Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Whatever the barbarians may be potting, the fact that matters is that China is already deep into the next phase, where it is expected to replace the United States as the world’s primary consumer market.

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.

Antonio Gramsci

Davos 2026 was a demented kaleidoscope. The only possible way to wallow through the mire was to put on the headphones and resort to the Band of Gypsys smashing sonic barriers, and drowning a frankly terrifying series of events, including a Palantir-BlackRock connection, Big Tech meets Big Finance; the “Master Plan” for Gaza; and the acute discombobulation in neo-Caligula’s rant, here in the 3-minute version.

Then there was what the fragmented West’s mainstream media erected as a visionary speech: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s mini-opus magnum, complete with a – what else – Thucydides quote (“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”) to illustrate the “rupture” of the “rules-based international order”, which was already a Dead Man Not Walking at least for a year now.

And how not to laugh at the extremely rich notion of a letter by 400 “patriotic” millionaires and billionaires directed to heads of state in Davos claiming for more “social justice”. Translation: they are terrified – in Paranoia Paradise mode – by the “rupture”, actually the advanced collapse of the neoliberalism ethos that enriched them in the first place.

Carney’s speech was a wily, headline-grabbing device to – in thesis – bury the “rules-based international order”, actually the euphemism du jour, since the end of WWII, for total domination by the Anglo-American financial oligarchy. Carney now only recognizes a mere “rupture” – supposed to be sewn up by “middle powers”, mostly Canada and a few Europeans (no Global South).

And there’s the dead give away: the presumed antidote to “rupture” has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty. It’s actually a controlled hedging, a sort of managed ersatz multipolarity – nothing to do with the BRICS drive – based on a fuzzy “values-based realism”, “coalition building” and “variable geometry” mish mash, destined to keep in place the same old monetarist scam.

Welcome to Lampedusa’s The Leopard, remixed: “Everything must change for everything to remain the same.”

And all that coming from a playbook liberal, a former Governor of the Bank of England. Such tigers never change their spots.

The true levers of power – exercised by the City of London and Wall Street – are totally immune to the “rupture” antidote.

The evolving, multi-layered Russia-China strategic partnership already invalidates Carney’s very sophisticated fraud, which fooled a lot of informed people. Same as BRICS – as it advances in the long and winding road of real multi-nodality.

Which brings us to the real message generated by Carney’s trademark limited hangout:

Canada and the European “middle powers” now find themselves not on the table, but on the menu, as neo-Caligula, the ruler of the world, can do to them what NATO has de facto been doing to the Global South over the past 30 years.

“Everything must change for everything to remain the same”

Many of those who now enshrine Carney as The New Messiah – and such a defender of international law – totally ignored or covered for the Zionist genocide of Gaza; demonized Russia to Kingdom Come and keep instigating a Forever War; and now beg on their knees for neo-Caligula to engage in a “dialogue” to solve his self-proclaimed Greenland land grab.

Elon Musk, incidentally, also showed up at Davos on short notice. He is a huge supporter of the Greenland land grab. Musk and other techno-feudalist stars cannot but be seduced by the project of turning that “piece of ice” (neo-Caligula terminology) into the prime hub for digital states, the successors of nation-states, supposed to be ruled by Techno-CEOs posing as Philosopher Kings.

Combine it with the Big Tech-Big Finance connection – at the Palantir-BlackRock table – and we have the Kings of AI leading the way, with financiers following.

The “piece of ice” of course was melting non-stop all across the Davos spectrum. When neo-Caligula announced that he would not do to Greenland what he did to Venezuela, the collective European relief really exploded the Champagne-O-Meter.

It was up to certified NATO poodle Tutti Frutti al Rutti, with that perpetual smile of a withered Dutch tulip, to convince “Daddy” to be lenient, proving once again that the EU is a Banana Republic, actually Union, without the bananas.

Neo-Caligula and withered tulip cobbled together a “framework” for the US to get some Greenland real estate for military base purposes and limited development of rare earth mining, plus the requisite ban on Russian and Chinese projects. Denmark and Greenland were not even in the room when this “deal” was reached.

