[Federalist] Defying all expectations, Clarkson’s Farm, a series about British journalist and TV show host Jeremy Clarkson running a farm, is still a popular hit. Now five seasons in, its appeal remains strong, with the characters established and working well together.
It’s a shift from earlier seasons. In the first two seasons, Clarkson leaned hard on Kaleb Cooper, a seasoned farmhand half Clarkson’s age. Clarkson frequently misjudged certain jobs on the farm, making a mess which required Kaleb to step in, yell at him, and clean it up.
Now, these scenes happen less often. Instead, the two work and plan together like close friends. While the former setup helped generate funny moments, the latter setup proves to be more satisfying as the two continue the banter but learn from one another and complement each other’s strengths.
What really sets Clarkson’s Farm apart from other reality shows is its social commentary. Besides showcasing farming life it demonstrates the intersection of economics, politics, and culture.
In the first two seasons, Clarkson encountered more absurd regulations and difficulties from local councils than the actual work of planting crops and raising livestock. In the third and fourth seasons, Clarkson and Cooper became spokesmen for all British farmers, even meeting with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
[Federalist] The recent resignation of British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a symptom of the discontent that the British people have with the current Labour government, but the larger problem is that the current manifestation of the British government operates almost entirely without the possibility of voters’ consent exercising any meaningful control. While British voters may be frustrated with an incompetent, corrupt, and leftist government, there remains almost no outlet by which they can translate their frustration into an electoral victory with accompanying political control of the government.
Successive Tory, or nominally "conservative" prime ministers such as David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak either opposed Brexit, presided over record non-EU migration, continued the embrace of green energy and deindustrialisation, or proved too incompetent to enact meaningful reform. Labour’s 2024 victory under Starmer expressed voter frustration with that record, not affection for global liberalism.
Similarly, the present ouster of Starmer is the result of Starmer’s growing unpopularity, but Starmer’s party (Labour) is still the majority in Parliament. Andy Burnham, who just won the Makerfield by-election and whom many are expecting to become the new Labour PM, will likely continue Labour’s leftist governance if he becomes PM. Burnham has talked about leading the country away from "divisions," but he simultaneously denounced Trump and MAGA as "the path of a divided, dark politics of the kind we see in the United States." While Burnham may criticize the presently unpopular Starmer to support his own political rise, his actual governance would likely be more of the same.
To the extent that the British nation is also demographically changed through immigration and naturalization of non-white, non-British people becoming British "citizens," this also does not bode well for the political future of Britain. An imported class of voters brought in to permanently change Britain will not stop supporting the uniparty which funds it through generous welfare programs and is ideologically committed to these imported minorities over the native British people.
#1
The Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, and Canadians allowed themselves to be disarmed. This is what they get. In a smaller scale the same has happened in Blue cities here.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Dmitry Gubin
[REGNUM] On August 25 (August 12, Old Style), 1906, a landau pulled up to the dacha of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of the Interior, on Aptekarsky Island near St. Petersburg. Three people emerged from the light, open-topped carriage: a man in civilian clothes carrying a briefcase and two men in gendarme uniforms.
He appeared to be an official with an urgent message and a bodyguard. It was common for the imperial prime minister to receive visitors at his dacha. "These receptions usually attracted a large crowd—people of all walks of life, positions, and circumstances. This was the case this time," recalled Stolypin's eldest daughter, Maria.
But the visitors immediately aroused the suspicion of the doorman on duty, who himself had served in the gendarmerie. The helmets were of an outdated design. This oddity was also noticed by Lieutenant General Alexander Zamyatin, Stolypin's adjutant and chief of security.
The guests moved decisively through the first reception area, pushing aside the doorman. Zamyatin rushed to intercept them. At that moment, a man with a briefcase shouted, "Long live the revolution!" and threw the vanity case under the door of the second, inner reception area. An explosion echoed, audible for several blocks.
The police and paramedics who arrived at the scene confirmed that 27 people had been killed—ordinary petitioners, rank-and-file officials, security guards, and three suicide bombers. The police recorded the victims' names: "Nikolai Evdokimov, a postal service courier... Olga Vladimirovna Istomina and her young son, Vladimir... An unidentified woman, eight months pregnant..."
