u/RandomCollection

🤔 MATH

Russia says it will supply about three million tons of diesel into global markets between now and some indeterminate time in the future.

3M tons = ~24M barrels.

The US consumes ~5M barrels each day.

So Russia has agreed to sell 5 days worth of US diesel consumption.

​

She tried to warn everyone in 2001. The men she named were powerful. What followed ruined her life.💔⚠️

Karen Mulder was one of the most famous models in the world. She worked with Versace, Dior, and Chanel, became an original Victoria’s Secret Angel, and was one of the highest paid models of her time. She was everywhere, admired, successful, and trusted inside the fashion industry.

In October 2001, Mulder appeared on a French talk show and spoke about serious wrongdoing in the modeling world, including assault, abuse, and exploitation. She directly named senior figures. The interview never aired. Reports later claimed the footage was destroyed before the public could see it.

Within hours, she disappeared from public view and was taken to a psychiatric hospital in Paris, where she stayed for months. Her mental health was questioned. Her credibility was torn apart. Her career collapsed. For years, she was portrayed as unstable and unreliable.

The men she accused kept working.

Years later, one of them, Jean-Luc Brunel, was exposed as a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Court records and testimony linked him to an international exploitation network connected to modeling agencies. Many women later accused him. He was arrested in France in 2020 and died in custody in 2022 while awaiting trial.

Another executive Mulder named, Gérald Marie, was later accused by at least fifteen women of assault and abuse. A BBC investigation had previously raised serious concerns about his behavior, yet he remained influential in fashion for years.

Karen Mulder was not protected. She was silenced.

Two decades later, the men she warned about were being investigated, exposed, or dying in jail cells. The truth did not change her fate, but it changed how her words should be remembered.

She was not crazy. She was early.

Retraction - he is still alive as of October 2026.

​

"There will be control."

President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, admits the EU's new CBDC—the digital euro—will be used to impose control.

EU citizens already face imprisonment or fines for engaging in cash transactions above €1000, but the introduction of the digital euro will facilitate financial totalitarianism on a scale that would make even George Orwell wince.

🇾🇪|Tit-for-Tat: The Logic of Yemen’s Counterattack and the Cost of Iran’s Restraint

When Saudi Arabia bombed Sanaa International Airport, Yemen bombed Riyadh’s King Khalid Airport.

When Saudi Arabia destroyed Yemen’s communications network, Yemen destroyed Saudi oil facilities.

When Saudi Arabia killed Yemeni civilians, Yemen turned Saudi airports into scenes of mass casualties.

This is the logic Yemen is executing: escalation for escalation, target for target, airport for airport, killing for killing.

This logic requires no justification; it is the only language Saudi Arabia understands.

What Yemen Did Right

Yemen did not call for a UN meeting. It did not wait for a Security Council resolution. It did not pin its hopes on "condemnation" from the international community.

Yemen struck back directly.

An Airbus belonging to Saudi Arabian Airlines was incinerated on the tarmac at Riyadh Airport. The General Authority of Civil Aviation was forced to admit to three deaths and 36 injuries and that was only what they acknowledged; they said not a word about casualties at military bases.

At Riyadh Airport, 49.7% of departing flights were cancelled, grounding approximately 300 flights. The airports in Najran and Jizan were closed for over 83 hours. Lufthansa suspended flights until October 16. Saudi Arabian Airlines itself became a target of the war.

Yemen also announced that penalties for non-compliant vessels would not be limited to the Strait of Hormuz; the entire region is now within the scope of enforcement.

A decade of Saudi bombing failed to bring Yemen to its knees. Yet, Yemeni missiles succeeded in shutting down Saudi airports.

What Did Iran’s Restraint Buy?

Iran chose a different path: precise strikes, limited scope, and open diplomatic channels. It discussed multilateralism at the CIS summit, de-dollarization within the SCO, and presented evidence at the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Diplomatically, Iran won. Militarily, Iran drew red lines but did not follow through to the very end. The result is this: the aggression by the US and Israel was not halted, merely slowed down. The war did not end; it was merely prolonged. A lasting solution has yet to emerge and the reason lies precisely here.

Restraint has its value. It spared Iran from all-out war, buying time to build land-based networks, consolidate regional alliances, and drive the US Fifth Fleet out of the Persian Gulf.