Still, that may all change in a flash, or in a social media post. Because that’s not what neo-Caligula wants. He wants Greenland splashed in red-white-and blue on a US map.

Still, the most terrifying land grab plot highlighted in Davos had to be Gaza. Cue to that insufferable Zionist dimwit – the brains in the family actually belong to wife Ivanka – presenting the master plan for “the new Gaza”.

Or How to Market The Horror…The Horror (my excuses to Joseph Conrad).

Here we have a mass slaughtering/extermination campaign coupled with grabbing of what’s been reduced to rubble, leading to a high-security containment zone for token, “approved” Palestinians and prime beachfront real estate for real estate scammers and Israeli settlers.

All that managed by a private company, chaired by neo-Caligula for life, now in charge of the annexation, occupation and exploitation of Gaza: a monstruous land grab burying in one go a genocide and what remains of international law – everything fully approved by the EU and a bunch of political “leaders”, some too terrified, others basically hedging to bypass neo-Caligula’s wrath.

The Chinese “rupture”

Some clown by the name of Nadio Calvino, president of the European Investment Bank, actually argued at Davos that the EU “is a superpower”.

Well, History is loath to register as a superpower a set up that is totally dependent on the US and NATO for defense; exhibits zero power projection; harbors no major tech companies (those that still exist are collapsing); is 90% dependent on foreign supplies of energy; and is drowning in debt ($17 trillion in total, equivalent to over 80% of the EU’s GDP).

So in the end, amidst so much – silly – sound and fury, what was the real game-changer at Davos? It was not the “rupture” or even the land grab plots. It was the speech by China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng.

Incidentally, Carney’s “rupture” speech was heavily influenced by his recent trip to China – where he met with He Lifeng, a serious candidate to succeed Xi Jinping in the future.

At Davos, He Lifeng made it very clear that China is determined to become “the world’s market”; and that boosting domestic demand was now “on top of [China’s] economic agenda,” as reflected in the 15th Five-Year plan which will be approved this coming March in Beijing.

So whatever the barbarians may be plotting, the fact that matters is that China is already deep into the next phase, where it is expected to replace the United States as the world’s primary consumer market.

Now that’s what’s called a rupture.

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

The recent U.S. operation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro demonstrated that military power is not only about troop numbers or superior combat technology.

With the successful extraction of Maduro and his wife from a military compound in just 2.5 hours, the extremely effective operation showed how far training, intelligence, and logistics go towards driving military power.

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks the world’s most powerful militaries in 2025.

The data for this visualization comes from the Global Firepower Index, which assesses 145 countries.

The World’s Top Military Powers

The index evaluates more than 60 factors, including active military manpower, land, air and naval assets, logistics, natural resources, and geographic considerations.

Importantly, a lower Military Power Index score indicates greater overall strength.