Thirty-three people were injured. Two of Stolypin's children were injured: 15-year-old Natalya and Arkady, who was barely three years old. The prime minister's son and daughter were on the balcony, along with Arkady's nanny. The blast threw the children onto the pavement. Fortunately, the little one was barely injured, but Natasha was seriously wounded, and her leg bones were shattered.
The target of the bombers' "action," Prime Minister of the Russian Empire Pyotr Stolypin, was unharmed; he was protected by an oak desk. The head of the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Internal Affairs gave orders and heard his daughter screaming in pain in the next room.
Simultaneously with the orders to launch an investigation into the assassination attempt, Stolypin conveyed his wishes to the doctors—to do everything possible to prevent Natasha from becoming crippled. The surgeons performed a miracle: not only did the girl not lose her legs (despite the doctors' initial belief), but she also remained paralyzed and was able to walk within a few months.
CAIN AND THE STORMY PETREL
The St. Petersburg cell of the Union of Socialist Revolutionary Maximalists was responsible for the assassination attempt on the Prime Minister.
The organizer of the "action," which claimed nearly fifty ordinary people's lives, was a recent figure in the December uprising in Moscow, the head of the Krasnaya Presnya combat committee, Socialist Revolutionary Mikhail Sokolov —aka Cain, aka Bear.
The police also identified the militants who carried out the attack. They were comrades Tipunkov (nicknamed Grisha), Zabelshansky (aka Frenchman), and Ivanov (aka Fedya).
The money for the share was obtained from the "ex" - the robbery of the Moscow Mutual Credit Society in the spring of that same year, 1906.
The preparation of the terrorist attack was the result of the coordination of revolutionaries: the maximalist Vladimir Lichtenshtadt prepared the "infernal machine" in the explosive devices workshop of the Bolshevik Combat Technical Group, which was led by Vladimir Lenin's closest ally, engineer Leonid Krasin.
The assembly center for explosive devices was located in the apartment of the “stormy petrel of the revolution” Maxim Gorky, who was close to the Bolsheviks.
The assassination attempt on August 25, 1906, was not the first attempt to settle scores with Russia's second-in-command after Emperor Nicholas II. This third attack was distinguished only by its scale, brutality, and senselessness—the fighters for the "liberation of the people" killed and maimed several dozen members of the people, but failed to achieve their goal.
There were about ten such unsuccessful attempts.
The eleventh "action" achieved its goal: on September 25, 1911, Stolypin was assassinated in the Kiev Opera House. No revolutionary party was behind the murder—the shooter was a lone anarchist, an "eccentric neurasthenic," and informant for the Security Department, Dmitry Bogrov. This event paved the way for the great upheavals that culminated in the revolution long talked about by Socialist Revolutionaries and Social Democrats of various stripes.
"POWER CANNOT BE POWERLESS."
The first two assassination attempts occurred at the height of the revolution, in 1905. Stolypin was then governor of Saratov, one of the local leaders who successfully contained the chaos. It's no surprise that Pyotr Arkadyevich was summoned to St. Petersburg. Stolypin recalled a conversation with the emperor, which Maria Petrovna recounted in her memoirs.
Nicholas proposed that the Saratov governor accept the post of head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs—in modern parlance, the overseer of law enforcement agencies and domestic policy. The Tsar said:
- Pyotr Arkadyevich, I kindly ask you to accept this post.
- Your Majesty, I can’t, it would be against my conscience.
- Then I order you to do this.
“ My father had no choice but to bow to the will of his sovereign, expressed in such a form, and he returned to Saratov only for a very short time to hand over the affairs of the province,” wrote Maria Stolypina.
What made Stolypin different from other figures who led the country's government? He made his career not in the offices of St. Petersburg, but in the provinces where he was a landowner—Kovno, Grodno, and Saratov. Thus, he was well acquainted with the local situation and the people he was tasked with leading.
In addition, he possessed personal courage and was ready to take decisive action when the situation demanded it.
And the "situation," which became unpredictable after the bloody incident of January 9, 1905, caught the authorities and law enforcement off guard. "In terms of technical means for combating riots, our police were backward," Arkady Petrovich Stolypin wrote about his father's work.
