A senior Western official told Financial Times reporters that new intelligence indicates Moscow is preparing to ship a batch of kamikaze drones to Iran as part of a broader support package, with the US-Iran conflict nearing the one-month mark.

When asked about the drone shipment, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told FT reporters, “There are a lot of fakes going around right now. One thing is true: we are continuing our dialogue with the Iranian leadership.”

One thing is certain: Iranian forces have launched what reports estimate to be as many as 3,000 drones at US air bases, energy infrastructure, tankers, and neighboring Gulf states that coordinate with US and allied forces.

FT’s report suggests that Iran may need additional drone supplies after an overnight update from Operation Epic Fury, US Central Command Chief Admiral Brad Cooper said Wednesday that US forces had struck their 10,000th target.

“Together, we have struck thousands more, clearly demonstrating that we’re stronger together,” Cooper said.

Cooper said US forces have severely degraded Iran’s missile capabilities and heavily bombarded its missile, drone, and naval production sites. He added that Iran’s drone and missile launch rates have collapsed by 90%, and that two-thirds of its military-industrial base has been destroyed or heavily damaged.

Another Western security official told FT that the type of Russian drones in this month’s upcoming shipment has yet to be determined. The official said Moscow would likely deliver Geran-2 drones, which are basically copycats of the Iranian-designed Shahed-136.

Geran-2 drones 

Antonio Giustozzi, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said of the Iranians, “They don’t need more drones. They need better drones. They are after the more advanced capabilities.”

Nicole Grajewski, a professor at Sciences Po University in Paris who focuses on Russia and Iran, noted, “The Russians dramatically improved the Shaheds, including modifications to the engines, navigation, and anti-jamming capabilities. So these systems are already more advanced than the ones Iran was producing domestically.”

Grajewski warned that any new batch of Russian-made drones shipped to Iran could significantly improve the effectiveness of Iranian drone strikes.

Recall that our supply chain report on a crashed Iranian drone found a Russian guidance chip with Western parts in the early days of the conflict. Also, China appears to be making low-cost kamikaze drones for the war (read the report). 

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

This morning I warned (again) this wasn’t a normal market in private credit. It was a liquidity event. And today it’s becoming something else too.

According to the Financial Times, the SEC is now questioning whether Egan-Jones, a small but deeply embedded credit rating agency in private credit, can “consistently produce credit ratings with integrity.” That’s not a routine inquiry. That’s the regulator openly wondering whether one of the key cogs in the machine was ever doing its job properly in the first place. Think S&P during The Big Short…

And the timing is almost too perfect.

Because just as gates go up, withdrawals get capped, and investors start asking for their money back, the conversation is shifting from “everything is fine” to “who signed off on this?”

That shift matters just as much as the redemptions.

For years, private credit sold stability. It worked because nobody had to test it. As long as money kept coming in and nobody needed to get out all at once, the system held together. You know, kinda like Madoff.

Now people are trying to get out, and suddenly the inputs behind those reassuring return streams — the marks, the models, the ratings — don’t look quite as solid. So naturally, we arrive at the part of the cycle where everyone starts looking around the room for someone else to blame.

Egan-Jones is an easy place to start. For years, it has faced recurring regulatory scrutiny, primarily from the U.S. SEC, over conflicts of interest, disclosure practices, and internal controls tied to its business model. The most significant action came in 2012, when the SEC charged the firm with misrepresenting its expertise in rating asset-backed securities, resulting in fines and a temporary suspension from rating certain structured products. Ongoing concerns have centered on compliance systems, documentation, and transparency, highlighting tensions between its independent approach and NRSRO regulatory standards.

A small shop with a big footprint, issuing thousands of ratings on private loans that insurers rely on for capital treatment. If those ratings are even slightly generous, or just structurally flawed, then the implications stretch far beyond one firm. It raises the uncomfortable possibility that risk across the system wasn’t just misunderstood, but conveniently packaged to look safer than it was. Again, the analogues to the housing crisis are easy to identify.