But restraint also comes at a cost. What did the enemy learn? They learned that Iran would strike back, but not without limits. They learned that Iran would negotiate, even when there was no sincerity at the table.

No Negotiating Table for Yemen

Yemen has no choice. The Saudi war on Yemen is not a mere "conflict"; it is a campaign of blockade, starvation, and bombardment. Yemen has no room for "restraint," it is a matter of fighting back or starving to death.

So, Yemen does not negotiate. Yemen fights.

Missiles from Sana'a land on runways in Riyadh. The Bab al-Mandab Strait is in Yemeni hands. Taiz is being liberated. Saudi mercenaries are surrendering.

The Saudis will eventually be forced to the negotiating table not because the international community demands it, but because their airports are burning, their oil facilities are smoking, and the bodies of their mercenaries are being hauled back by the truckload.

Conclusion

Yemen’s counterattack is not an "escalation." It is a response. It is justice.

Iran’s restraint is not "weakness." It is a strategic choice. But such a choice requires a prerequisite: an enemy willing to negotiate. Without that willingness, restraint becomes mere waiting.

Yemen does not wait. Yemen fights.

That is why Yemen is gaining recognition, while Iran’s restraint is being called into question.

Tit for tat. Airport for airport. Killing for killing.

This is not cruelty. It is a lesson learned from cruelty.

📜 All for One and One for All

Russia, China, and Iran have now formed a de facto military and economic alliance — what they prefer to call a “partnership”.

In the case of Russia and China, a comprehensive full-spectrum partnership has emerged: military, economic, and monetary.

Trade between Russia and China has exploded both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Importantly, trade settlement is overwhelmingly denominated in rubles and renminbi. Use of the dollar and its international mechanisms is being aggressively deprecated.

Russia and China now conduct regular joint naval and air patrols of the western Pacific, from Alaska to the South China Sea.

Russia, China, and Iran conduct regular joint exercises in the Arabian Sea. Those exercises have increased in both scope and frequency in recent years.

Both Russia and China are investing vast sums of capital in Iran, much of it in the energy sector and in ambitious transportation projects aiming to construct fast and efficient trade corridors linking China, Iran, and Russia as primary nodes of Eurasian commerce.

Arms and technology transfers between the three countries have reached unprecedented levels.

Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov just concluded several days of talks with Chinese leaders, including both Wang Yi and Xi Jinping. In its report of the talks, the Chinese government’s flagship media organ, Global Times, summarized (in the words of prominent CPC commentator Li Haidong) the current state of the Russia/China relationship:

"China and Russia will not target any third party, but if hegemonic forces threaten China and Russia, or threaten world peace, China and Russia will stand together and fight to protect their own interests and safeguard world peace together.”

It is increasingly evident that Russia, China, and Iran recognize that an attack against any one of them would constitute an existential threat to them all. The strategic interests of all three countries are now inextricably intertwined.

Most importantly, they are united in a single overriding strategic objective: to dismantle the dominion of the long-reigning Anglo-American empire.

Naturally, the rapidly waning global hegemon is not inclined to relinquish its throne without a fight. What form that fight takes remains to be seen. But if the empire attempts to preserve its so-called “rules-based international order” via force of arms, it is essential to understand this incontrovertible reality:

In order for the United States to make war against any ONE of Russia, China, or Iran, it would be necessary to effectively vacate every major US base on the planet in order to concentrate enough military power to undertake the mission.

In a putative war between the United States and Iran, both Russia and China would actively support Iran. I'm not suggesting Russian or Chinese forces would fight alongside Iranians — although that could happen. But it would likely not be necessary. Iran would simply be supplemented with arms and other logistical necessities from both its partners — and quite possibly taken under their nuclear umbrella in an explicit act of deterrence.

Additionally, in consequence of the US weakening its force posture in Europe and the western Pacific in a bid to militarily subdue Iran, Russia and China would be enabled to apply immense pressure to western logistics, trade, and political influence in those regions. This is not to suggest that China would invade Taiwan or Russia would invade the Baltics or Poland. They would need only to exert their dominant influence in what were previously considered to be unassailable American imperial domains in east Asia and Europe.

The empire is stretched so thin and its potential for power projection is so diluted that undertaking even one Big War would be enough to bring the entire house of cards tumbling down.