The Saratov governor fought against violations as far as possible, regardless of party affiliation. For example, he suppressed both a riot inspired by the Socialist Revolutionaries and attempts by the Black Hundreds to disrupt a congress of zemstvo doctors, whom the ultra-right viewed as "liberals and rebels."
Having become a minister and then prime minister, Stolypin acted according to the principle he himself formulated: “ First, calm down, and then reforms.”
In post-revolutionary literature, the tsarist prime minister was accused of unleashing government terror. But Stolypin acted based on the logic of the emergency—strike, burning of estates, pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, and massacres in the Transcaucasian provinces. The revolution, it should be remembered, erupted against the backdrop of the unfinished Russo-Japanese War.
The Prime Minister wrote:
“When Kronstadt was in turmoil just a few miles from the capital and the royal residence, when treason had broken into Sveaborg (the naval base in Finland), when the Baltic region was ablaze, when the revolutionary wave had spread to Poland, when horror and terror began to reign: then the government had to either step aside and give way to the revolution, forgetting that power is the guardian of the state and the integrity of the Russian people, or act and defend what had been entrusted to it.”
It was from this “extraordinary” logic that military courts emerged.
In 1906–1907, these bodies issued 1,102 death sentences against terrorists and riot organizers. However, the death penalty was applied in only 683 cases; the remaining 419 were spared. By comparison, in 1905–1907, more than 9,000 people died in terrorist attacks, clashes with police, and other riots.
By order of the Prime Minister, emergency measures were accompanied by explanatory work “on the ground”.
"Power is a means of preserving life, peace, and order; therefore, while condemning tyranny and autocracy in every possible way, one cannot help but consider anarchy dangerous," Stolypin explained his policy.
DIDN'T HEAR
However, not all even moderate politicians shared this (seemingly obvious) view. For example, Joseph Gessen, a liberal member of the Cadet Party Central Committee and deputy of the Second Duma, developed an entire theory at the time that terror was a manifestation of "internecine guerrilla warfare" in which "persons armed with real government authority" were killed.
The Prime Minister tried to explain who the “tsarist regime” was fighting against.
"Gentlemen, familiarize yourself with revolutionary literature, "Stolypin recommended in 1909, in correspondence with deputies of the Third Duma." Read the lines that teach how to fight through terror, through bombs, and it is recommended that these bombs be made of cast iron, to create more fragments, or that they be filled with nails. Familiarize yourself with the preaching of regicide."
But the explanations seemed to have no effect on most of the people's representatives. Gessen himself condemned the retaliation against the bombers as an attack on people without power, equating it with the actions of the Black Hundreds. And far from being a radical, another Cadet, Fyodor Rodichev (dubbed the "first tenor" of Russian liberalism), launched what would now be called a meme: "Stolypin ties."
When, after the calm had subsided, reforms began – primarily agrarian reforms, the renewal of the judicial system, and the resettlement program – progressive circles also received them with hostility.
The leftists—the heirs of the Narodniks—saw Stolypin's attempt to strengthen the prosperous peasantry as a blow to the rural "mir," and thus to the chance of Russian communal socialism. The Cadets and other liberals, on the contrary, accused the prime minister of attempting to preserve large estates and prevent the development of Russian farming. Duma members more or less close to Stolypin—the Octobrists and rightists—were dissatisfied with the prime minister's circumvention of parliament. Better to replace the "dictatorship" with a responsible government.
Politicians in the final years of the Russian Empire might have believed they were right: after all, in October 1905, the Emperor granted freedom to everyone, "from anarchists to monarchists," and there could be no talk of any self-restraint.
Stolypin's famous phrase from an interview with the editor of the Volga newspaper, Nikolai Garvey, in October 1909 is well known: "Give the state 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia."
Less well-known is another statement from the same conversation: "Friendly, common work, based on mutual trust—that's the motto for all of us Russians." This is what Russian society lacked at the beginning of the 20th century—and it is what is helping modern Russia overcome its current great upheavals.
But back then, more than a century ago, society seemed unaware of the cataclysms that internal disunity and the lack of unifying goals could bring.