Rank
Country
Military Power Index
Active Military Manpower
1
🇺🇸 United States
0.07
1,328,000
2
🇷🇺 Russia
0.08
1,320,000
3
🇨🇳 China
0.08
2,035,000
4
🇮🇳 India
0.12
1,455,550
5
🇰🇷 South Korea
0.17
600,000
6
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
0.18
184,860
7
🇯🇵 Japan
0.18
247,150
8
🇫🇷 France
0.19
200,000
9
🇹🇷 Turkiye
0.19
355,200
10
🇮🇹 Italy
0.22
165,500
11
🇧🇷 Brazil
0.24
360,000
12
🇵🇰 Pakistan
0.25
654,000
13
🇮🇩 Indonesia
0.26
400,000
14
🇩🇪 Germany
0.26
181,600
15
🇮🇱 Israel
0.27
170,000
16
🇮🇷 Iran
0.3
610,000
17
🇪🇸 Spain
0.32
133,282
18
🇦🇺 Australia
0.33
57,350
19
🇪🇬 Egypt
0.34
440,000
20
🇩🇿 Algeria
0.36
325,000
21
🇺🇦 Ukraine
0.38
900,000
22
🇵🇱 Poland
0.38
202,100
23
🇹🇼 Taiwan
0.4
215,000
24
🇻🇳 Vietnam
0.4
600,000
25
🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia
0.42
257,000
26
🇹🇭 Thailand
0.45
360,850
27
🇸🇪 Sweden
0.48
24,400
28
🇨🇦 Canada
0.52
68,000
29
🇸🇬 Singapore
0.53
51,000
30
🇬🇷 Greece
0.53
142,700
31
🇳🇬 Nigeria
0.58
230,000
32
🇲🇽 Mexico
0.6
412,000
33
🇦🇷 Argentina
0.6
108,000
34
🇰🇵 North Korea
0.6
1,320,000
35
🇧🇩 Bangladesh
0.61
163,000
36
🇳🇱 Netherlands
0.64
41,380
37
🇲🇲 Myanmar
0.67
150,000
38
🇳🇴 Norway
0.68
23,250
39
🇵🇹 Portugal
0.69
24,000
40
🇿🇦 South Africa
0.69
71,235
41
🇵🇭 Philippines
0.7
150,000
42
🇲🇾 Malaysia
0.74
113,000
43
🇮🇶 Iraq
0.77
193,000
44
🇨🇭 Switzerland
0.79
101,584
45
🇩🇰 Denmark
0.81
20,000
46
🇨🇴 Colombia
0.84
293,200
47
🇨🇱 Chile
0.84
80,000
48
🇫🇮 Finland
0.84
24,000
49
🇵🇪 Peru
0.86
120,000
50
🇻🇪 Venezuela
0.89
109,000

The United States ranks first, with the lowest Military Power Index score and more than 1.3 million active-duty personnel. Its position reflects unmatched global reach, advanced technology, and extensive logistical capabilities.

Russia and China follow closely behind. China stands out for having the largest active military manpower among the top three, with just over 2 million personnel, while Russia combines large troop numbers with extensive land and strategic capabilities.

Manpower Isn’t Everything

While troop numbers matter, they do not tell the full story. Countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, and France rank among the top 10 despite having far smaller active forces than some lower-ranked nations.

Japan ranks highly due to its advanced naval and air forces, including one of the world’s most capable destroyer fleets, modern fighter jets, and strong missile defense systems.

Despite a smaller army, the UK maintains strong air and naval assets and benefits from deep integration with NATO operations. Meanwhile, France ranks among the top militaries thanks to its nuclear arsenal, blue-water navy, and proven ability to conduct overseas operations independently.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Countries With the Highest Cost of Violence on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Catherine Salgado via PJMedia.com,

It seems long past time for President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.

In the chaos and violence following the death of an armed Minneapolis would-be terrorist shot while fighting Border Patrol, another protester has bitten off the finger of a federal officer.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin posted photos on X showing the loathsome protestors who so viciously assaulted federal officers, and also photos of the one officer’s wounded hand and the severed finger.

What absolute scum these protestors and the politicians who encourage them are.

McLaughlin explained, “In Minneapolis, these rioters attacked our law enforcement officer and one of them bit off our HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] officer’s finger. He will lose his finger.”

What a proud victory for Walz and co.! They managed to ruin a brave officer’s life.

Just ponder how deranged and bestial you have to be to seek out a federal law enforcement officer for the express purpose of assaulting him, and then deliberately bite off his finger.

I can’t help but think of Gollum biting off Frodo’s finger at the climax of The Lord of the Rings to obtain the Ring; and the fiction has a parallel to the reality. As Tolkien meant the Ring to represent sin and evil, and as Gollum is destroyed and driven mad by it, so leftist domestic terrorists seem drunk on and driven mad by their lust for violence and revenge.

Indeed, the protestor who bit off the HSI officer’s finger is d*mn lucky he didn’t get shot. One hopes he at least faces some legal accountability, but that seems in precious short supply in Minneapolis.

As for the shooting that triggering the other violence, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem explained that Border Patrol officers were simply trying to carry out the arrest of an illegal alien who was wanted for violent assault.

