in the language of “justice” but driven by something far less noble.

What we are witnessing is not spontaneous civic unrest. It is a sustained strategy of division, enabled by progressive activism untethered from accountability and amplified by legacy and social media ecosystems that reward outrage over truth.

This is not how a nation is conquered by force. This is how it is hollowed out from within.

Over the past several years, protests have increasingly crossed the line from expression to coercion—blocking streets, vandalizing property, intimidating citizens, and provoking confrontations with law enforcement. Too often, progressive leaders and activists refuse to draw a firm line between protest and chaos. Silence becomes endorsement. Justification becomes fuel. The result is a culture where disruption is valorized, and restraint is treated as complicity.

When rare and tragic mistakes occur in law enforcement, they are not treated as moments for sober examination or reform. They are instantly weaponized. Context is stripped away. Facts are subordinated to narrative. Grief is transformed into political leverage. The objective is not justice but rather ignition sparking unrest, delegitimizing institutions, and exhausting public trust.

Here is an inconvenient truth: It remains exceedingly rare for law enforcement officers to fire their weapons in the line of duty. The overwhelming majority—well over 90 percent—never discharge a firearm at all. Most encounters are resolved through deescalation, judgment, and professionalism under immense pressure. That reality rarely survives the media cycle.

Legacy media outlets, once entrusted with informing the public, too often act as accelerants rather than moderators. Complex incidents are flattened into morality plays. Headlines are written to inflame rather than inform. Progressive narratives are echoed uncritically, while inconvenient facts are buried below the fold or ignored entirely. The result is a distorted public understanding that erodes confidence in law enforcement and emboldens those who seek confrontation.

Social media makes it worse. Algorithms do not reward nuance; they reward rage. Viral clips divorced from context travel faster than corrections ever could. Activists understand this and exploit it, baiting confrontations designed to produce images that inflame rather than illuminate. The platforms profit. The country pays the price.

We saw this pattern clearly on Ivy League campuses, where protests metastasized into intimidation and disorder. Administrators hesitated. Media outlets romanticized the unrest. Progressive leaders excused it. Only after chaos became undeniable did order return—at significant cost to institutional credibility. The lesson should have been obvious. Instead, it was ignored.

Today, those same forces have seized on immigration enforcement as their next flashpoint. The deployment of ICE agents under President Donald Trump has become a new rallying cry—not because it represents an unprecedented threat but because it offers another opportunity to provoke confrontation and amplify grievance. This is not about policy disagreement. It is about power: who controls the narrative, who dictates the terms of public debate, and who benefits when enforcement collapses under pressure.

That said, responsibility does not rest on one side alone.

Trump, for all his emphasis on law and order, bears a duty to temper his rhetoric. Words matter, especially from the highest office in the land. Enforcement must be firm, but it must also be wise. Precision, not provocation, strengthens institutions. A tone that encourages restraint, judgment, and professionalism does more to uphold the rule of law than bombast ever could.

Likewise, law enforcement leadership must continue emphasizing deescalation as the standard, not the exception. Officers already do this every day, often without recognition. In those vanishingly rare moments when lethal force is used, the expectation must be clarity, accountability, and transparency—not political scapegoating or reflexive condemnation.

The progressive movement, however, must confront its own complicity.

A philosophy that treats enforcement itself as oppression, that excuses disorder as activism, and that relies on media distortion to advance its aims is not reformist—it is corrosive. A society cannot function when laws are optional, authority is demonized, and chaos is reframed as conscience.

History is unforgiving to nations that mistake outrage for virtue and division for progress. Democracies do not collapse because laws are enforced. They collapse when enforcement is delegitimized, institutions are undermined, and truth becomes subordinate to narrative.

If we are serious about justice, reform, and social cohesion, then restraint must apply to everyone—activists, media, political leaders, and law enforcement alike. Anything less is not resistance. It is surrender to chaos.

And chaos, once normalized, never confines itself to the causes that first unleashed it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 17:40

MrBeast Broke? Billionaire YouTuber Claims He Has "Negative Money" As Tom Lee Invests $200M

The allure of becoming a YouTube superstar often conjures images of endless wealth and effortless luxury. Yet for Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, the reality is more nuanced - and far less liquid.

In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Donaldson addressed the frequent media portrayal of him as a billionaire, clarifying the distinction between headline-grabbing net worth and actual cash on hand.

“It’s funny talking about my personal finances because no one ever believes anything I say, because they’re like, ‘You’re a billionaire,’” Donaldson said. “I’m like, that’s net worth.”

“I actually … I have negative money right now. I’m borrowing money. That’s how little money I have," he continued. "Technically, everyone watching this video has more money than me in their bank account if you subtract the equity value of my company, which doesn’t buy me McDonald’s in the morning, or whatever.”

Last June, Donaldson revealed he had asked his mother for financial help to cover costs related to his upcoming wedding to Thea Booysen, then 28. The couple has described plans for an intimate ceremony, far removed from the extravagance one might associate with a global media figure.

Forbes pegged his annual earnings at $85 million as of June 2025, while Fortune reported in September 2025 that his holding company, Beast Industries—which he owns a little more than half of—carried a $5 billion valuation. The conglomerate encompasses his YouTube operations, the Feastables chocolate brand, Lunchly snacks, and other ventures, with Donaldson’s personal net worth frequently cited around $2.6 billion on paper, according to the New York Post.

Yet Donaldson’s ventures have not been without its headaches.

The most prominent example is his virtual restaurant brand, MrBeast Burger, launched in 2020 through a partnership with Virtual Dining Concepts (VDC). The ghost-kitchen concept initially exploded, expanding to thousands of locations and generating substantial revenue via delivery apps. The momentum stalled amid persistent customer complaints about quality. Reviewers often described the burgers as "disgusting," "inedible," undercooked, or arriving in subpar condition, the Daily Mail reported.

In 2023, Donaldson sued VDC, seeking to end the partnership and alleging breach of contract, inadequate quality control, unpaid royalties, and irreparable harm from the inferior product - despite periods when the brand reportedly pulled in over $100 million. VDC countersued for up to $100 million, accusing Donaldson of breaching obligations, publicly disparaging the brand (including now-deleted social-media posts calling it a "bad deal"), and interfering with operations. Both parties claimed the other prioritized scale or personal interests over quality and mutual fairness. The legal dispute remains unresolved.

Tom Lee Is All In

Donaldson's cash crunch comes amid news that Donaldson's Beast Industries is about to receive a $200 million investment from Tom Lee's Bitmine Immersion Technologies, the world's leading ETH treasury company. Lee's investment will back a media property which boasts over 450 million subscribers and attracts over 5 billion monthly views. The deal closes on or around Jan. 19, CNBC reports. 

"It’s our view that ethereum, which is a smart contract platform, is the future of finance, where digitalization of not only dollars but stocks and equities [are] going to take place," Lee told "Squawk Box" Thursday. "Over time, that really blurs what is a service versus what’s digital money, and that’s where a collaboration and investment into Beast Industries makes sense."

TOM LEE + MR. BEAST

- Bitmine is investing $200M into Beast Industries
- Ethereum is the core platform
- Focus on digital items and financial services
- Targeting Gen Z and Gen Alpha at massive scale pic.twitter.com/xvpVkEWdE6

— Tom Lee Tracker (Not actually Tom) (@TomLeeTracker) January 15, 2026

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 17:20