This is the harsh reality the Masters of Empire are now facing, and no amount of mythologizing about the "limitless" power at their disposal can change it.

There is a vast difference between imagined power and the actual ability to project and sustain power against the adversaries the United States military must now face and defeat in order to prevent or even meaningfully delay the end of American global hegemony.

And, to the extent Russia, China, and Iran are determined to act all for one and one for all, they represent a combination of global military and economic power that cannot be defeated.

This is in response to:

---

RTX's Raytheon wins up to $6.3 billion US missile contract

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/rtxs-raytheon-wins-up-63-billion-us-missile-contract-2026-10-08/ or https://archive.ph/WbW0n

After what the US did to Iran with Starlink, obviously that won't happen.

From the X post

https://www.eleconomista.es/economia/noticias/14020207/10/26/la-sangria-economica-de-milei-argentina-pierde-32300-empresas-y-437000-empleos-desde-su-llegada-al-poder.html or https://archive.ph/8irJO

Arnaud Bertrand a year ago wrote a brilliant article about how behind all the bombast and the bluster the US is quietly retreating in Asia. The retreat in Europe has now also begun.

It is not a question of will - the most overrated factor in politics. It is a question of resources. Quite simply US resources do not stretch far enough for the US to be strong against all its adversaries everywhere all the time.

The ones who come out worse from this process are the pathetic lickspittle vassals of the US in Europe, the most absurd of whom is Germany's ludicrous Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. In Germany they increasingly get that. Outside Germany, not so much.

This is Abdul-Khaliq al-Houthi, brother of Yemen’s Ansar Allah leader, Alsyyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi.

No palace. No luxury convoy. No visible wall of bodyguards. A military commander among his men, at the front.

Being the brother of Yemen’s top leader has not removed his burden of responsibility. It has only made it heavier.

In Sana’a, leadership is not presented as a privilege to enjoy from a distance, but a responsibility to carry on the front lines.

That is the kind of leadership many Yemenis believe is worth fighting alongside.

MBS is learning why mercantile states often lose wars. Carthage and Venice learned this the hard way.

https://x.com/BrettErickson28/status/2101284492811886796 or https://archive.ph/zopdw

>ANALYSIS: The past 24 hours has seen truly extraordinary events take place in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Ansarallah (Houthis).

>Riyadh, Jeddah, Abha, Al-Ula, Jazan, Yanbu, Khamis Mushait, Taif, and the Farasan Islands… all SMASHED by Ansarallah.

>What’s that? The capital city of Riyadh? Yup. Blasted.

>The second largest city in Jeddah? Boom.

>The critical port of Yanbu? Bang.

>What we’re seeing right now is a Saudi Arabia COMPLETELY defenseless against Ansarallah strikes. And while this is astonishing given Saudi’s military budget and equipment, it’s also remarkably DANGEROUS.

>Right now, Mohammed bin Salman, MBS, is facing a REAL threat to his control over Saudi Arabia now. Particularly in the past week, the world has watched as Ansarallah took total control over the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a key chokepoint to the Red Sea. Then, we watched as Iraqi militias (reportedly) hit the Saudi East-West Pipeline that allowed KSA to move oil from the East side of the country to the West, avoiding the Strait of Hormuz threatened by Iran.

>Now, we’re seeing Ansarallah strike EVERYTHING in Saudi Arabia at will… and MBS looks like a fool. An embarrassment. A LOSER.

>All the money in the world can’t fix that now. Sure, he could potentially throw money at Ansarallah, lift the blockade of Yemen, and stop meddling, manipulating, and torturing the sovereign country of Yemen, but that won’t fix the ENORMOUS blow to his reputation that the last week has imposed.

>No. In all likelihood, we are on the verge of a MAJOR Saudi escalation in Yemen.

>But if recent weeks are any indication, it will only lead to greater devastation to Saudi Arabia and the global energy markets already on the precipice.

Merchant states tend to believe that every conflict is trade or money related. So they think political power or safety can be bought.

They try to buy their enemies out. Some adversaries fight to win. So they see offers as weakness, demand and take more.

They treat war as a cost to be minimized and concluded swiftly. Why Trump constantly TACOs and KSA fishes for deals. They want a quick exit.

Any enemy of the merchant state understands this weakness. So they try to make it at ruinous as possible. Ideally a political shift. 