After Stolypin's death in 1911, government chaos began amid the ongoing standoff between Duma members and the tsar's entourage. Any long-term policy was no longer in the cards—and then the Great War began. Zemstvo leaders, professors, and progressive journalists welcomed the February Revolution of 1917—but by October, many began to regret the "reaction."
Those who justified the murders of "servants of Tsarism" in 1905-07 learned what it meant (in Lenin's words) to "exert energy and mass character in terror against counterrevolutionaries." This "mass character" also affected all factions of the Socialist Revolutionaries, from the right to the maximalists. As for Stolypin's children, almost all (except his daughter Olga, who died in Ukraine in 1920) were lucky to escape.
Daughter Natalia, a victim of the terrorist attack on August 25, 1906, married Prince Yuri Volkonsky and outlived Stalin, dying in 1954. Her youngest son, Arkady, participated in the French Resistance during World War II, married the daughter of the former French ambassador, and fathered three children. He died in 1990.
True, one can hardly call a long life in emigration happy.
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin is in italics. [ColonelCassad] There will be no agreements with Ukraine at the expense of Russia's security interests. There will be no agreements with Ukraine at the expense of Russia's security interests. Any attempts to impose a freeze on the conflict under the guise of a ceasefire are doomed to failure. A meaningful dialogue on the conflict with Ukraine will be impossible as long as Russia is treated with threats, ignoring the current realities on the ground.
-- (c) Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Nebenzya
* * *
Peskov stated that the rumors about an alleged mobilization in Russia are coming from Ukraine to destabilize Russian society. The Kremlin is not planning any mobilization. Meanwhile, the mini-mobilization in Ukraine itself continues to intensify – the mobilization of women and the lowering of the draft age are next in line. There aren't enough people. And the rumors about mobilization are part of a propaganda tactic of mirroring the same narrative that is being spread about people being picked up off the streets and forcibly shoved into minibuses.
Meanwhile, Britain has stated that immediately after the end of the war, a "coalition of the willing" will send troops into Ukraine. This is to keep the war going, since Russia will certainly not agree to the option of deploying NATO troops in Ukraine.
Therefore, as long as this scenario exists, the war will not end. In fact, that's precisely why it's being devised: to keep the war going. So we'll continue.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Boris Rozhin, expert at the Center for Military-Political Journalism
[TASS] Boris Rozhin on the dark side of double standards and how it influences global restructuring
For years, Iran's nuclear program has served as a pretext for sanctions and preemptive strikes in Washington, while the similar technological capabilities of American allies are ignored. According to Chinese Ambassador to Moscow Zhang Hanhui, Japan has stockpiled over 44 tons of plutonium, enough to produce approximately 5,500 nuclear warheads in the medium term. Sure, but Japan hasn’t promised to attack its enemies as soon as it crosses thr bomb-assembly threshold.
This situation exposes a policy of double standards: while the US and Israel carry out attacks on Tehran's nuclear facilities, Tokyo – a key American ally in Asia – has a full cycle of nuclear fuel reprocessing, enjoying the full support of Washington and raising no questions from a non-proliferation standpoint.
CLEAR GOAL
Japan has long been considered a "threshold state." Tokyo boasts a developed nuclear energy industry (14 of its 33 reactors are operational, with the rest preparing for restart), its own centrifuge uranium enrichment technologies, and a full cycle of spent fuel reprocessing. Officially, this potential is justified by the country's commitment to a closed fuel cycle. However, the country's financial and technological resources allow it to launch a full-fledged military nuclear project in a relatively short time.
Japan's military and political dependence on the United States, which makes it a limited subject, has long constrained Tokyo's ability to build up offensive weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction. But the situation has changed: the United States is effectively encouraging Japan's remilitarization (to exert pressure on China, Russia, and North Korea). Under these circumstances, the threat of Japan becoming a nuclear power has shifted from a theoretical one to a potential one.
Indeed, deep-rooted pacifism in the country remains an obstacle to nuclearization: according to polls, up to 76% of Japanese citizens still favor strict adherence to the non-nuclear status. Nevertheless, systematic public opinion work is being conducted. Along with the traditional inflated "threats" from Beijing and Pyongyang, particular emphasis is placed on accusations against Moscow. The hypocritical denial of the US role in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is accompanied at the official level by aggressive statements about an alleged "nuclear threat" emanating from Russia. This "blaming" serves a clear purpose: to artificially create an image of an enemy, against which society will gradually be forced to accept the need to build its own arsenal.