“During the operation, an individual approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect, but the armed suspect violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots,” she declared.

“This violence is directly fueled by hateful rhetoric from Minnesota’s sanctuary politicians. It must end now.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz rushed to frame the armed protester as an innocent victim of eeeevil federal goons, raving about a “horrific shooting by federal agents” and labeling them “violent, untrained officers.” 

This is why there is violence. The gunman who died had two magazines of ammunition and no ID on him, indicating he planned to trigger a mass casualty event. Furthermore, he was trying to intervene on behalf of a violent criminal illegal alien — which is in itself a felony (as is protecting illegal aliens, as Minnesota politicians do).

There is no possible way a sane person could be on the side of such a man, and yet Democrats are all on his side. Of course, fully committed Democrats are also insane.

Pray hard for our brave HSI, Border Patrol, and ICE officers in Minneapolis.

Local police are not helping them, local authorities are lying about them, and mobs of protestors are literally out for their blood.

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Though America is beset by increasingly bitter political divisions, there are two convictions that unite Americans across party and demographic lines. Large majorities are certain that Congress isn’t serving the interests of the American people, and that Capitol Hill would become far more virtuous with the imposition of term limits.

Despite their broad appeal to our “throw out the bums” instincts, term limits would probably make Congress even worse than it is now. Even as a proposed policy, the concept does the country a disservice by distracting Americans from the more extreme remedies required for a federal government guiding us along a dangerous path into mounting partisan hostility, unconstitutionally-concentrated power, and obliviousness to coming financial ruin.

According to a 2023 McLaughlin and Associates poll, an overwhelming 87% of US adults favor congressional term limits, a finding that’s consistent with other surveys. Proposals vary. Reflecting a common recommendation, one of the term-limit bills introduced this session would limit House representatives to six two-year terms, and senators to two six-year terms, thus maxing out both varieties of legislator at a dozen years. Notably, members who served before 2023 — including the bill’s introducing sponsor, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — would be exempted.

One dynamic that makes term limits appealing is the overwhelming power of incumbency in US electoral politics: Federal incumbents who sought reelection had a 98% success rate in 2024, matching the pace of 2022 and edging the 96% rate seen in 2020.

Jarring as they are, those stats create a false impression of the degree of stagnancy in the House and Senate. That’s because — over the dozen years often floated as a term-limit maximum tenure — a substantial number of legislators already leave on their own. According to the most recent Pew Research calculations, over a 12-year period, 69% of House seats and 62% of Senate seats had different occupants at the end versus the beginning.

With those numbers in mind, Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie — who has backed term-limit bills– cautioned that the idea is not a “silver bullet.” Pointing to the notion that term limits would open more seats to good people since incumbents are otherwise hard to dislodge, Massie noted the substantial churn in seat-holders, and asked, “Where are all the good guys/gals?”

Note that about 84% of congressional seats are “safe seats,” where party control isn’t in question, and the real election happens in the party primary. This incentivizes primary candidates to take positions that maximize their appeal to their party’s extreme, which contributes to polarization in Washington. Term limits wouldn’t change that, other than increasing the frequency of contested primaries, which, if anything, might make the phenomenon slightly stronger.

Cook Political Report’s House Race Ratings as of Jan 15

Cycling more people out of Congress may exacerbate one of the worst dynamics of Washington: the “revolving door” that sees legislators frequently moving on to lobbying posts and board positions, and incentivizing them to cater to lobbyists and corporations before their swing through the door happens. “Mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence,” wrote Casey Burgat at Brookings.

Term-limit proponents are hopeful that bringing new faces into Washington would reduce the power of special interests, lobbyists and the entrenched bureaucracy — the last of which is sometimes called the “Deep State.” However, lacking understanding of complex federal issues and experience with DC’s legislative machinery, wide-eyed, rookie legislators are even more susceptible to outside influences who bring clear guidance sprinkled with money and favors.