This is interesting: I stumbled upon a 1974 declassified CIA report (available here: cia.gov/readingroom/do…) on "East Asian Contested Islands" and it's pretty fascinating to see how the narrative has evolved since back then.

So, for instance, the Scarborough Shoal, which is the central flash point between China and the Philippines, and the disputed territory around which the whole 2016 arbitration case originated, wasn't even claimed by the Philippines back then, only by China.

In the CIA's words: "The Philippines have not claimed the shoal despite its proximity to Luzon. China includes Scarborough Shoal within the sweeping claims it makes for the South China Sea."

In other words the place that has come in the media to define China's supposed encroachment on the Philippines' territory was, back in 1974, considered by the CIA to be solely a Chinese claim, full stop, with the Philippines nowhere in the picture.

In fact, the Philippines only started to publicly claim the Scarborough Shoal as part of their territory over two decades later in 1997 when their navy intercepted a China-sponsored amateur radio expedition on the shoal and later arrested 21 Chinese fishermen, the first ever confrontation between the two countries over it. Philippine congressmen Roque Ablan and Jose Yap planted a Filipino flag on one of its rocks that year (irasec.com/IMG/UserFiles/…).

As late as 1990, the Philippines' ambassador to Germany, Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr., wrote in a letter that “according to the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Scarborough Reef or Huangyan Dao does not fall within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines." (globalnation.inquirer.net/314299/fwd-dfa…)

Which raises an obvious question: if a place was exclusively claimed by one country for decades, and the other country only started publicly claiming it in 1997, who is really encroaching upon whose territory? 🤔

​

Liger

@EdbieLigerSmith

This is insane.

This guy escaped Ukraine by hiking through the woods for days to avoid being drafted.

When he finally made it out of the country, he celebrated by calling his disabled father, who had been declared fit for military service & drafted by the Zelensky regime.

Something tells me his story won’t be reported on in Western media.

---

@JnglJourney

Jungle Journey

@JnglJourney

·

Sep 28

He documented his escape from Zelensky's manhunters in Ukraine

American media does not cover the world.

It covers the world's relationship to America.

There is a difference, and the difference is everything.

When a country's political situation is covered through the framework of what it means for American interests, American elections, American strategic positioning, the people living in that country become supporting characters in someone else's story.

Their elections are covered as tests of American influence.

Their economies are covered as variables in American trade policy.

Their conflicts are covered in terms of which side America supports and why.

The internal logic of their political lives, the history, the grievances, the class dynamics, the colonial inheritances, is either compressed into a paragraph of background or omitted entirely.

This is not deliberate distortion in most cases.

It is structural.

American journalists were trained in American institutions with American assumptions about what constitutes a story and who the relevant actors are.

They produce journalism that reflects those assumptions.

That journalism circulates globally, because American outlets have the distribution infrastructure that most national outlets cannot match.

So the world gets covered through an American lens, at American scale, with American categories determining what is a "crisis" and what is "normal," who is a "leader" and who is a "militant," what is "democracy" and what is "instability."

And local journalists, who want international reach, learn to write in that framework.

The lens is not neutral.

The lens exported globally is not neutral.

And a world that sees itself through someone else's eyes eventually starts to lose its own.

Great post. It was hoped in the Beltway that declaring Cold War II against China would galvanize national unity and spur American rejuvenation. It failed. Despite the bipartisan consensus on making America the Big Bad, the people of America are not buying it.

Turns out, the American ppl don’t even care about global hegemony.

They only cared about the first Cold War because the battleground of the war turned hot would have been the Old Country for a lot of them. In contrast most Americans can’t put Taiwan on the map.

The other reason was the Soviet Union was waging ideological war on the US way of life. There was a reason to fear that if communism prevailed somehow that would infect the world and eventually change the system in America. But after Mao China no longer exported its ideology.

Sometimes it feels like on Twitter that Americans would rather risk death than give up hegemony. But we have to remember that this is a very beltway-brained community. In the real America, ppl don’t really care.

​

🇺🇸🇺🇦 U.S. analysts fear Ukraine may turn back toward Russia after the war.

Americans warn that post-war disappointment with the West is likely, as EU and NATO membership remain uncertain due to corruption, democratic deficits, and disputes with Poland and Hungary.