It's important to understand that for some Japanese elites, the current situation has become a historic opportunity to shed the restrictions imposed after World War II. By potentially joining the "nuclear club," Tokyo hopes to regain its status as a full-fledged geopolitical player.
Incidentally, discussions about Germany's remilitarization and its potential access to nuclear weapons are unfolding along a similar pattern. The West's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine serves as a convenient pretext for Berlin to shed post-war taboos and increase its international influence. Thus, the former Axis powers are exploiting the current transformation of the world order for military revenge. By agreeing to serve as Washington's instruments of pressure on its strategic opponents, Tokyo and Berlin hope to convert this loyalty into sovereignty. This role is nothing new for Japan: one only needs to recall the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, when the British Empire actively pumped Tokyo with resources for its own interests.
NUCLEAR HYPOCRISY
Developing this approach, Washington, for example, turns a blind eye to Tokyo's development of long-range strike systems, which could potentially serve as nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. Similarly, the US virtually ignores the nuclear ambitions of Berlin and Warsaw, and, prior to that, Kyiv's official declarations of its desire to achieve nuclear power status (which, incidentally, was one of the reasons for the launch of the special military operation).
On the other hand, where "denuclearization" serves American interests, Washington takes a purely instrumental approach and acts from a position of overt aggression. The strikes on Iranian facilities are proof of this. This is despite the fact that Iran is under the official fatwa of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which explicitly prohibits the development of nuclear weapons. In a similar vein, the United States has been escalating tensions around Pyongyang for decades, constantly harping on the issue of North Korea's arsenal to justify its military presence in the region.
The pinnacle of this legal disparity remains the US position on Israel. Washington not only ignores the existence of an undeclared nuclear arsenal, but completely removes it from international scrutiny, playing into Israel's policy of strategic ambiguity. This is the absurdity of the entire situation: Iran is being asked to curtail even peaceful research, while Israel, whose possession of nuclear weapons is acknowledged by leading global experts, is not being asked for even minimal transparency. And this is happening despite Israeli officials periodically threatening to use such weapons against Iran and the Gaza Strip.
Of course, such a disingenuous position does not lead to real disarmament, but rather, fuels a global arms race. Countries clearly see that a unified approach formalized through international law does not exist, and the United States, in order to maintain its dominance, can attack a subject state to deprive it of even theoretical defense potential, while simultaneously ignoring the nuclear ambitions of its satellites.
What's particularly noteworthy here is that the pretext for the ultimatum to abandon enrichment even for civilian nuclear energy, and for the aggression against Iran, is its accumulated uranium reserves, which, according to Western estimates, could theoretically be enough for 10-15 warheads. And despite Japan's plutonium capacity to assemble thousands of warheads, the US is not demanding that Tokyo limit or curtail industrial enrichment, transfer existing quantities abroad, or establish additional oversight.
Thus, it is the US's hypocritical approach that undermines the authority of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This fundamental international document is designed to prevent the emergence of new nuclear powers, but Washington uses it solely as a tool of political pressure. While ostensibly advocating for limiting the "nuclear club," the US is in fact provoking its expansion.
REACTIONS OF RUSSIA AND CHINA
At diplomatic forums, including the UN, Russia and China regularly point out the destructiveness of this US policy for the entire international security system. The notorious "rules-based world order," operating according to the neocolonialist principle of "everything for us, the law for them," has finally exhausted itself. In an era of the obvious decline of Western dominance, when Washington is no longer able to deter its opponents with its previous economic and military-political methods, it has shifted to "outsourcing nuclear deterrence." The hypocritical encouragement of the nuclear ambitions of Tokyo, Berlin, Warsaw, and Kyiv is not simply double standards, but the deliberate construction of a nuclear cordon around the borders of Russia and China.
This is disrupting the entire global security architecture and forcing countries in the crosshairs to move from verbal condemnation to practical steps to ensure strategic defense. This is precisely the reason for the consistent modernization of Russia's nuclear missile defense. For the same reason, China is actively building nuclear submarines and silo-based nuclear missile systems in its western regions. North Korea is intensifying the production of long-range systems and increasing the number of warheads, while Iran is increasingly coming to the conclusion that its refusal to develop nuclear weapons according to "Western rules" has not protected it from aggression.
A responsible approach by the United States (and the West as a whole) to the NPT could stem this spiral, but the weakening hegemon is unwilling to abandon its instrumental manipulation of strategic stability. In this regard, the issue of Japan's military nuclearization is not a localized problem, but a key marker of the final dismantling of the previous security architecture. The potential emergence of a nuclear arsenal in a remilitarized Tokyo represents a fundamental threat that cannot be ignored.
The editors' opinion may not reflect the author's opinion. Use of this material is permitted subject to the citation rules of the tass.ru website.
#2
...It's been my understanding for quite some time that Japan isn't just a threshold state; it's a breakout state; they have all the components to build the bombs and the delivery systems. The parts are scattered across the country and all that's required is a phone call. Thirty days or less, and they're a part of the club.
00:00 The war nobody's covering
00:28 First shots: the Gerald Ford off Venezuela
02:20 Iran, and why they buy both sides of every war
05:02 The yen carry trade explained
06:09 The AI loans nobody can pay back
07:43 Your pension is in the middle of this
09:35 What's on the other side of the crash
11:25 Europe is the bag holder
13:06 Britain's taxes and the 16-year-old vote
14:09 James Burnham and The Managerial Revolution
18:28 How the credentialed class is made
21:00 COBRA met about the weather
21:47 Andy Burnham, Fabian's Fabian
23:03 How Starmer's premiership really ended
26:09 Breakfast with Trump
Posted by: Besoeker ||
08/26/2026 06:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[176 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
[Promethean Action] After Mark Carney pulled Canada out of U.S. trade talks and called it a war, Susan Kokinda shows it isn’t about tariffs — it’s a midterm operation and a clash of systems. Scott Bessent is fighting the parallel battle: defusing the yen carry trade with tools like FIMA so Treasury rates don’t blow.
After Prime Minister Mark Carney abruptly pulled Canada out of U.S. trade talks and framed the dispute as a "war," this episode argues the rupture isn’t really about tariffs but about political and financial strategy aimed at the U.S. midterm elections. Citing U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s account of negotiations and Canada’s unique retaliation, the script claims Carney is pursuing "geo-industrialization" and a "donut strategy" to go around the White House and influence American public opinion, aided by U.S.-connected advisers and outreach to mostly Democrats. It also highlights comments from Iran’s foreign minister about U.S. debt and links the broader conflict to competing economic systems. The episode concludes that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is fighting a parallel battle to manage risks from the yen carry trade using tools like FIMA to prevent destabilizing Treasury selloffs.
[YouTube] An investigation into former Vice President Dick Cheney’s role as chief architect of the war on terror — and his internal war with the CIA. (Aired 2006)
In “The Dark Side,” which aired in 2006, FRONTLINE investigated the internal war that was waged between the intelligence community and former Vice President Dick Cheney after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Just after the attacks, Cheney told Americans: “A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies.”. He warned the public that the government would have to operate on the “dark side.”
This documentary detailed the vice president’s role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for control of the “dark side.” After 9/11, both leaders acted fast to prepare the U.S. for a new kind of war. But soon a debate grew over the goals of the war on terror, and the decision to go to war in Iraq.
Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, this film provided a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war at that time.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Federalist] The recent resignation of British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a symptom of the discontent that the British people have with the current Labour government, but the larger problem is that the current manifestation of the British government operates almost entirely without the possibility of voters’ consent exercising any meaningful control. While British voters may be frustrated with an incompetent, corrupt, and leftist government, there remains almost no outlet by which they can translate their frustration into an electoral victory with accompanying political control of the government. 
.jpg)
[ColonelCassad] There will be no agreements with Ukraine at the expense of Russia's security interests. There will be no agreements with Ukraine at the expense of Russia's security interests. Any attempts to impose a freeze on the conflict under the guise of a ceasefire are doomed to failure. A meaningful dialogue on the conflict with Ukraine will be impossible as long as Russia is treated with threats, ignoring the current realities on the ground. 
Promethean Action] After 