Advocates of term limits often envision a warm, fuzzy new era where career politicians are replaced by humble “citizen legislators” who come from all walks of life and professions. However, the great majority of US representatives and senators held some other office before winning their current seat, and there’s no reason to think term limits would do away with the inherent advantages that state and local officeholders have when they seek federal office.

Many champions of term limits are convinced that term-limited federal legislators would spend far less time on electoral politics and fundraising. Don’t bet on it. First, until a legislator’s final term, they’d still be focused on re-election. More importantly, much and perhaps even most of the time and energy that members spend on fundraising isn’t for their own campaigns, but for their parties.

Here, it’s important to spotlight a little-known yet powerful congressional dynamic, one that guarantees that even term-limited legislators would continue spending substantial time on party fundraising: Each party ties committee assignments to how much money a legislator raises for the party.

The numbers are big. “Between 2023 and 2024, Democratic Party members were expected to raise between $100,000 and $30 million per year in dues to the party to move up in the [House] chamber,” wrote Maya Kornberg of the Brennan Center for Justice. It’s the same on both sides of the aisle. Here’s how Republican Massie candidly described the arrangement to Reason’s Matt Welch:

“[Members] have to raise money and give it to the party in order to rent or buy their committee assignments. Literally, the party comes to you, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, and says, ‘if you want an important committee, you’re going to have to pay us this much money,’ not one time, but every election cycle. You can’t go back to your district and ask your constituents at a fundraiser to help you buy a seat on a committee. You get that money from the lobbyists who are in Washington, DC.”

For members striving for plum committee assignments, there’s another major avenue of fundraising, one that turns legislators into glorified telemarketers, calling party donors across the country and asking for donations or inviting them to events that require them. It’s illegal to make such calls from their offices, so legislators walk to nearby party call centers to do it.

A hidden-camera glimpse inside the GOP call center showed a dozen tiny offices with phones; a board displays how much each legislator has raised (CBS News)

“You’re told…don’t even ask for one of these ‘A’ committees unless you’re ready to do the hard work across the street,” said Massie. He refuses to participate, and pays the price via exclusion from powerful committees such as Ways and Means, Appropriations, or Energy and Commerce.

As Florida Democrat and then-congressman David Jolly told CBS News, dialing for dollars is a major part of life on the Hill:

“The House schedule is actually arranged, in some ways, around fundraising…You never see a committee working through lunch because those are your fundraising times. And then, in between afternoon votes and evening votes, that’s when you can see Democrats walking down this street, Republicans walking down that street to spend time on the phone making phone calls.”

Under term limits, the only thing that would change in this bleak picture are the particular faces trudging off to a Red Team or Blue Team call center, or lunching with lobbyists offering fundraising help — rather than learning about any of the infinite issues subjected to federal governance. (Knowing their time on the Hill is limited, legislators will have even less reason to invest their time in building mastery of complex issues.)

In fact, to the extent that term limits manage to put a modest dent in the power of incumbency and render a few more of their seats vulnerable, parties would be even more concerned with raising money to either defend a majority or take it over, and would thus exert more pressure on members to refill the party’s coffers.

There’s one more way term limits would exacerbate the problem of outside influences: With a shortened span on Capitol Hill, more members would be focused on what they’ll do next. Though “citizen-legislator” daydreamers may have quaint visions of a farmer returning to his tractor, most term-limited legislators will be either planning a run for a different office, or looking for a job. Either ambition makes them susceptible to the policy overtures of people outside the chamber promising funding for future campaigns, help getting the inside track on a lobbying job of their own, or maybe a private-sector post in the industry the lobbyist represents.

Term limits would bring many unintended consequences that run counter to their advocates’ noble intentions. However, the concept’s worst attribute is that, even as a mere proposal, it diverts attention from what’s most wrong in Washington. Term limits focus on the frequency with which Washington’s power is exchanged, when the biggest problem is the power itself. For more on that, see the most-read article at Stark Realities: Americans Are Fighting For Control Of Federal Powers That Shouldn’t Exist

* * *

Stark Realities: Invigoratingly unorthodox perspectives for intellectually honest readers. Join thousands of free subscribers at starkrealities.substack.com

* * *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge