This week has marked another grim milestone in the nearly four-year long Russia-Ukraine war. The conflict has just entered its 1,419th day – which means it has officially surpassed the entirety of the historic Soviet campaign against invading Nazi Germany, which lasted 1,418 days from June 1941 to May 1945.

Red Army forces eventually drove Nazi troops back from the Volga River all the way to Berlin, before seizing the German capital. But in today’s war, the 1,419th day is just another in a long one in a tragic and grinding war of attrition, where it is believed each side has lost literally hundreds of thousands.

Source: Cover art from The History of Russia Ukraine War: How Putin & Zelensky reached this stage

Russia definitely has the upper hand and momentum on the battlefield, but it’s been a slow and deadly slog, with The Times of London reporting Monday that despite prolonged combat, Russian advances in the Donetsk region amount to roughly 30 miles from their original positions.

Ukraine’s armed forces have in large part been propped up by many billions in weapons, training, and funds poured in by NATO and Western backers of Zelensky.

A recent study by the BBC’s Russian service and Mediazona – both largely anti-Putin outfits, found that at least 160,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, but the true figure may be significantly higher. It could also be lower, as Western sources have incentive to exaggerate for propaganda purposes (just as Russia would have incentive to underestimate).

At the same time, most international reports and war monitors say Ukraine’s casualties could be many times that figure. On both sides, a whole generation of young men is being wiped out.

Efforts to achieve peace by the Trump administration have so far failed, but at least the lines of communications are still open between Washington and Moscow. 

Ukrainian officials have warned that Russian troops are preparing renewed offensives in the north, including areas near the city of Sumy, at a moment the conflict is still only at the legal level of ‘special military operation’ in the Kremlin’s eyes, and not a full state of war which could require societal mobilization.

Over in Ukraine, the war has created the single biggest army in Europe, as recent analysis in The Wall Street Journal detailed: 

When the war with Russia eventually ends, Ukraine will be left with a military larger and with more recent experience than any of its European backers’.

Whether it can outlast Russia’s long-term designs in the event of any peace deal is a question for the entire continent, which now sees Ukraine as a bulwark against Moscow’s ambitions. 

Finding the money and personnel to maintain 800,000 troops and piles of equipment while devising new capabilities will be among the Ukrainian government’s hardest tasks in the immediate aftermath of the war. European Union leaders recently said they would lend Ukraine 90 billion euros, around $105 billion, fending off a looming cash crunch in Kyiv and helping the Ukrainian army keep fighting as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky compete for President Trump’s ear.

Western leaders have meanwhile constantly reiterated their support for Ukraine while accusing Moscow of dragging out the conflict, and yet few have still recognized that Russia is genuine and legitimate in saying constant NATO expansion has led to this.

Trump has at times hinted he understands Moscow’s grievances, but has still seemed to escalate behind the scenes, such as authorizing US intelligence assistance to Ukrainian drone attacks deep inside Russian territory.

Authored by Justin Pak via The Mises Institute,

Money is often described as neutral, technical, or merely instrumental—a passive medium facilitating exchange within an otherwise political society. This view is not only mistaken; it is profoundly misleading. Money is the hidden constitution of every political order. It determines which actions are possible, which institutions survive, which risks are rewarded, and which failures are forgiven. While constitutions proclaim rights and legislatures debate policy, money silently governs outcomes.

For this reason, the structure of a monetary system is never merely economic. It is moral, political, and civilizational.

From the perspective of Austrian and heterodox political economy, the modern fiat monetary system represents not a refinement of earlier monetary forms but a radical departure from them—one whose defining feature is the removal of constraint. Historically, money emerged as a market phenomenon rather than a state creation. Carl Menger demonstrated that money arises organically as the most saleable commodity within an economy, a process driven by voluntary exchange rather than decree. Ludwig von Mises later formalized this insight through the regression theorem, showing that money must originate in a good valued for its non-monetary uses in order to acquire exchange value at all. Gold and silver did not become money because states declared them so; states declared them money because markets already had.

Fiat money reverses this logic. It does not arise from scarcity or market selection but from legal privilege. Its acceptance depends not on earned trust but on enforcement through legal tender laws, taxation, and institutional inertia. What presents itself as sovereign currency is, in practice, state credit circulating as money. This distinction is not semantic. It marks the difference between a system disciplined by external reality and one governed by discretion.

That discretion is concentrated in the institution of central banking. Central banks are often portrayed as neutral guardians of stability, technocratic referees standing above politics. In reality, they function as cartel managers for the financial system, coordinating outcomes that could not survive under competitive conditions. By suppressing interest rates, guaranteeing liquidity, and acting as lenders of last resort, central banks shield privileged institutions from failure while preserving the appearance of market order. Failure is not abolished; it is postponed. And because it is postponed, it accumulates, growing larger and more destructive with each cycle.

This structure produces an inversion of capitalist discipline. In genuine markets, profit and loss serve as signals, rewarding foresight and penalizing error. Under central banking, profits remain private during credit-fueled expansions, while losses are declared systemic during contractions and transferred to the public through bailouts, inflation, and monetary debasement. Risk-taking is rewarded precisely because it is underwritten; prudence is punished through negative real interest rates and competitive disadvantage. Institutions that restrain leverage are displaced by those that exploit it. What remains is not capitalism but state-protected finance, sustained by political necessity rather than economic viability.

The manipulation of interest rates lies at the heart of this transformation. In classical theory, interest rates coordinate time preferences across society, balancing present consumption against future uncertainty. They are prices, emerging from the interaction of savers and borrowers. In modern fiat systems, interest rates are no longer prices at all. They are policy signals, imposed to achieve macroeconomic targets defined by central planners. This substitution of administrative judgment for market coordination creates a profound monetary hierarchy.

Those closest to the source of money creation enjoy the lowest borrowing costs. Sovereign governments finance deficits cheaply, substituting monetary expansion for taxation. Large banks access central liquidity directly. Major corporations issue debt at compressed spreads, insulated from true risk. As one moves farther from the issuance point, costs rise. Small businesses face higher rates and tighter conditions. Households absorb inflation and credit costs simultaneously. Peripheral nations borrow in foreign currencies, exposed to exchange risk they cannot control. Proximity to money creation becomes a determinant of survival. Access replaces productivity as the primary economic advantage.

Because money enters the economy unevenly, monetary expansion always entails political choice. There is no neutral increase in the money supply. Every expansion selects beneficiaries. The era of quantitative easing made this impossible to deny. Liquidity flowed overwhelmingly into financial assets—equities, bonds, and real estate—while wages lagged and productive investment stagnated. This outcome was publicly justified as a “wealth effect,” the belief that rising asset prices would stimulate broader economic activity. In practice, it functioned as asset patronage, enriching those who already owned capital while widening the gap between financial wealth and earned income.

The productive economy increasingly gave way to financial engineering. Growth appeared robust on balance sheets even as real capacity hollowed out. The illusion of prosperity was sustained by rising asset prices rather than rising productivity. What was described as stabilization was, in reality, a redistribution of claims on future output toward those nearest the monetary spigot.

Creation, however, is only one side of the monetary cycle. Fiat systems must also retrieve money, and they do so through inflation, interest, and dependency. Inflation silently erodes savings, punishing deferred consumption and rewarding leverage. Interest extracts future labor, binding individuals to obligations denominated in a currency whose purchasing power is systematically diluted. Debt concentrates ownership, converting missed payments into asset transfers and accelerating consolidation during downturns. Citizens are increasingly compelled to borrow not to expand opportunity but to survive—to obtain housing, education, healthcare, or even the means to start a business. Debt becomes a mechanism of behavioral control. Default becomes a tool of dispossession.

This system depends on opacity for its survival. Modern monetary regimes are deliberately complex. Emergency facilities are disclosed after the fact. Beneficiaries are obscured. Balance sheets are framed as technical artifacts rather than political instruments. Language is abstracted to discourage scrutiny. Inflation becomes “accommodation.” Bailouts become “liquidity support.” As Murray Rothbard observed, complexity functions as camouflage. A system that cannot withstand transparency relies on obscurity to preserve legitimacy.

The corruption of fiat money does not end at national borders; dollar hegemony globalizes it. Because the US dollar functions as the world’s reserve currency, Federal Reserve policy becomes global monetary policy by default. Foreign states must hold dollars to stabilize trade, borrow in dollars to access capital, and absorb the consequences of US monetary decisions over which they have no control. When the Fed eases, capital floods into emerging markets, inflating bubbles and encouraging dollar-denominated debt. When the Fed tightens, currencies collapse, debts become unpayable, and crises erupt. What appears as domestic stabilization at the center manifests as devastation at the periphery.

This arrangement constitutes a form of seigniorage imperialism. The issuing state acquires real goods, labor, and assets in exchange for liabilities it can expand at will. The costs are exported through exchange-rate volatility, debt crises, and externally imposed austerity. Fiat corruption thus scales globally, transforming monetary dominance into an instrument of geopolitical power.

History offers abundant confirmation. From the credit expansion of the 1920s and the deepening of the Great Depression through intervention, to the abandonment of gold convertibility in 1971 and the explosion of debt that followed, to the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath of bailouts and consolidation, the pattern repeats. Each crisis is framed as exceptional. Each intervention becomes precedent. Each rescue increases fragility. The pandemic-era monetary expansion merely accelerated a trajectory already in motion, normalizing levels of creation once reserved for war.

From a Rothbardian perspective, such a system cannot be reformed. Monopoly over money inevitably produces abuse, not because individuals are uniquely corrupt, but because unchecked discretion always is. The problem is not mismanagement; it is structural. Fiat money—insulated from competition and constraint—transforms money from a medium of exchange into an instrument of hierarchy.

A free society cannot rest on a monetary foundation that requires ignorance to function. Constraint is not the enemy of prosperity; it is its precondition. Without it, prices lie, capital misallocates, and responsibility dissolves. Fiat money does not merely finance power. It becomes power. And when money itself is corrupted, everything built upon it follows.

The ultimate question, then, is not how to manage fiat money more skillfully, but whether liberty can coexist with a monetary order insulated from consent, competition, and consequence. History suggests it cannot.

There are reports that during the Trump-ordered military raid on Venezuela to oust and capture President Nicolás Maduro, at least one US helicopter was hit by surface fire or possibly small missile, but the chopper managed to keep flying – with the pilot wounded – and the damaged aircraft made it back from the mission safely.

But this raised the question: what happened to Venezuela’s Russian-supplied anti-air defenses, including S-300 and Buk-M2 surface-to-air missile systems purchased in 2009?

While at this point it is well understood that the US military and CIA had help from inside the Venezuelan government – making it essentially a US-backed coup topped off with a special forces nab and grab against Maduro and his wife, there’s still the question of whether the entire Venezuelan armed forces were ordered to stand down, or else that their defense systems simply didn’t work or were inactive.

S-300VM system, file image

The New York Times says it was actually more the latter scenario – Russian-built air defense systems stationed in Venezuela were mostly inoperable and did not react to the major initial US strikes which paved the way for the ground operation in Caracas.

When American military aircraft entered Venezuelan airspace on Jan. 3, the missile systems were not even linked to radar, according to US officials privy to the mission to The New York Times.

The publication further explained the systems were not integrated with one another and may have actually been unusable for several years. Satellite imagery and photographs further suggest that critical elements of the air defense systems were being kept in storage rather than deployed.

Interestingly the Ukraine war has played a role, after early in the conflict US defense officials said they would support and supply the Zelensky government in order to ‘weaken’ Russia by bogging it down in a proxy war.

US officials explained to the Times that Venezuela (and presumably other Russian defense allies) has faced ongoing difficulties maintaining its Russian-made air defenses because of limited access to Russian technicians and spare parts – all of which have had to be diverted to support Russia’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine.

Much of the initial US strikes appeared to focus on areas where Buk missile systems had been positioned or stored, and locations close to the capital.

“The Venezuelan armed forces were practically unprepared for the U.S. attack,” Yaser Trujillo, a military analyst in Venezuela, told The New York Times.

“Their troops were not dispersed, the detection radar was not activated, deployed or operational. It was a chain of errors that allowed the United States to operate with ease, facing a very low threat from the Venezuelan air defense system,” Trujillo added.

And a separate source concludes: 

Venezuela’s much-touted antiaircraft systems were essentially not connected when U.S. forces entered the skies over Venezuela’s capital, and they may not have been working for years, former officials and analysts said.

“After years of corruption, poor logistics and sanctions, all those things would have certainly degraded the readiness of Venezuela’s air defense systems,” said Richard de la Torre, a former C.I.A. station chief in Venezuela who now runs Tower Strategy, a Washington-based lobbying firm.

The below OSINT account predicted this outcome back in mid-November:

For some context to those who haven’t been following for a while.
This is Venezuelas S-300 system and its storage at Captain Manuel Rios airbase in Guarico.
The missiles for the unit are stored just 100m away from the vehicles in a hangar.#Venezuela https://t.co/ka06CDPnVt pic.twitter.com/PqlCOZurqS

— CNW (@ConflictsW) November 15, 2025

The report throws open another interesting possibility, with two former US officials stating their view that Moscow may have permitted the systems it sold to Venezuela to fall into disrepair in order to avoid escalating tensions with Washington.

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Melissa Martin, a veteran Texas educator with some 30 years of experience, was thrilled when the state passed a law in 2025 that required the state’s 9,000 public schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Lorne Liechty poses with a copy of the Ten Commandments in Rockwall, Texas, on Jan. 8, 2026. Bobby Sanchez for The Epoch Times

For Martin, it was a bright spot—a swing back toward classical education rooted in Western civilization in an otherwise liberal teaching environment.

Her excitement quickly turned to disappointment at the Houston-based public charter school in which she works.

“I was real surprised when they didn’t jump at putting the Ten Commandments up,” she told The Epoch Times.

​Texas’ Senate Bill 10 has sparked the nation’s largest state-led effort to put the Ten Commandments into schools—and it is facing concerted legal challenges. A hearing on the constitutionality of the new law is scheduled before the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this month.

The Ten Commandments, fundamental to both Judaism and Christianity, are credited with influencing Western values and are the basis for laws against killing, theft, adultery, and perjury.

Martin believes public schools have ignored the significance of foundational works such as the Ten Commandments and their role in preserving “our democratic Republic for future generations.”

She said she is retiring this month, fed up in general with a public education system that she feels has failed students.

As a board member of Innovative Teachers of Texas, an alternative to liberal teacher unions, Martin hopes to spend her time establishing a Christian classical school.

Christopher Rhoades, a minister and math teacher in the Alvin Independent School District south of Houston, told The Epoch Times he believes the law is a positive change but worries it could open Pandora’s box.

“I mean, it definitely returns us to a point of values,” he said. “You know, my concern is always with whatever precedent is set. What does it open the door to that I wouldn’t like if someone else was in power?”

Melissa Martin, a veteran educator and board member of Innovative Teachers of Texas, supports displaying the Ten Commandments in classrooms, citing their influence on Western civilization. Courtesy of Jessica Tucker

The law says public schools “shall display” a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments in a conspicuous place in each classroom. Schools must accept donated posters that meet the law’s specifications but aren’t required to purchase them.

Critics of the law argue that requiring the Ten Commandments to be hung in every classroom violates the separation of church and state and offers little educational value.

Teacher Rachael Preston testified against the bill in Austin last spring.

“I’m curious about how displaying the Ten Commandments … is relevant enough to the teaching of mathematics to be displayed in a math room,” she told state lawmakers.

Sarah Morrison, who taught in public school for 15 years before becoming a math instructor at Paris Junior College, told The Epoch Times via text that she believes the law is unconstitutional.

“As both a Christian and an educator, I believe that requiring the Ten Commandments goes against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and treats Christian faith as the state’s preferred religion instead of recognizing the diversity I see in my classroom every day,” she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Texas chapter quickly challenged the law by filing two lawsuits. Two federal district judges blocked the 25 school districts named in the lawsuits from displaying the posters.

The civil rights organizations filed a third lawsuit in December 2025. This time, the federal class-action lawsuit names another 16 districts and seeks to block all Texas school districts from displaying the Ten Commandments.

Sarah Morrison, math instructor at Paris Junior College in Texas, said she believes the law requiring the Ten Commandments to be hung in every classroom is unconstitutional. Courtesy of Skyler Wilkins

Legal observers believe the issue will likely end up before the Supreme Court.

A case related to a similar Louisiana law and one of the Texas cases are scheduled to be heard by the full Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 20, according to the ACLU.

Wider Efforts

The Texas law is part of a larger state effort that has focused on putting God back into schools—a move grassroots conservatives in the red state applaud.

Texas passed a law in 2021 requiring public schools to display the national motto, “In God We Trust.” In late 2024, the Texas State Board of Education approved the “Bluebonnet Learning” curriculum, which integrates Bible stories and Christian values into K-5 language arts lessons.

In the town of Rockwall, just east of Dallas, attorney Lorne Liechty and his family purchased Ten Commandments posters for their local school district, which serves some 19,000 students. The posters were hung in classrooms before the ACLU filed its lawsuit; they now sit in storage as the issue winds its way through the courts.

Liechty, who had two children attend Rockwall schools, said that besides being good rules to live by, the Ten Commandments are foundational to America and its history.

Liechty, also a Rockwall County Commissioner, said prayer was allowed in school until the early 1960s; and he vividly recalls when his third-grade teacher told him it was outlawed.

“The Ten Commandments, Bible verses, and prayer were taken out of the schools,” he told The Epoch Times. “So I had a chance to try and restore them. I wanted to do that.”

Lawsuits Either Way

The Ten Commandments controversy has left some Texas schools in a quandary.

School districts outside Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio were named in the lawsuits and have been forced to remove Ten Commandments posters.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued school districts in Galveston, Leander, and Round Rock for failing to display donated posters.

“America is a Christian nation, and it is imperative that we display the very values and timeless truths that have historically guided the success of our country,” Paxton said in a news release.

North of Houston, Shepherd Independent School District, which serves about 2,000 students, didn’t need an extra push to post the Ten Commandments.

Rebecca Nix, an administrator with Shepherd schools and a former teacher, said the posters have sparked classroom discussions.

“It’s been good fodder for conversation in some of the high school English classes,” she told The Epoch Times.

Read the rest here…