And this idea takes hold, it doesn’t stay contained. Managers distance themselves. Investors get louder. Regulators, even reluctant ones, start asking questions they would have preferred not to ask.

Which makes this even more interesting, because this SEC has hardly been spoiling for a fight. In fact, just yesterday news broke that the acting head of enforcement, effectively the agency’s top cop, is stepping down after reportedly pushing for more aggressive action than leadership wanted.

So if this group is starting to publicly question the integrity of ratings in private credit, it’s probably not because they woke up feeling ambitious. It’s because the pressure is getting hard to ignore.

That’s how these things usually go. Not with a bang, but with a slow, reluctant acknowledgment that something underneath the surface isn’t right. Kicking the can down the road continues literally as long as it’s humanly possible.

And now private credit is still a liquidity event, but it’s evolving into a credibility event at the same time. As the blame starts getting handed out, don’t be surprised if a few more “previously respected” pillars of the private credit boom suddenly look a lot less sturdy. The blame game is just getting started and there could be plenty more of it to go around in coming weeks.

Tracking the private credit meltdown:

March 24, 2026 – SEC questions Egan-Jones’ ratings in private credit
March 24, 2026 – Ares restricts withdrawals on its Strategic Income Fund after redemption requests hit 11.6%
March 23, 2026 – Apollo caps withdrawals on its $25 billion Apollo Debt Solutions vehicle after redemptions hit 11%
March 19, 2026 – Stone Ridge’s Alternative Lending Risk Premium Fund gates redemptions after overwhelming redemption requests
March 16, 2026 – Apollo co-president says that “all” marks in parts of the private markets industry are “wrong”
March 11, 2026 – Morgan Stanley and Cliffwater cap redemptions in $8 billion, and $33 billion funds, respectively
March 6, 2026 – BlackRock begins limiting withdrawals from its $26 billion HPS Corporate Lending Fund
March 3, 2026 – Blackstone faces “record” redemptions from its flagship private credit vehicle, investors sought to redeem 7.9% of fund’s $82B in assets
February 19, 2026 – Blue Owl restricts redemptions from its retail private credit fund
January 26, 2026 – Blackrock takes 19% markdowns on TCP Capital Corp.
December 17, 2025 – Blue Owl walks away from $10 billion data center deal for Oracle
October 15, 2025 – QTR warns private credit is one of 10 areas of the market that I would avoid heading into 2026

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

With the Ukraine war now marching into its fifth year, and with the next weather-driven “fighting season” underway, a frustrated Ukrainian President Volydymyr Zelensky says the Trump administration is pressuring him to give up the Donbas region in exchange for US security guarantees. He also claims that Russia is offering to stop providing intelligence to Iran if the United States stops giving intel to Ukraine. 

Last week, we reported that trilateral talks about the Ukraine war had been suspended, thanks to the United States now having to focus on executing Trump’s war on Iran with Israel. However, in an interview with Reuters, Zelensky said that Trump is now pressuring Ukraine to cave on its biggest demand just to wipe the war off his to-do list. In his 2024 campaign, Trump told voters that he’d have the war settled “before I even arrive at the Oval Office.” 

“The Middle East definitely has an impact on President Trump, and I think on his next steps. President Trump, unfortunately, in my opinion, still chooses a strategy to put more pressure on the Ukrainian side,” he told Reuters. The principal thrust of that pressure: Ukraine giving up on its demand that the eastern Donbas region be returned to Ukraine, in exchange for US security guarantees for what’s left of the Ukraine after the shooting stops. Comprising the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the great majority of the Donbas is already under Russian military control. 

In addition to all of Luhansk and most of Donetsk, the Russian army has secured most of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts that lie to Donbas’ southwest

“The Americans are prepared to finalize these guarantees at a high level once Ukraine is ready to withdraw from Donbas,” Zelensky said, adding that such a move would leave Ukraine and Europe vulnerable to Russian aggression, because ceding Donbas would also cede key defensive terrain.   

Zelensky also bemoaned what he says is an insufficient supply of interceptor missiles for Patriot air defense systems. “We were not stopped from deliveries. I’m very grateful to President Trump, and to his team, but this supply of Patriot missiles is not as large as we need.” That gripe comes as both US and Israeli interceptor missile supplies are being rapidly diminished in responding to wave after wave of Iranian attacks — weeks after White House boasts that Tehran’s ballistic missile capability had been “functionally destroyed.” Meanwhile, Ukraine has apparently come up with an alternative air defense tactic straight out of a video game: 

🇺🇦 #Ukraine: Wild footage shows a Ukrainian soldier flying aboard a Yak-52 aircraft, shooting down an incoming Russian Shahed drone with his rifle.

The footage was taken last month, and the location is described as “somewhere in the south,” possibly in Kherson or Zaporizhzhia. pic.twitter.com/uliweMjomj

— POPULAR FRONT (@PopularFront_) March 25, 2026

Zelensky also claimed that his military intelligence had acquired “irrefutable” evidence that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran, as the country continues to defend itself in the war launched by Israel and the United States on Feb. 28. What’s more, he claimed Putin is using that as a bargaining chip to persuade Trump to acknowledge Russian sovereignty over Donbas: 

“I have reports from our intelligence services showing that Russia is doing this and saying: ‘I will not pass on intelligence to Iran if America stops passing intelligence to Ukraine.’ Isn’t that blackmail? Absolutely.” 

This latest stirring of the pot by Zelensky comes on the heels of Russia launching the largest 24-hour aerial attack since the Feb 2022 Russian invasion. Counting both drones and cruise missiles, 979 warheads poured into Ukrainian airspace, with about half of them coming in a very rare broad-daylight blitz on Tuesday.  

While we can’t verify its authenticity, this video seemingly shows that Trump isn’t the only one who’s unenthusiastic about Zelensky’s pipe dream of retaking the Donbas: 

Civilians resist to the military dictatorship in Ukraine.

A man gave a draft officer a ride on the hood of his car, showing him that forcing people to war is wrong.

Zelenskyy made a promotional video for GTA 6 about Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/TseVnR4XPo

— Diana Panchenko 🇺🇦 (@Panchenko_X) March 25, 2026

Authored by Chris Morrison via DailySceptic.org,

The climate science world (‘settled’ division) is in shock following the discovery in ancient ice cores that levels of carbon dioxide remained stable as the world plunged into an ice age around 2.7 million years ago. Levels of CO2 at around 250 parts per million (ppm) were said to be lower than often assumed with just a 20 ppm movement recorded for the following near three million-year period. In addition, no changes in methane levels were seen in the entire period. Massive decreases in temperature with occasional interglacial rises appear to have occurred without troubling ‘greenhouse’ gas levels, and this revelation has caused near panic in activist circles.

The assumed level three million years ago of CO2 was around 400 ppm, a convenient mark that has been used to explain the subsequent ice age and a drop to 250 ppm. Due to the recently published paper, this explanation has become more problematic and natural climate variation is correctly noted to have occurred with the temperature changes. Alas, similar explanations are mostly ignored in discussing today’s climate changes in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Some cling desperately to a dominant CO2 role, including one of the authors of the findings published in Nature. The co-author states that the results suggest even greater climate sensitivity to the warming effect of CO2. In short, there is a great deal of applying the laws of physics and chemistry to one era, but failing to extend the same courtesy to another.

The title of the paper, produced by 17 America-based scientists, was enough to set alarm bells ringing in the ‘settled’ science, Net Zero-obsessed community: ‘Broadly stable atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels over the past three million years.’ A related paper examining ocean heat content derived from the ice core record was also published. Carrie Lear, Professor of Past Climates and Earth System Changes at Cardiff University, claimed that the papers “don’t rewrite the role of CO2, they underline how sensitive the climate system is… that is why today’s rapid  CO2 rise is so alarming”.

Ah, yes. Even if CO2 movements are minimal, probably within a margin of potential error, they are still responsible for large variations in temperature. The laws of climate science are ‘settled’ – if the trace atmospheric gas CO2 is rising, falling or generally stable, it is almost wholly responsible for large movements in global temperature. Under this rather shaky assumption, humans must stop burning hydrocarbons and return to a neo-Malthusian pre-industrial age.

Study lead author Julia Marks-Peterson noted: “We definitely were a bit surprised. If correct, the findings may suggest that even small changes in greenhouse gas levels could trigger major shifts in climate.” That’s a little bit of a scary thought, she added, possibly with an eye on future grant funding. “May suggest” is doing a lot of the work here, and it may also be suggested that more plausible opinions are available.

Quoted in New Scientist magazine, Tim Naish, Professor of Earth Science at Victoria University in New Zealand, said it was “way too early to thrown the baby out with the bathwater”. Perish the thought that baby should be given its marching orders, ending a science-lite 40-year demonisation of CO2 and related promotion of a hard-Left Net Zero dream.

The latest Nature-published research gives a snapshot from ancient Antarctica ‘blue’ ice drilled in the Allan Hills area. It looks back further in time past the usual 800,000 ice core records. The key finding is that over the last three million years, when sea levels fell and ice periods intensified, the level of the main ‘greenhouse’ gases remained remarkably stable. For the first time, the work has pushed the direct gas measurements back into the late Pliocene era. Over the last three million years moving into the Pleistocene, global temperatures showed a long-term cooling trend of several degrees Celsius, interrupted by increasingly large interglacial oscillations. Interglacial temperature swings, as in the current Holocene, often see temperatures rise by 5°C and more.

Critics seeking to downplay ice core evidence often suggest it is too imprecise to provide a wholly accurate record of gas levels and temperature. But it is accurate enough to give a broad cyclical insight. It remains the source of some of the best data we have on the past climate. It is undoubtedly more accurate than most proxy evidence from millions of years ago. But whatever the evidence used, it is hard to detect any obvious and continuous link between CO2 and temperature across the entire geological record going back 600 million years to the start of abundant life on Earth. Certainly none to justify the political notion that humans control the climate thermostat by burning hydrocarbons.

In fact the evidence is so slim that Les Hatton, Emeritus Professor in Computer Science at Kingston University, was recently able to determine from ice core records that 100-year rises of 1.1°C in the current interglacial, which started 20,000 years ago, have occurred in one in six centuries. Going back 150,000 years, the frequency was around one in six to one in 20 centuries. None of these findings suggest that current warming is either unusual or primarily caused by human activity. Needless to say, none of these findings trouble the headline writers in narrative-addicted mainstream media.

Hungary is moving to choke off gas flows to Ukraine, escalating an energy standoff after Kiev halted Russian oil transit via the Druzhba pipeline.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban in a fresh social media video address reiterated that Ukraine has blocked the Soviet-era route for a month, and he newly warned: “As long as Ukraine does not provide oil, it will not receive gas from Hungary,” according to a translation.

via Reuters

Orban added that diverted supplies will be stockpiled domestically, filling up the country’s own reserves, arguing the move is justified as Ukraine “is also attacking the southern gas pipeline that supplies Hungary,” referring to the TurkStream corridor.

Framing the dispute as an energy security battle, Orban declared: “We will defend Hungary’s energy security, the protected petrol price, and the reduced gas prices” – adding Hungary has so far “successfully defend against Ukrainian blackmail.”

Orbán further called the Russian oil stoppage “Ukrainian blackmail”. According to more from The Associated Press:

There was no immediate comment from Kyiv and a Hungarian government spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press.

Ukraine imports a major portion of its gas needs through Hungary, amounting to around 45% of all gas imports last year, according to Ukrainian energy consultancy EXPRO. That number dropped to 38% by January.

This comes amid inter-EU turmoil and growing Brussels distrust of and anger toward Budapest:

The EU is limiting the flow of confidential material to Hungary and leaders are meeting in smaller groups — as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned of long-standing suspicions Viktor Orbán’s government is sharing information with Russia.

But there will not be any formal EU response to a fresh set of allegations because of the possible impact on the Hungarian election on April 12, according to five European diplomats and officials who told POLITICO they were concerned about the risk of Budapest leaking sensitive information to the Kremlin.

Last week Orban had made clear this week that Hungary will block all EU summit decisions in Ukraine’s favor until oil Russian flows resume.

“We would like to get the oil, which is ours, from the Ukrainians, which is now blocked by the Ukrainians, I did not support any kind of decision here, which is in favor of Ukraine … [as long as] the Hungarians are not able to get the oil which belong to us,” Orbán stated.

Orban has already blocked a proposed €90 billion ($103 billion) loan for Ukraine as well as efforts to slap new sanctions on Moscow, despite the pleadings, pressure, and interventions from other EU leaders.

“I will never support any kind of decision here which is in favor of Ukraine,” Orbán made clear at an EU meeting Thursday. “The Hungarian position is very simple. We are ready to support Ukraine when we get our oil, which is blocked by them,” Orbán underscored further.

Meta Platforms’ new AI Ray-Ban smart glasses with a built-in display are facing three major roadblocks in the European Union, where battery rules, AI regulations, and supply constraints have derailed plans to roll out the glasses across the continent.

Bloomberg spoke with people familiar with the new AI glasses, an upgrade over the previous model, which lacked built-in optics, and warned that Meta is attempting to launch the glasses in the EU, but its manufacturing partner, EssilorLuxottica SA, will not be able to secure enough supply to support the rollout.

Compounding EssilorLuxottica’s supply woes, the people warned that the delayed EU launch is also due to regulations governing AI features and batteries.

The big obstacle on the battery front is that one EU requirement mandates that devices sold on the continent must have removable batteries by 2027, which creates big design challenges for compact wearables like these glasses, as well as headlines and other similar devices.

Meta is reportedly pushing for an exemption with Brussels, arguing the rule would hurt not just glasses but other wearables across the consumer electronics market. 

Making matters worse for Meta, EU rules would also limit some of the AI functions that are key to the glasses, making a stripped-down launch very unattractive to consumers. 

EssilorLuxottica’s supply woes are understandable, but Brussels’s overregulation of nearly everything, including AI and batteries, shows how elected and unelected bureaucrats can slow or kill innovation.

Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the European Union, told an audience at an event earlier this week that the glasses will not be available in the region.

“Where is the one place in the world that you can’t sell these glasses? The European Union. Why? Because the battery isn’t removable,” Puzder said.

Earlier this year, we cited Goldman analyst Jerry Shen’s report on how the mass adoption cycle for AI glasses is just ahead, outlining the full supply chain of companies that make every component of these glasses (read here and here).

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In Hamlet, William Shakespeare famously wrote, “To thine own self be true.”

The problem is when others want to present a different “truth” long after you are gone.

Shakespeare is under an unrelenting attack in the United Kingdom from trigger warnings to censoring his prose.

Now, Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust has announced that it will “de-colonise” the Bard.

In the name of creating “a more inclusive museum experience,” the Trust is moving away from Western perspectives to avoid the dangers of “white supremacy.”

A prior research project between the trust and Dr Helen Hopkins at the University of Birmingham raised concerns over just praising the writer. 

Even recognizing Shakespeare’s genius “benefits the ideology of white European supremacy.”

The new push at the Trust follows The Globe Theatre’s previous move to “decolonise” Shakespeare’s famous plays.

Again, while many of us denounce this type of revisionism, it appeals to this community of cultural overlords.

It is personally advancing for these academics and experts to seek to change or cancel such works.

The same voices are being heard in the United States. As we previously discussed, in a column in the School Library Journal, Minnesota librarian and journalist Amanda MacGregor questioned why teachers were even still exposing their students to this harmful influence: “Shakespeare’s works are full of problematic, outdated ideas, with plenty of misogyny, racism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism and misogynoir.”

Lorena German, National Council of Teachers of English Anti-Racism Committee chair and a co-founder of the Disrupt Texts forum, insisted “everything about the fact that he was a man of his time is problematic about his plays. We cannot teach Shakespeare responsibly and not disrupt the ways people are characterized and developed.”

It is time for the dwindling population of sane Brits to step forward and fight for their culture and heritage. These advocates have used academia and the media to attack the foundations of British culture. It is not enough to foster diversity in other areas, they must change and reframe how historical figures and works are presented.

They recognize this as a culture war, but have met little resistance. It is time, as the Bard himself wrote, to “Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.”

When challenging progressives to give an example of a socialized welfare state that actually works, they will invariably bring up Denmark with its extensive public subsidy programs.  However, the Dutch system only functions when the population is small and generally homogeneous (mostly European).  In the past decade, the far-left Dutch government under the Social Democrats has allowed over 1 million migrants to enter the country with a population of only 5 million.

The non-western population of Denmark is now 10% (or more), and a large percentage of this immigration is Muslim.  For such a tiny country, this kind of abrupt demographic change can be destabilizing.  The government was forced to respond with tougher restrictions on asylum and tighter controls on border. 

They have also instituted measures to prevent third world “no-go” zones – Third world immigrants have a tendency to pack into small areas and “tribalize” neighborhoods, making those areas into colonized enclaves.  The level of complaints from these people in the face of common sense immigration reforms is telling.  They see Europe as an open buffet; a place where they are entitled to feed until their buttons burst.  They cannot comprehend the idea that they could be limited in any way.     

The Dutch population does not feel that the restrictions imposed by Social Democrats are enough.  They want deportations. Critics argue that the party only decided to take the immigration issue seriously after growing pressure from the public, along with the threat of election defeat.  Their actions were too little too late and the Social Democrats were pummeled in the latest election.

Danish Prime Minister ​Mette Frederiksen on ‌Wednesday submitted her government’s ​resignation to ​the king after her ⁠three-party coalition ​suffered a crushing ​defeat in the general election, the royal ​palace said ​in a statement.  Parties are ‌set ⁠to launch potentially tough negotiations ​to ​determine ⁠whether the next ​government will ​be ⁠formed by Frederiksen or another ⁠party ​leader.

Socialist Democrats ran largely on geopolitical issues, including their handling of the Trump Administration’s attempted purchase of Greenland (Denmark still maintains extensive control over Greenland’s political and economic affairs). 

Frederiksen called the snap election in late February 2026 partly to capitalize on a temporary poll boost from her “firm stance” against Trump’s comments regarding Greenland. She also assumed her strong support for Ukraine and increased defense spending would win over the voters. However, her plan backfired.

Once the short campaign began, domestic “bread-and-butter” issues overwhelmingly dominated the agenda for the Social Democrats and most other parties.  They probably should have taken into account popular polls.  A recent Gallup poll in Denmark found that 54.5% of Danes are “completely in disagreement” or “in disagreement” with the statement that Islam is compatible with Danish values.

Only about 17.4% (3.3% “completely in agreement” + 14.1% “in agreement”) think it is compatible, with the rest neutral or unsure.  The same survey showed 33.3% of Danes view Muslim immigrants as a threat to the country.  The right-wing “Blue-Bloc” gained 8 seats, bringing their total to 77.  The right-wing bloc’s overall seat increase was driven mainly by the strong recovery of the Danish People’s Party, reflecting continued voter concern over immigration, integration, and welfare sustainability.  

The core issue of the Blue Bloc is deportations of incompatible migrant groups; a subject which progressive parties traditionally refuse to address, but one that is becoming increasingly important for the success of any political party in the west.