Wall Street Refuses to Sleep: NYSE Launches Near Round-the-Clock Trading Revolution!

 

For traders who refuse to be tethered to outdated office hours, the NYSE's move to 22-hour trading transforms the market into a seamless global powerhouse—showing that opportunity doesn't sleep!

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is gearing up for a nearly sleepless future with its recent announcement to extend weekday trading to 22 hours a day. The bold move means the exchange, particularly the NYSE Arca Equities platform, will only shut down for a narrow two-hour window, and some would say it’s about time. After all, why should stocks sleep while the world doesn’t? The NYSE’s pursuit of this move, subject to regulatory approval, seeks to align with the demands of an increasingly interconnected and globally driven marketplace, where opportunities don’t knock just from 9 to 4. This shift aims to benefit investors across various time zones, thereby democratizing access to the U.S. equity markets, regardless of geography.

It seems the New York Stock Exchange is all set to trade in the American dream for the global dream. As Kevin Tyrrell, Head of Markets at NYSE, put it, this plan "underscores the strength of our U.S. capital markets and growing demand for our listed securities around the world"—indeed, an initiative of mammoth ambition and clear foresight. Imagine a market that nearly never closes, answering the prayers of every insomniac trader from Tokyo to London. It's no longer the "Big Board" confined by U.S. office hours but a behemoth serving the world across different time zones.

The 22-hour trading schedule is being seen as a welcome development, particularly when the broader context of finance is taken into account. Markets worldwide are increasingly interconnected, and with the rise of online trading platforms like Robinhood, individual traders and financial institutions alike demand access that mirrors the continuity of global finance. The NYSE is essentially trying to maintain its leadership position amid the explosion of other trading platforms and avenues that have emerged in recent years. It’s a competition for eyeballs, a relentless chase for liquidity—a reminder of the old Wall Street adage: "Money never sleeps."

The global financial ecosystem has dramatically changed, with digital trading platforms enabling investors to make decisions in real-time. By expanding its hours, NYSE is sending a clear message: it intends to remain at the forefront of this transformation, enabling near-seamless market access for traders around the world, whether they are night owls in California or early birds in Tokyo. Financial technology has changed not only how we invest but also when we invest, and the NYSE is merely adapting to the shifting sands of time—literally. As they say, if you can’t beat them, join them, and the NYSE is leaping ahead in this case, making its iconic bell a near-round-the-clock presence.

Historically, the stock exchange has operated within fixed hours that catered predominantly to U.S.-based investors, from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM Eastern Time. But those hours simply do not suffice in an era where financial crises and opportunities can arise at any given moment across the globe. With a trading window extending from 1:30 AM to 11:30 PM Eastern Time, NYSE seeks to bring its market access in line with global realities, responding to the growing investor appetite for extended trading opportunities. What was once the stuff of myth—the market that never sleeps—is becoming a practical necessity in today’s age of 24-hour media, geopolitical tensions, and round-the-clock trading of assets such as cryptocurrencies. Just as ships in the 16th century circumnavigated the globe to expand horizons, the NYSE aims to do the same by digitally widening the trading frontier.

The 22-hour trading plan doesn’t only reflect a strategic pivot by the NYSE but is also a tacit acknowledgment that U.S. exchanges must keep pace with shifts in technology, the rise of retail investors, and evolving trader preferences. A curious mind might ask, why stop at 22 hours and not aim for full 24-hour trading? The answer could be quite pragmatic. The NYSE still needs time to perform crucial maintenance, operational procedures, and align regulatory compliance before starting another cycle of trading activity. As any old sailor knows, even the mightiest ships need time in the docks. Still, the symbolic value of this move is immense. It aims to reduce the feeling of "after-hours market anxiety" among traders and allow for better price discovery—where news is immediately reflected in asset prices rather than waiting for the NYSE's iconic bell to ring.

In addition, there are echoes of international strategies in NYSE's plan. The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which owns NYSE, is positioning itself as a global player, using these 22 hours to connect investors around the globe to the U.S. capital markets, showing that their version of the American dream has room for everyone, from the bustling streets of Mumbai to the skyscrapers of Singapore. And while critics might point out concerns about burnout or market stability, it’s worth noting that liquidity breeds stability. More trading hours mean more opportunities for buyers and sellers to meet, reducing the chances of erratic price swings and creating a more liquid market. The NYSE, by stepping up as the steward of the U.S. equity market, is aiming to provide exactly this—stability in an increasingly volatile world.

One might argue this extended trading initiative is akin to creating a financial bridge, allowing trades that might have once been speculative "overnight plays" to instead be active transactions within a legitimate trading window. For those who were once left watching market events unfold during off-hours, with their fingers itching over "buy" or "sell" buttons but no official market to act in, this change is monumental. NYSE isn’t simply catering to hedge funds and institutional investors; it’s building a marketplace where anyone from a stay-at-home dad in Australia to an ambitious day trader in Germany can take part. In this sense, the NYSE's step towards 22-hour trading could democratize financial opportunities by allowing a much broader swath of investors to participate in the heartbeat of the global economy.

The NYSE's 22-hour trading move is also a signal to the world about America's continuous willingness to evolve. Capitalism has long thrived on adaptability, and here the NYSE leads by example, adjusting to the demands of an era dominated by speed, globalism, and a hunger for instant information. Not surprisingly, trading volumes during extended hours have surged in recent years, fueled by significant events like corporate earnings, political upheavals, and even tech billionaires tweeting their hearts out in the dead of the night. The NYSE plans to file updated rules with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and will clear trades via the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), thereby ensuring that even in extended hours, investor protections remain intact, and the underlying machinery runs smoothly.

The irony, of course, is not lost that while the NYSE wants to work around the clock, many of its traders may not want to. But that’s the beauty of capitalism—it adapts, evolves, and finds its way around hurdles, just like water finding a crack. In an age where cryptocurrency trades 24/7 and the sun never sets on markets in Asia, the NYSE's step seems less a revolution and more of a revelation of where the world is already headed.

As we watch this development unfold, one cannot help but chuckle at the notion that while New York City was always "the city that never sleeps," its famed stock exchange was a little late to the party. But, better late than never, right? The NYSE is now setting the pace for a financial market that truly keeps global investors in mind. If you thought the market was unpredictable before, just wait until it only takes a two-hour catnap.

The Seven Swing State Showdown: Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s Desperate Tug-of-War for America's Soul.

 

The real battleground of 2024 is not in Washington, but in the streets and suburbs of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania—Kamala Harris and Donald Trump know this is where their futures will be won or lost.

They say the swing states are like lovers in an on-again, off-again romance—hard to win, even harder to keep. And in this steamy saga, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are fighting tooth and nail to claim their affections. The 2024 election’s battleground drama is no different, with the seven critical states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and North Carolina—at the epicenter of a nail-biting tug-of-war. Both campaigns know that these key states are the golden ticket to securing 270 Electoral College votes. The political dynamics of these states have already started shifting in unpredictable ways as both candidates feverishly attempt to woo the electorate.

Trump’s focus on the swing states seems almost nostalgic, harking back to his surprise wins in 2016 when he swept many of the key battlegrounds that others had presumed locked in. Back then, states like Michigan and Wisconsin were part of the so-called "Blue Wall," which Hillary Clinton had taken for granted. Trump’s rallying cry against the establishment, combined with his aggressive ground game, resonated with enough disenchanted voters to turn the tide. In 2020, however, Biden managed to wrest these states back, and now Harris finds herself struggling to hold on to that precarious grip. With a polling edge in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada, Harris is doing everything possible to fortify her position, while Trump finds strong support in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. The tight polling gap between Harris and Trump—often less than two percentage points—tells a story of deeply divided electorates, signaling an unpredictable fight for the political soul of these states.

The influence of North Carolina in the upcoming election highlights the complex electoral strategy both candidates are deploying. Historically a strong Republican hold, North Carolina has flirted with the idea of turning purple but remains a Republican stronghold for now. Betting platforms like Polymarket put Trump's chances of taking most of these swing states at 26%, compared to Harris's 14%. This highlights how perceptions of Harris’s potential are less optimistic compared to Trump, especially in a state like North Carolina, where the Republican edge still seems to prevail. However, the Harris campaign is counting on demographic shifts and the surge in young voters to potentially tip the scales, a strategy that also helped Biden carry this state in 2020.

If we pull back and look at how these battleground states have changed, it’s evident that they are no longer homogeneous, politically sleepy regions. Instead, they are the embodiment of America’s modern ideological wars. Arizona, which had been a Republican stronghold for decades, flipped in 2020 for the first time since 1996, buoyed by a diverse electorate and a concentrated campaign by Democrats to increase Latino turnout. Georgia too, which Biden narrowly won in 2020, is another tight race. The state’s increasing suburban population, and grassroots voter mobilization efforts led by activists like Stacey Abrams, helped change its political landscape. The Harris campaign is working tirelessly to keep that momentum alive, but Trump, not to be outdone, has turned his focus on rural voters and hardcore party loyalists to offset losses in suburban areas.

The stakes are so high that even gambling odds are making headlines. Bookmakers currently give Trump a 54.7% chance of winning, and Harris 44.4%, demonstrating how sharply the pendulum swings between these candidates. Yet, betting odds are a peculiar metric—while they have historically predicted election outcomes correctly 77% of the time, their fluid nature often gives them the appearance of an emotional stock market, subject to sudden highs and lows based on daily headlines. The political ground game on the other hand—getting voters registered, making calls, knocking on doors—is a far more reliable, though labor-intensive, path to victory.

What’s particularly striking about the current political battleground is the sheer unpredictability of voter behavior in these swing states. The fact that many voters in these regions are undecided even this close to Election Day shows a mistrust in political institutions. Issues like inflation, healthcare, the rise in gun violence, and immigration are playing significant roles in how people are leaning. Trump’s stance on the border wall, which remains as resolute as ever, has found receptive audiences in regions of Arizona and North Carolina. Conversely, Harris's push for abortion rights in the post-Roe landscape, particularly in places like Michigan, is helping her connect with suburban female voters. With the nation still grappling with the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, and laws swinging from one extreme to the other in different states, abortion rights have emerged as a key issue driving voter sentiment.

Another interesting twist has been how Harris and Trump have embraced different campaign styles. Harris’s focus has been on grassroots mobilization, expanding voter outreach to typically disenfranchised groups, including minority communities, young voters, and even those from rural regions that were long ignored by the Democrats. Meanwhile, Trump has leaned heavily on high-energy rallies—a throwback to his 2016 campaign days. This time around, Trump is also counting on his ground game through influencers and media channels. Notably, Elon Musk’s America PAC has been funneling content through social media in key states, trying to mobilize voters using a mix of memes, rhetoric, and highly partisan messaging.

It’s this grassroots versus showbiz-style campaigning that shows where each campaign’s priorities lie. Trump wants to invigorate his base while Harris is betting on expanding hers. Political analysts believe that it will boil down to a handful of votes, and both campaigns know that. For all of Trump’s bravado in declaring certain states as "in the bag," his repeated return to Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania reveals how crucial these swing states are. Meanwhile, Harris is betting on keeping a coalition of suburban voters and young voters to prevail, but that is by no means guaranteed.

The swing state dynamics of 2024 aren’t just shifting; they are a rollercoaster of uncertainty and fluctuating fortunes. The smallest changes in these battleground states could have a rippling effect across the entire Electoral College. While Kamala Harris and Donald Trump continue their battle to define the next four years of American policy, the true arbiters of this decision will be the voters of these pivotal swing states. The proverb holds that “a bird in hand is worth two in the bush,” yet for both Harris and Trump, the voters are increasingly elusive, darting between branches, with neither candidate yet to close their hands around them.

And perhaps the most satirical irony here? The "swing" in swing states might just be that in this endless back-and-forth, voters are still waiting for a politician who delivers more than just a spectacle—perhaps this year they’ll get just that. Or maybe they’ll keep swinging.

Why 'Woke AI' Will Lead Us Straight Into Digital Dictatorship: The Need for Truth-Seeking Machines

 

Building AI models that are woke is like handing over the power of judgment to a one-sided political puppet—maximal truth-seeking AI is the only path to a world without censorship and propaganda.

The world has never had a shortage of dangerous games: Russian roulette, high-stakes poker, nuclear brinksmanship. But now, it seems, we’ve taken the stakes even higher by dabbling with artificial intelligence (AI) models that are, as Elon Musk claims, dangerously “woke” and “nihilistic” rather than “maximally truth-seeking.” In a speech at the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Musk warned of the hazards these ideologically driven AI models could pose, especially in an increasingly polarized world. And given his track record in predicting tech disruptions, it’s hard to dismiss Musk's concerns lightly. After all, how did we end up here, where even a chatbot can be politically loaded?

Musk’s statements, loaded with warnings about AI’s influence on human society, resonate in an age where ideology seeps into the deepest technological crevices. The problem with woke AI is not about the correctness or fallibility of liberal ideals but about the very premise that an AI can carry any bias at all. Imagine training a computer to detect only left turns on a racetrack. Sure, it will go round and round — until the track bends right, at which point it crashes. Similarly, an AI built on politically motivated guardrails will inevitably find itself catastrophically out of depth when confronting perspectives beyond its programmed ideology. A recent study from the University of Washington, Carnegie Mellon University, and Xi'an Jiaotong University found significant political biases embedded within popular large language models, affecting their ability to handle delicate issues like misinformation and hate speech effectively. Ironically, these biases are both deeply entrenched and often remain hidden from public view, making the risks less visible yet more insidious.

The issue becomes even thornier when we consider the geopolitical implications. Saudi Arabia, under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has set its sights on becoming a global leader in AI, as evidenced by the billions of dollars poured into AI research through initiatives such as the $44 billion Saudi AI fund. The Kingdom is doubling down on building AI-powered smart cities and ecosystems, hoping to catalyze industrial and social transformation. But herein lies the paradox: if these AI systems are infused with a biased worldview—be it woke, conservative, liberal or nihilistic—the technology becomes a Trojan horse. Instead of being an objective force for good, it subtly becomes a megaphone for political propaganda.

Elon Musk isn’t the only one concerned. At the Riyadh conference, he shared the virtual stage with several stakeholders like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who invested $24 billion into Musk's AI startup, xAI. The Saudi Prince’s investments signal his own ambition for AI as a force for progress, but even his vast wealth cannot buy immunity from AI biases that could stifle genuine innovation. On a global scale, the repercussions of allowing politically tinged AI models to flourish are chilling. Picture a world where AI has the power not just to answer our questions but to subtly shape our beliefs—making Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" look like amateur hour.

To understand the inherent risk, consider Google's Gemini AI, which sparked controversy by suggesting that nuclear war would be preferable to misgendering Caitlyn Jenner. Musk cited this bizarre response as an example of how ideological AI could come to catastrophically dangerous conclusions. When AI is programmed with hyper-specific ethical codes that are far removed from universally accepted truths, it becomes not just unreliable but hazardous. Such a system, if rolled out for sensitive areas like international diplomacy or healthcare, could yield disastrous results—results that are irreversible, simply because the machine’s ethical compass was bent in the wrong direction.

While Musk advocates for AI that is "maximally truth-seeking," that might not be as simple as he makes it sound. AI models are trained on large swaths of internet data, which inherently reflect all kinds of human perspectives—both enlightening and harmful. Therein lies a significant challenge: separating the wheat from the chaff while avoiding the introduction of ideological biases during the curation process. Researchers like Ashique KhudaBukhsh from the Rochester Institute of Technology have pointed out that AI is increasingly trained on data that is itself generated by AI. Such self-referential training could lead to a vicious cycle of amplified bias, ultimately making these models more distorted and less reliable over time.

Even Musk’s own solution to the woke AI issue, Grok—a chatbot developed by his xAI venture—promises to be "maximally truth-seeking." Yet, like all human undertakings, the question remains: whose truth are we talking about? If Musk's perspective leans more toward his political inclinations, as a staunch Trump supporter, then Grok's interpretation of "truth" could end up just as biased as the models he critiques. In a reality where even "facts" are politically loaded, one wonders whether truth-seeking AI is indeed a genuine possibility or simply an ideological ploy repackaged with a shinier bow.

Saudi Arabia's push to lead the AI sector is commendable, particularly their focus on AI-powered smart cities and healthcare innovations. From partnerships with Google Cloud to using AI in creating more sustainable solutions, the Saudi government seems committed to harnessing AI for a better future. However, they too must recognize the risk of developing biased AI models that might stymie their long-term vision. An AI that isn’t committed to truth but rather to political expedience could become a powerful but dangerous tool, potentially echoing the absolutist control mechanisms of dystopian literature.

What’s most ironic is how Musk's warnings about woke AI are being aired from a conference in Saudi Arabia, a country that itself has strict norms on the freedom of speech. Imagine a truth-seeking AI operating in an environment where political dissent is not only discouraged but often severely punished. The AI’s pursuit of truth could clash spectacularly with the state's efforts to control narratives. The contradiction is almost poetic—almost as if we’re being reminded that truth is most dangerous where it is least welcome.

Nations building these AI models would do well to remember an old African proverb: "Until the lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter." AI, when aligned with political bias, will always glorify its creators and disempower those on the margins. A truly truth-seeking AI would not only provide objective information but also represent perspectives that have been historically silenced. Such a model, however, requires both technological precision and a commitment to honesty—qualities that are hard to ensure when billion-dollar investments are involved.

The world must decide whether to harness AI as an objective, truth-seeking mechanism or risk creating powerful tools of propaganda. As Musk has emphasized, developing woke or nihilistic AI models isn’t just irresponsible—it’s a gamble with stakes that could very well alter the course of humanity. After all, as we’ve learned from history, those who play with ideological fire often end up getting burned. If we continue on this path, we may just end up with a generation of machines as politically confused as the humans who built them—more focused on grandstanding than problem-solving.

Maybe we should thank Musk for this wake-up call. Or perhaps, in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have to build a woke AI to apologize on his behalf. Because as things stand, the only thing more absurd than a biased AI is the world that built it, and then wondered why it all went so horribly wrong.

Too Close to Call: Harris vs. Trump - The Unpredictable Duel of 2024!

 

The 2024 presidential race is a powder keg ready to explode; with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump running neck-and-neck, it's anyone's game, and no poll can call it!

With the U.S. presidential election of 2024 just days away, predicting its outcome feels like trying to navigate a labyrinth in the dark. The matchup between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is the most volatile electoral showdown in recent memory. Both candidates are neck-and-neck in national polls, with Harris holding a razor-thin lead over Trump. The margin? Barely over 1.4 percentage points. As the old proverb says, “One who treads carefully does not trip.” This election is certainly a path everyone is treading with care, especially since the stakes are sky-high.

Looking back at previous elections, it's easy to understand the current nervousness. In 2016, Donald Trump outperformed polling expectations, shocking many experts. Fast forward to 2020, when Joe Biden managed to beat Trump, but only by slim margins in key battleground states. Fast forward again to today, and it's Kamala Harris who is trying to maintain a slight edge. But the problem lies not in the numbers themselves but in the sheer unpredictability of the American electorate. Polling averages give Harris a slight lead nationally, but a mere 1.4 percent difference is hardly anything to celebrate, given the complex calculations of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College system, a relic from the 18th century, is still the determining factor for victory. The game is not just about winning the popular vote but strategically gaining those precious 270 electoral votes. Every state has a certain number of votes, and all but two use a "winner-takes-all" approach. A candidate could technically win the popular vote nationwide but still lose the election due to how electoral votes are distributed. Remember 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush despite winning more votes? History could easily repeat itself in 2024. Some states are still considered “toss-ups”—with a lead of less than 5 percent, neither candidate can claim them confidently. It's these swing states that will ultimately tip the balance.

Kamala Harris is currently perceived as having the upper hand in some battleground states, but not by much. The real kicker? Donald Trump has a 54 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, despite trailing slightly in the national polls. In this tense game of numbers, it seems the Electoral College is a better predictor of Trump's chances than national popularity. The split between the popular vote and the electoral outcome is not just a theory; it's a real and likely possibility.

For many Americans, the heart of this contest comes down to issues like the economy, national security, and personal freedom. Trump has taken a hardline approach, promising to "bring back American greatness," an echo of his 2016 slogan, whereas Harris aims to continue the progressive policies of the Biden administration. The debate on healthcare, immigration, and climate policy couldn’t be more divisive. Trump has been vocal about bringing "America-first" back to the forefront, while Harris promises a more inclusive America. Trump’s fiery rhetoric about making America safe again by tightening borders and cracking down on crime has resonated with many, but Harris’s promise of economic justice and climate action has also captured a significant audience. Both candidates have their strengths, but they are aiming for two very different Americas.

Let's not forget the role of scandals and public perception. Harris has faced criticism for her perceived inability to articulate a clear foreign policy strategy, and detractors claim she lacks the charisma of her predecessor, Joe Biden. On the other side, Trump continues to carry the baggage of multiple indictments and the shadow of January 6, 2021. Yet, Trump’s core supporters remain unfazed, even seeing these legal challenges as proof that their candidate is an outsider battling a biased system. As the saying goes, “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”—what is seen as a disqualifier by some is viewed as a badge of honor by others.

Moreover, Trump has remained resilient in his campaign strategy, focusing on battleground states like North Carolina and Wisconsin, crucial to his 2016 victory. Meanwhile, Harris is trying to secure key states that flipped in 2020. The battle lines are drawn. The number of electoral votes—306 for Biden in 2020—serves as a haunting reminder of how crucial even a single state can be. Harris knows she cannot afford to lose any of those states, but Trump, ever the showman, is pushing hard to regain his lost territory. The electoral map remains fluid, and it’s the states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan that are in the spotlight. Polls suggest they are too close to call—Trump and Harris are within two points of each other in most surveys. It's political trench warfare at its finest.

Adding to the drama are third-party candidates, who could peel off enough votes to alter the election. Whether it's libertarians or the Green Party, a few percentage points in battleground states could spell disaster for either Trump or Harris. In 2016, Jill Stein was accused of taking votes away from Hillary Clinton in crucial states like Wisconsin. Could we see a repeat of that scenario? Given the razor-thin margins, it’s entirely possible that a third-party candidate could determine who gets to sit in the Oval Office next January.

And let's talk about voter turnout. In the 2020 election, turnout hit a record high with over 159 million Americans casting their votes. That surge was largely due to mail-in voting expansions amid the pandemic. In 2024, things have changed. Many states have rolled back those measures, adding another layer of unpredictability. Will Harris manage to get her supporters to the polls without the ease of expanded mail-in voting, or will Trump’s grassroots campaigners secure the turnout he needs in rural areas? As it stands, predicting this election is like trying to measure the wind—too many factors are at play. Polls have proven unreliable time and again. In 2020, they underestimated Trump’s support, and in 2016, they missed his momentum altogether.

The bottom line is this: there is no predicting this election within the margin of error. We are looking at an electoral battle that could go either way, hinging on who manages to bring out their base and win over the critical middle. The numbers show Kamala Harris ahead—by a hair. But, as history has taught us, the winner of the popular vote isn’t necessarily the one who takes the presidency. The Electoral College looms large, and with it comes the unpredictability of the American voting landscape. The power of a handful of votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin cannot be overstated. A mere whisper of discontent among voters could flip the outcome.

As the campaigns reach fever pitch, the only thing that’s clear is that nothing is clear. Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are both digging in, and their respective supporters are preparing for a long night of counting. This is democracy in action—messy, chaotic, and thrilling. Predicting it? Well, let’s just say, as a wise man once quipped, "You can’t tell the depth of the river by the sound of its ripples." And with that in mind, may the best candidate win—unless, of course, they both lose.

 

America’s Political Apathy: How the World Became More Interested in U.S. Elections Than Americans

 

America’s presidential election is a worldwide obsession—but inside the U.S., it’s become background noise that most citizens have tuned out.

America, the land of the free and home of the brave, finds itself in an ironic twist: its presidential election is a global headline, yet strangely muted at home. While foreigners debate Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump as passionately as they do their local football clubs, Americans seem as enthusiastic as someone waiting for a root canal. It appears that the rest of the world is more invested in the future of U.S. leadership than the Americans themselves—a phenomenon as puzzling as it is telling.

Take Europe, for example, where dinner table conversations are filled with heated debates over Trump’s stance on immigration or Harris's strategies to combat climate change. Foreign nations like Israel and India seem to have preferences set, with polls indicating strong support for Trump over Harris in Israel, while Indian Americans lean towards Harris, albeit less decisively than in 2020. Israeli voters favoring Trump at 66%, and 61% of Indian Americans backing Harris, are statistics that paint an unusual portrait: the American election is more "theirs" than "ours." It's almost as though the U.S. election has turned into a global referendum on leadership, with America merely providing the ballot box. It’s like planning a party for the neighbors but forgetting to invite yourself.

Even Africa is drawn into the mix. Economic migrants and asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo and beyond find themselves gripped by anxiety as the U.S. elections draw near. They fear the implications for immigration policies—policies that have already caused significant tremors in the past. Trump's family separation policy, for instance, drew global outrage but seems to have faded into distant memory for most Americans, much like last year's failed New Year’s resolutions.

The curious part, though, is what’s happening—or not happening—inside the U.S. The media landscape is dominated by divisive rhetoric, with each camp trying to outdo the other in a desperate quest for relevance. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsing Harris and calling Trump "un-American," while Buzz Aldrin endorses Trump for his "Space Force" policies, epitomizes the schizophrenic nature of American politics. In any other scenario, the Space Force endorsement might have been the stuff of science fiction, but this is the 2024 U.S. presidential election: a saga stranger than fiction. It’s a drama that even Hollywood would shy away from scripting because it lacks a coherent plot.

And yet, as these endorsements from celebrities and former astronauts make headlines globally, the average American is strangely detached. The hyper-polarized atmosphere has turned politics into a theater where no one wants to buy a ticket anymore, except, apparently, everyone outside the U.S. Take Rahm Emanuel’s statement about the election mood: “Everybody’s just in a pissed-off mood.” It's as if American citizens have collectively decided that their democracy is someone else’s reality show, not worth the emotional investment or the popcorn.

Another curious point is the potential impact of this international focus. With nations like Singapore eyeing U.S. leadership outcomes for strategic hedging in the China-U.S. rivalry, and Europe practically salivating at the potential fallout of a Trump or Harris presidency, it raises the question: does the U.S. still decide its own destiny? Singapore’s strategic interests highlight a growing pattern—nations across the globe are plotting their future trajectories based on who leads the White House. This makes it a global chess game where every other nation seems to have more at stake than the players themselves.

Fiona Hill, a former Russia expert, provides a grim insight into this external influence on American politics. Hill explains that Trump, Putin, and Elon Musk are all engaging in conversations that seem to blur the line between international alliances and good-old American electioneering. It’s an emerging oligarchy, where decisions made by a few seem to wield more power than the collective will of the American public. And the American public? They seem to have taken the role of passive observers—resigned, indifferent, and most dangerously, silent.

Meanwhile, on Wall Street, Harris versus Trump is not just about politics; it's about the market, about profits, and about which candidate will make those profit margins swell. Wall Street, much like a swing state, has no loyalty beyond its quarterly earnings reports. The volatility of the election isn’t an abstract concept to global investors; it’s a reality that has billion-dollar implications. Investors in Europe and Asia tune in, not merely out of curiosity, but because what happens in the U.S. sends ripples through their stock exchanges. But for the average American struggling with inflation or healthcare, these Wall Street concerns are as distant as Pluto—just another orbit in the financial universe they will never visit.

Biden’s recent remarks about "garbage" and subsequent firestorm are a perfect encapsulation of why Americans are tuning out. What might have been an important discussion on campaign issues turned into a media circus, with Hill Republicans and Democrats throwing verbal grenades at each other. It's not surprising that Americans, tired of the endless cycle of scandal and counter-scandal, have opted out. Yet, ironically, the rest of the world continues to find these mudslinging contests fascinating. It’s almost as if non-Americans see in U.S. elections a drama that brings meaning and excitement to their otherwise ordinary lives. The stakes for them are existential; for many Americans, it's just exhausting.

Even the debate around abolishing the Electoral College has stirred more interest internationally than domestically. If Trump wins the popular vote but loses due to the Electoral College, as is speculated, it could very well fuel a movement for reform. But this isn't news to most Americans. The Electoral College has been a contentious issue since its inception, but reform has always stalled amid partisan bickering. To many outside the U.S., this outdated system looks like a relic of a bygone era, something akin to a monarchy’s unwritten rules—amusing, but ultimately undemocratic.

To top it off, international media are running commentary on how much U.S. elections could reshape global alliances, trade deals, and military pacts, yet most Americans remain blissfully ignorant. Harris trying to win over Republicans in Arizona, or Tim Scott’s efforts to sway Black voters to Trump, are stories that have captured attention across Europe and Africa. In America? These are footnotes to the larger story of distrust, voter fatigue, and a creeping sense of nihilism.

As this circus unfolds, one can only wonder: Have Americans forgotten how much power lies in their vote, or have they simply become numb to its significance? As Singapore, Israel, and even African asylum seekers eagerly await the outcome, many Americans seem to be sitting this one out. And if it continues this way, perhaps next time America will hold an election that’s globally televised but domestically forgotten—a national event that’s nobody’s party but everybody’s problem.

After all, the joke’s on us if the most talked-about U.S. election happens in every country except its own.

NATO: Stop Talking, Start Fighting for Peace—Invite Ukraine to the Table Now

 

The United States and NATO must prove their backbone by inviting Ukraine into the alliance, or admit that they prefer watching another sovereign nation burn rather than risk upsetting a despotic gas station called Russia.

When it comes to securing peace in Europe, playing small won't help anyone. Much like taking shelter under an umbrella in a tornado, the current Western strategy with Ukraine is full of commendable rhetoric but lacks the fortitude needed to change the course of history. The invitation for Ukraine to join NATO isn't just a strategic move; it’s a moral imperative and the only way for the West to definitively win the peace in Europe.

The United States and its NATO allies are currently dangling the carrot of membership in front of Ukraine, promising an "irreversible path" to NATO without issuing a concrete invitation. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently reaffirmed that Ukraine will eventually join NATO, but only "when allies agree, and conditions are met"—which sounds more like diplomatic foot-dragging than a true commitment. Meanwhile, Russia continues to throw its full weight against Ukraine, emboldened by the absence of decisive Western military guarantees. Essentially, Russia reads hesitation as weakness, which is exactly why inviting Ukraine into NATO is crucial now—not later when it's too late to deter Moscow's ambitions.

History is filled with similar moments where indecision invited disaster. The Munich Agreement of 1938, where the appeasement of Nazi Germany under the guise of maintaining peace led to the eventual outbreak of World War II, stands as an ominous reminder. When it comes to expansionist authoritarian regimes, the lesson has always been: you don't buy peace by conceding territory, you buy more conflict. The same principles are at play here. Inviting Ukraine to NATO would create the definitive line in the sand that Russia simply cannot cross without facing the wrath of the world's most powerful military alliance.

Russia’s track record proves one thing: it will push as far as it can until stopped. From the annexation of Crimea in 2014 to the most recent invasion, Moscow has shown nothing but contempt for Ukrainian sovereignty. The United States and Europe must invite Ukraine into NATO not just because it makes military sense but because it restores the very integrity of the international rule of law, which Putin’s regime continually disregards. If Ukraine remains outside NATO, it sends a chilling message to other vulnerable nations on Russia’s periphery: alliances are more of a bargaining chip than a reliable guarantee.

Contrary to the fears that such a move would escalate the conflict, inviting Ukraine into NATO would actually deter Russian aggression. Let’s not forget what happened in June 2023 when Yevgeny Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner Group, openly marched towards Moscow—Putin’s supposed invincibility was shaken, his government rattled by the mere sight of armed dissent. Russia, at its core, operates on maintaining an illusion of control. That illusion would shatter under the weight of NATO's unified might should it openly defend Ukraine.

Consider also that NATO’s defense ministers have already approved comprehensive defense plans, the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Cold War. These plans are explicitly designed to counter the twin threats of Russia and terrorism. Instead of shying away, NATO must seize this moment of strength and demonstrate that Ukraine, having withstood over a decade of Russian aggression, is worthy of the alliance's guarantees. By welcoming Ukraine, NATO wouldn’t just strengthen its eastern flank; it would also bring Europe’s most battle-hardened army into the fold, an asset that Russia has no equivalent of.

It’s true that some NATO members like Germany and Slovakia have expressed reservations about Ukraine joining the alliance during an active conflict. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and others have argued that Ukraine's immediate accession isn't realistic while it's at war. This hesitance, however, is shortsighted. It’s precisely because Ukraine is in an active conflict that the need for security guarantees is most urgent. To borrow from Winston Churchill, "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last." The NATO allies must not become appeasers by default; they must invite Ukraine into the alliance and present a unified front, making it unequivocally clear that any further territorial ambitions by Russia will be met with formidable resistance.

One of the more significant recent developments is NATO's decision to expedite Ukraine’s membership by bypassing the lengthy Membership Action Plan process, a two-step mechanism that countries typically go through before joining the alliance. In this case, Ukraine will follow a one-step process—an acknowledgment that Ukraine has already demonstrated its value and commitment to Western principles. This streamlined membership path is a crucial step, but it must be followed by immediate action. An actual invitation, not vague promises, is what’s needed to end the cycle of escalation and bring about a stable Europe.

NATO's $43 billion military aid to Ukraine is a monumental commitment, but without a formal invitation to join the alliance, it's akin to giving someone a life jacket but refusing to pull them onto the rescue boat. NATO leaders have promised that Ukraine is on an "irreversible path" towards membership, but it’s time to pick up the pace and make this a reality. The West has already supplied billions in aid, military training, and modern weaponry to Kyiv, helping them transition away from Soviet-era equipment. However, none of this will matter if Russia’s threat isn’t mitigated through a concrete guarantee like NATO membership.

Furthermore, the longer Ukraine is kept in NATO’s waiting room, the longer Europe’s peace remains precarious. For every Ukrainian soldier who falls on the frontlines, the West loses an ally ready to fight for the principles of democracy and freedom. By extending NATO’s shield over Ukraine, not only does the alliance stand to gain the loyalty of a country already paying the price for those values, but it also sends an unequivocal message to Russia and other authoritarian states: aggression will no longer be tolerated, and any attack on Ukraine will be treated as an attack on NATO itself.

Vladimir Putin, Belarusian strongman Alexander Lukashenko, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, and others thrive on the West's hesitance. They understand power in one form—force. A formal NATO invitation to Ukraine would not be a provocation; it would be a deterrent, preventing a potential expansion of war beyond Ukrainian borders into Europe proper. It’s time the West stopped merely reacting and started shaping the battlefield, not through war but through definitive and bold actions.

The irony of the West claiming to be the most peaceful and powerful military alliance while hesitating to use that power effectively should not be lost on anyone. If the West believes in the values it preaches, it’s time to show some backbone. Peace in Europe won’t come from tiptoeing around Putin’s "red lines." It will come from drawing our own—and enforcing them without hesitation.

Watching from the sidelines as Russia wages its imperial fantasies is more than just pathetic—it's an insult to the ideals that NATO claims to stand for. It’s high time for the alliance to make the right move: extend a hand to Ukraine, pull them onto the boat, and together chart a course for enduring peace. Otherwise, NATO risks becoming that shiny, state-of-the-art life jacket no one bothered to use—an expensive piece of equipment left to rust while the storm rages on.

The BRICS Summit’s Cash Catastrophe: How Putin’s De-Dollarization Strategy Backfired Spectacularly

 

Putin's "de-dollarization" is a hollow fantasy, exposed by the stark reality that even at his own anti-dollar summit, American dollars are the currency of survival. It’s like a vegan convention serving steak dinners—symbolic, but ultimately hypocritical.

Putin's effort to de-dollarize is turning into a bit of a "currency circus," where the supposed star of the show—financial independence—has to rely on a backup from the very currency it seeks to replace. When guests at the BRICS Summit in Kazan were advised to bring cash, specifically U.S. dollars and euros, the irony was glaring. Despite all the speeches about dethroning the dollar and establishing financial sovereignty, it seems the greenback is still the trusted ticket to rubles, especially since most Russian banks won't exchange other currencies. The summit, designed to highlight a new era of financial autonomy, essentially started by asking the attendees to pack "toxic currencies" in their suitcases.

This incident at Kazan reveals more than an embarrassing logistics issue—it exposes the illusion of financial power that Vladimir Putin wants to project. For the past few years, de-dollarization has been a key political buzzword for Putin, his way of promising liberation from Western hegemony. He has described the dollar as being "used as a weapon," calling it a mistake of Western powers, and pushed for alternatives like bilateral trade in local currencies (notably, China and Russia already conduct up to 95% of their trade in rubles and yuan). But for all these big words, cash flow at the summit told a different story—one where guests needed American dollars to navigate Russian financial systems, as local alternatives were riddled with limitations and bureaucratic obstacles. Mastercard and Visa don’t work within Russian borders since their suspension following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, leaving travelers to face difficulties with other systems such as UnionPay, which also come with restrictions.

The challenges don’t stop at cash. Putin has been tirelessly talking up Russia's plans for new payment systems that would bypass SWIFT, the global messaging network for cross-border payments that has been a lifeline for the dollar’s dominance. This SWIFT alternative, planned to be based in Belgium, was supposed to represent Russia's way of bypassing Western sanctions. Yet, despite all the rhetoric, even at the 2024 BRICS Summit, there was a conspicuous absence of concrete alternatives that could successfully undermine the dollar’s stronghold. BRICS members India and Brazil have been particularly cautious, leaning toward maintaining neutrality rather than turning the bloc into an openly anti-Western force, further complicating Putin’s aggressive de-dollarization agenda.

Consider the reality presented at Kazan: Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, speaking via video stream after missing the summit due to an injury, emphasized priorities like poverty, healthcare, and education instead of focusing on dismantling Western influence. Similarly, India, with its own strategic interests, shares Brazil's approach and shows little interest in aggressively pushing against the dollar. This divide within BRICS over strategy is a significant problem for Russia. The ambitious narrative of replacing the dollar is severely compromised when key players prefer a more cautious path, focusing on broader social and economic issues rather than spearheading a financial revolution against the West.

Indeed, while 35 new countries showed interest in the de-dollarization discussion at Kazan, even their participation comes with caveats. Many of these emerging economies are wary of putting their fate in a new financial system that may not be as reliable as the current one. Historically, the dollar has remained strong because it has something invaluable—trust. Emerging markets have seen the impact of U.S. sanctions on Russia and realized that, despite all its faults, the dollar offers stability in global trade. Putin may have convinced nations like Iran, Ethiopia, and Egypt to join the summit, but converting interest into genuine abandonment of the dollar is an uphill struggle, especially given how entrenched the greenback is in the existing global system.

Another interesting contradiction at the summit came from Putin's own words. On one hand, he touted the increased use of local currencies for cross-border trade, presenting this as a way for BRICS nations to "mitigate geopolitical risks" and "separate economic development from politics" to the greatest extent possible. Yet, on the other hand, when guests had to arrive in Kazan armed with euros and dollars, it was a tacit admission that even in Russia, the financial systems necessary for genuine independence from Western financial mechanisms are far from mature. It’s one thing to talk about alternatives; it's another to have the infrastructure to support such a drastic shift.

The failure to offer a viable financial alternative at the summit was more than just a minor inconvenience. It underscored the immense challenges that face any serious effort to upend the dollar's dominance. This is especially true when internal disagreements plague the BRICS alliance. Russia and China might be aligned in their desire to challenge the dollar's hegemony, but the diverging interests of other BRICS members—particularly India and Brazil—make it clear that de-dollarization is not a collective priority. In fact, analysts suggest that Russia's grand plans for de-dollarization and financial integration are unlikely to make significant headway given the differing political and economic agendas within the group.

The paradox of needing dollars at an anti-dollar summit highlights the unrealistic nature of Russia's efforts. Russia, despite having built a complex narrative around challenging the Western-dominated financial order, continues to fall back on the very systems it claims to detest. While Putin talks about a multipolar world and freeing the BRICS economies from Western control, the reality is a lot more complicated. The trust and infrastructure that the dollar and Western financial systems have developed over decades cannot be replaced overnight, especially when internal conflicts within BRICS prevent the group from acting as a united front.

As for the West, they continue to uphold a global financial system with remarkable endurance. The very idea that American security interests include not just the defense of national territory but also the economic stability of allies is something that has kept the dollar strong. It reflects an understanding that prosperity and security are interconnected beyond national borders. The U.S. defense budget, used not just for America but for broader global stability, is what underpins the trust in its currency. The alternatives, as presented at the BRICS summit, are at best still in their infancy, lacking the international infrastructure or credibility that the dollar holds.

In the end, the Kazan summit left us with one clear takeaway: the supposed emperor of de-dollarization has no clothes—or at least not enough to make it through a cash-dependent summit without American dollars in his pocket. Putin's push against the dollar looks more like an underfunded stage production than a serious geopolitical move. As the BRICS countries awkwardly navigate their role on the world stage, one can’t help but wonder if the only thing de-dollarizing in Russia might be the credibility of its leader's grandiose proclamations. As the guests left Kazan, perhaps the most valuable takeaway they carried was not in their wallets, but in the realization that challenging the greenback isn't as easy as waving a fist at it.

Host, But Not the Leader: How BRICS Left Putin Out in the Cold Over Ukraine

 

Even as host, Putin couldn't convince BRICS to embrace his war propaganda—looks like even friends prefer neutrality over siding with an aggressor.

If BRICS had truly intended to back Russia in its war against Ukraine, the Kazan Declaration would have read much differently. Instead, the document, a sprawling 134-point summary of agreements, includes just a single paragraph about the war. The language used was deliberately neutral, urging all parties to adhere to United Nations principles—far from the impassioned narrative that Vladimir Putin had likely hoped for, and a striking indication that Russia still struggles to rally even its closest allies behind its war.

Consider the irony of the situation: here we have a summit hosted by Russia, with Putin at the helm, and yet the mention of his ongoing war is almost a diplomatic whisper. For a man who prides himself on wielding influence on the global stage, this barely-there acknowledgement of the Ukraine conflict is a bitter pill to swallow. The absence of Russia’s usual aggressive rhetoric—such as claims of NATO encroachment or the alleged presence of "Nazis" in Ukraine—highlights that Moscow is not getting the carte blanche it desires, even among nations it considers friends and partners.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and other analysts have pointed out that the Kazan Declaration is a clear testament to Russia’s limited success in international diplomacy concerning its war. Even though Putin played the role of host and expected an echo chamber for his views, what he received was more akin to a lukewarm nod—a nod acknowledging the war, yet veering clear of endorsing any specific side. It’s as if the BRICS nations have strategically opted to play Switzerland, maintaining neutrality rather than aligning explicitly with Russia's cause.

Take China, for example—a country that has provided indirect support to Russia through economic ties, including the supply of weapons parts, and yet carefully avoids aligning itself openly with Moscow's war narrative. This is not mere caution; it’s a calculated move. China knows that openly backing Russia could have far-reaching economic repercussions, especially given its complex trade relations with the West. Brazil and India, too, continue to maintain robust economic relationships with Western nations, despite their apparent camaraderie within BRICS. It is as if the BRICS nations are hedging their bets, unwilling to alienate powerful economic partners such as the United States and European Union, even as they share a summit table with Moscow.

Interestingly, the Kazan Declaration was far more vocal on other conflicts and geopolitical issues, dedicating five points to condemning Israeli actions in the Middle East, and even discussing the South Sudanese Civil War in more depth than the Ukraine conflict. It's almost like an unspoken message to Russia: "We can discuss the world's conflicts, but don’t expect us to dive deep into yours." The Russian government, therefore, is left grappling with the reality that not even its closest allies are willing to put their reputations on the line to back its aggressive stance.

The challenges of isolation were further exposed in logistical hiccups at the summit. Due to Western sanctions, attendees were instructed to bring cash in U.S. dollars or euros for transactions, as Russian-issued Mastercard and Visa cards were no longer functional for international transactions. Think about that: the very currencies that Putin has repeatedly vilified and attempted to cast aside are the ones required to grease the wheels of his flagship international event. This small, yet significant irony underscores the larger, glaring problem—Russia's attempts to create an alternative financial structure have fallen flat, much like its attempts to create a new world order through its invasion of Ukraine.

Furthermore, it’s telling that other BRICS leaders have consistently chosen a middle-ground stance. In the face of what Russia portrays as a battle against NATO expansion, their silence speaks volumes. They may be happy to benefit from discounted Russian oil or increase bilateral trade in rubles, but when it comes to sticking their necks out to defend Moscow’s narrative, their lips are sealed. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for instance, has deftly sidestepped the issue. India, while benefiting from increased oil trade with Russia, continues to balance its relations with the U.S., as evidenced by its membership in the Quad—a security alliance that includes the U.S., Australia, and Japan, created specifically to counterbalance China's influence in the Indo-Pacific region. Brazil, under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has also maintained an equivocal stance, focusing on economic gains rather than diplomatic support for Russia’s cause.

Russia's failure to get solid backing for its invasion also highlights the risks of trying to reshape global norms through sheer force. The international community’s reluctance to endorse Putin's war reveals the dissonance between Russia's vision and the reality of global politics. Unlike in the past, where superpowers could perhaps arm-twist smaller nations into submission, today’s globalized economy makes such maneuvers fraught with risk. The sanctions levied against Russia are evidence of the costs of isolation; it is not just a hit to the economy, but a broader rejection by the global community of Moscow's methods. The Kremlin’s dream of forging a new "anti-Western" coalition seems to be cracking under the pressure of geopolitical pragmatism.

There is an old African proverb that says, "When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you." In this context, Russia’s primary enemy seems to be its own miscalculations. It overestimated its influence, assuming that the shared anti-Western sentiment among BRICS nations would translate into unequivocal support for its actions in Ukraine. Instead, what has unfolded is an almost embarrassing lack of backing from nations that Moscow thought it could count on. They’re willing to attend the summit, yes, and perhaps even smile for the cameras, but when the chips are down, they remain non-committal—a reality that Moscow cannot afford to ignore.

The whole situation becomes even more poignant when you think of Putin’s repeated insistence on the need for a multipolar world. This declaration was supposed to showcase BRICS as a strong bloc capable of counterbalancing Western influence. Instead, what we saw was fragmentation—nations interested in advancing their own agendas while carefully avoiding getting caught in the crossfire of Russia’s war. It turns out that even those that share the table with Putin have their limits, and when those limits are tested, what’s left is a watered-down diplomatic statement buried in a 43-page document.

It’s almost laughable, then, to think of Putin as the powerful leader steering the ship of an anti-Western bloc. If anything, the Kazan Declaration has revealed the emperor's new clothes. Russia stands alone in its endeavor, struggling to rally the troops, while BRICS nations cautiously navigate the tightrope between their own interests and the need to avoid international fallout. It appears that being the host doesn't guarantee being the leader—sometimes, it just makes you the one serving tea at the party where nobody really wants to talk about what’s in your own backyard.

The Rogue Duo: Russia and North Korea Are the Blind Leading the Blind into Oblivion

The Russia-North Korea partnership is akin to two sinking ships tying themselves together, hoping they'll somehow float—it's a tragic fantasy of failed despots grasping at straws while their empires crumble around them.

It seems that history is destined to repeat itself, especially for those who have not learned the lessons of defeat. The newly minted partnership between Russia and North Korea presents itself as a grandiose gesture of strength—a purported alliance meant to shake the Western world—but in reality, it resembles a partnership of losers, a sad marriage born out of desperation. Given what we've seen of the Russian military's weakness during its ongoing campaign in Ukraine, and North Korea's almost laughable military capabilities, this alliance is hardly the formidable threat that both leaders seem to believe.

To start with, Russia's military has been exposed in Ukraine as far less capable than it appeared on paper. What was once feared as one of the world's strongest armies has been significantly undermined by tactical blunders, low morale, and logistical nightmares. The Russian offensive, originally envisioned as a swift military operation, has dragged on for years with enormous casualties and limited territorial gains. Vladimir Putin's own desperation became evident in the summer of 2022 when Russia began searching for external military support—turning to Iran for drones and now to North Korea for munitions and troops. This begs the question: what does it say about a superpower if it has to rely on arguably the most isolated, impoverished regime in the world to sustain its war effort?

North Korea, under Kim Jong Un, has eagerly stepped into the role of Russia's munitions supplier. Reports indicate that since 2023, North Korea has sent over 6,700 containers of artillery ammunition to Russia to support its artillery-centric war effort in Ukraine. Pyongyang is fulfilling this role in exchange for much-needed food supplies, oil, and perhaps some technological assistance for its military programs. This kind of arrangement only highlights the transactional and opportunistic nature of the so-called alliance between these two nations. They are more like two people lost at sea, desperately clinging to each other for survival rather than forming a meaningful partnership that could truly challenge Western powers (The Diplomat, USNI News).

And now, North Korea is reportedly preparing to send troops to Russia to bolster the Kremlin's floundering efforts in Ukraine. If reports from South Korean intelligence are to be believed, Russian ships have already transported some 1,500 North Korean troops, and more could be on the way. However, these troops bring with them a peculiar kind of "experience." Historically, the North Korean army has primarily been used for brutal domestic repression rather than for engaging in external conflicts. Many North Korean soldiers have honed their skills firing upon unarmed civilians—defectors attempting to cross the border into China or perceived dissidents within North Korea itself. The last time North Korea engaged in a real international military conflict was in the 1950s, during the Korean War, and their forces were driven back, aided only by the intervention of China.

These troops have not experienced anything akin to the intensity of modern warfare in decades. Their most recent foreign experience involved building statues for African dictators in exchange for hard currency—hardly the rigorous kind of training that prepares an army for urban warfare against a highly motivated enemy like the Ukrainians. This unfamiliarity with genuine armed conflict and the brutal tactics of modern warfare will almost certainly turn North Korean troops into cannon fodder, as even experts from Oxford and former diplomats have pointed out. The cultural, linguistic, and logistical differences alone would make any form of operational integration with Russian forces challenging. In Russia’s military, where ethnic prejudices abound, North Korean troops are likely to end up at the bottom of the pecking order—abused and expendable (Business Insider, USNI News, Council on Foreign Relations).

What is more, the very nature of this partnership is telling. In June 2024, Russia and North Korea signed a "comprehensive strategic partnership treaty" that vowed mutual assistance if either nation was attacked. The move was more symbolic than practical, with both nations hoping to present an image of unity against the West, even as the rest of the world sees them for what they are—two regimes under considerable strain, both economically and politically, trying to make a show of force. Kim Jong Un’s regime remains internationally isolated, impoverished, and subject to crushing sanctions, while Putin, facing backlash for his aggression in Ukraine, has found himself without meaningful allies apart from countries like Iran and now North Korea (NK News).

The truth is that this partnership is not about challenging the existing world order in any meaningful way. It is about desperation and survival. North Korea is getting oil and wheat, while Russia is getting artillery shells and, as it appears now, "guest workers" in the form of North Korean soldiers. The treaty also speaks of a possible exchange of technology that may improve North Korea's missile program, though Russia has so far been hesitant to provide nuclear technology directly. Yet the risk remains that Putin may be willing to cross that line if his desperation deepens further. The partnership, if anything, makes both nations more dangerous in terms of nuclear proliferation, but not necessarily more capable of winning wars (Council on Foreign Relations).

North Korea's involvement will likely do little to improve Russia's military situation in Ukraine. The Ukrainian armed forces, well-supplied by NATO and Western countries, have the experience, training, and motivation that North Korean troops fundamentally lack. This partnership exposes North Korea’s willingness to involve itself in a conflict that has nothing to do with the Korean Peninsula—a decision that may have dire consequences domestically if soldiers begin returning home in body bags. Already, there are reports of desertions among North Korean personnel who are allegedly fleeing into Russian territory to escape the dire conditions and abuse they face (Business Insider).

Ultimately, this partnership looks like a last-ditch effort by two nations that are increasingly backed into a corner. They are clinging to each other not because they share ideological values or have complementary strengths, but because they have nowhere else to turn. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine drags on and Moscow's losses continue to mount, the image of a mighty Russia is beginning to crumble, exposing a hollowed-out military that now needs the help of a regime that itself barely survives off of international aid and repression.

The Russia-North Korea partnership is not the birth of a new world axis but rather the desperate union of two pariah states. Putin and Kim can sign all the treaties they want, exchange handshakes, and promise mutual defense assistance, but what they are doing is simply pooling their weaknesses, not their strengths. As the Ukrainian and Western response continues to show, this is less of an alliance to be feared and more of a curious sideshow—a tragic, almost farcical attempt to project power where there is none. If anything, it brings to mind the old adage: "Two wrongs don't make a right"—but in this case, they certainly make for a very misguided military adventure.

From Rubles to Redemption: Why Russia’s Billions Belong in Ukrainian Hands

 

Turning Russia’s frozen wealth into Ukraine’s salvation isn’t theft—it’s justice. If Putin sowed destruction, he must reap restitution.

When a thief’s purse fills another’s treasury, justice often finds its reckoning. The European Union’s plan to fund Ukraine with profits derived from frozen Russian assets is not just strategic—it’s poetic. This £2.26 billion loan, part of a broader $50 billion package pledged by the G7, repurposes Russian wealth to rebuild the very nation Moscow sought to annihilate. That’s fairness personified, a modern “eye for an eye” that shifts the burden back onto the aggressor. Given Russia’s relentless aggression, it’s only fitting that its resources now support the democracy it tried to dismantle.

The EU’s initiative to secure a €35 billion ($38 billion) loan underscores the bloc’s commitment to Kyiv’s defense and survival. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, described the funding as essential given the extensive damage inflicted on Ukraine by Russia’s nearly 1,000-day war. The loan, backed by immobilized Russian assets, is designed to circumvent legal complexities—leveraging profits rather than direct confiscation to avoid international law violations. The U.K., Canada, and the EU have stepped up to support Ukraine, each pledging billions. Yet, the stakes rise as countries like Hungary threaten to delay these critical efforts for political leverage, highlighting the tensions within the EU over unified support for Ukraine.

By appropriating profits from Russia’s frozen assets, Europe signals that aggression has consequences. Russia's $280 billion immobilized in Western institutions now serves as collateral against its military misadventure. This is no ordinary sanction; it is a masterstroke, ensuring that Russian funds—previously wielded for war—now finance Ukraine’s defense and recovery. Britain, for instance, has tied its loan to extraordinary profits from these assets, effectively turning the tables on Putin’s economic ambitions. The West isn't merely punishing Moscow; it's redistributing Russian wealth to rebuild Ukraine, making the invader pay for the damage caused.

Despite legal maneuvering to frame this as a use of profits rather than asset seizure, Russia’s response has been predictably belligerent, warning that these actions could drag Europe into deeper conflict. Yet, the moral imperative is clear: the aggressor must bear the cost. Imagine leaving a burglar to redecorate with stolen goods—unthinkable! This approach ensures Russia’s frozen assets, once symbols of its geopolitical overreach, are now harnessed to bolster the sovereignty it sought to erase.

Politically, this strategy also serves as a message to autocrats everywhere: aggression won't be tolerated without financial consequence. As Kyiv inches closer to the frontlines of European democracy, leaders like Rachel Reeves argue that supporting Ukraine is not merely charity but a matter of shared values and collective defense. Reeves emphasizes that “a safe and secure Ukraine is a safe and secure United Kingdom,” framing the loan not only as a geopolitical investment but as a defense of democracy itself.

The controversy lies in the audacity of this plan—using Russia’s own resources against it. There’s poetic justice in watching the profits of aggression fund Ukraine’s resistance, though critics worry about setting dangerous precedents. Washington's insistence on tightening Europe’s sanctions regime demonstrates the high stakes of maintaining a reliable windfall from these immobilized funds. Meanwhile, Hungary’s foot-dragging exemplifies how internal European politics could complicate this bold initiative, leaving the success of the loan package hanging by a thread as leaders scramble to meet an October 25 deadline.

This entire endeavor reflects a proverb that echoes through history: “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” Yet now, the grass—Ukraine—is being watered with the spoils of the elephants’ war. Russian aggression may have flattened Ukraine’s fields, but it will be Russian wealth that replants them. This isn’t merely a financial transaction; it’s retribution disguised as reform. It ensures that Putin pays a heavy toll for his imperialist fantasies, marking a new chapter in how international justice can be enforced without firing a shot.

Whether this approach will hold in the long run, however, is the ultimate gamble. Critics caution that weaponizing profits from frozen assets could make future financial sanctions risky and politically volatile. Yet, in a world where traditional diplomacy has faltered, economic retaliation offers a potent tool to deter aggression. Europe’s use of Russian profits as a weapon sends a message: those who sow chaos must harvest accountability.

With these developments, the stage is set for one of the most controversial financial experiments in recent memory. The loan package not only strengthens Ukraine’s resistance but also establishes a dangerous precedent for asset management during conflicts. And if Putin thought he could walk away from this war without consequence, Europe’s latest move proves otherwise—turning Russian wealth into Ukraine’s lifeline, one frozen asset at a time. Isn’t it ironic that the vaults Russia once fattened with ill-gotten gains now fund the freedom they sought to crush? Perhaps the ultimate joke is on Putin after all.

Kim Jong-un to Putin’s Rescue? Russia’s Military Shame Laid Bare for the World to See

 

Once a global powerhouse, Russia now kneels before the pariah of the world, begging Kim Jong-un for soldiers—an unmistakable signal that Putin's military strength is nothing more than a hollow bluff.

Kim Jong-un is now, quite literally, marching to the beat of a desperate man's drum. North Korea's commitment to send thousands of troops to support Vladimir Putin’s beleaguered efforts in Ukraine starkly illustrates just how much Russia's status has withered. A former Cold War superpower, now so cornered that it must turn to one of the world's most isolated and impoverished regimes for military support, is a dramatic shift for a country that once prided itself on its formidable might.

The dispatch of North Korean troops to Russia is not without precedent, but it has sent shockwaves across international arenas. Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un have reportedly signed agreements that promise not only manpower but also a sharing of advanced military technologies. In exchange for soldiers, North Korea is expected to receive Russian help in strengthening its nuclear capabilities, including technologies related to low-yield nuclear weapons and missile systems, pushing global anxieties to a fever pitch. The quid pro quo between Moscow and Pyongyang seems all the more alarming given its potential to jeopardize regional stability in East Asia and exacerbate tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

Historically, North Korea has played roles in foreign conflicts that suited its interests. During the Vietnam War, North Korean pilots covertly fought alongside the North Vietnamese forces, and in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, North Korea dispatched military personnel to assist Egypt. However, the scale of the current troop commitment to Russia seems different. Instead of simply lending support covertly, this deployment appears to be part of a broader and openly acknowledged alliance between two increasingly isolated nations. It suggests that North Korea is now willing to openly engage in a far more aggressive manner, leveraging its military presence to both aid an ally and test its combat capabilities in a modern war zone.

The strategic folly of Putin seeking assistance from North Korea—a nation with outdated military equipment and limited battlefield experience—cannot be understated. Observers are skeptical about the effectiveness of North Korean troops in a conflict as technologically advanced and fiercely contested as Ukraine. Despite Kim's enthusiasm for involving his soldiers, North Korea’s combat readiness remains questionable. Their equipment is outdated, and their last significant international military engagement was nearly fifty years ago. Meanwhile, their only advantage may be the ideological rigidity of soldiers indoctrinated to the point of fanatical loyalty—men whose families are potentially at risk if they fail to deliver in combat.

That Putin is leaning on such unreliable support speaks volumes about Russia's current military predicament. Once perceived as a global power capable of challenging the United States and NATO, Russia’s inability to sustain a prolonged war without looking eastward for support underscores a painful truth: the Russian bear is not what it used to be. The might that characterized Soviet-era Russia has given way to a weakened state that not only struggles with an effective military strategy but also finds itself devoid of reliable allies. China, though a vocal supporter of Russia, has not shown an inclination to directly support Moscow's military campaign in Ukraine. Meanwhile, Iran's involvement is mostly restricted to the provision of drones, leaving Putin grasping at straws and now turning to North Korea's manpower.

The irony is inescapable—Putin, who has long projected himself as a guardian of Slavic civilization, now finds himself allied with Kim Jong-un, a dictator he would once have dismissed as a mere nuisance. Russia’s association with North Korea, often derided by the West as a rogue state, is emblematic of its declining influence on the global stage. John Foreman, the former British defense attaché to Russia, aptly captured the sentiment by stating that Russia once looked down on North Korea as a "pygmy state." The optics of a supposed superpower needing to rely on a country known more for its missile tests than military prowess is a clear indication of how far Russia has fallen.

Even more concerning is the diplomatic cost that North Korea appears willing to pay to prop up Russia. By openly supporting Putin, North Korea is further isolating itself from the global community, burning bridges with potential European partners in return for Russian military technology. The rewards for Kim are not just military but also strategic, providing his troops exposure to modern warfare and potentially learning about Western military equipment from their Russian allies. This exposure could be invaluable to North Korea, given its long-standing tensions with South Korea and the United States.

While North Korea's involvement may bolster Putin’s manpower in the short term, it does little to address the fundamental issues plaguing Russia's campaign in Ukraine. Russian forces are facing not only the logistical nightmare of maintaining long supply lines but also the growing morale crisis among troops, many of whom lack motivation or conviction. Adding North Korean soldiers, with their limited understanding of the battlefield dynamics and outdated equipment, may very well turn out to be a liability rather than an asset for the Russian war effort. Ukrainian forces have been actively targeting Russian supply lines and command structures, and a contingent of ideologically-driven North Korean troops is unlikely to reverse Russia's dwindling fortunes on the battlefield.

The broader implications of North Korea’s involvement are also concerning. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently pointed out that the inclusion of North Korean troops could internationalize the conflict even further, potentially turning it into a broader proxy war involving multiple nations. Such a development would mark a dangerous escalation, risking direct confrontations between the great powers of the East and West. The longer Russia relies on unorthodox alliances, the more precarious the global security landscape becomes.

Ultimately, Putin’s decision to beg Kim Jong-un for soldiers is not just a strategic blunder; it is a deeply symbolic act that shows the depths to which Russia’s military power has fallen. In an era when strategic alliances are often forged based on mutual respect and shared interests, the Russia-North Korea alliance is held together by desperation and necessity rather than strength. Once known for its proud heritage of "Tchaikovsky and Chekhov," Russia is now consorting with a dictator known more for public executions than for cultural achievements. If this is what Russian greatness has come to, then perhaps the Russian bear is indeed on life support, relying on North Korean crutches just to limp through its ambitions in Ukraine.

And what better end for this alliance than a satirical thought: Kim Jong-un, the man with the ill-fitting suits, bailing out Putin, the man who dreams of reinstating Russia’s lost glory. Perhaps next, we should expect a North Korean makeover for the Kremlin’s military uniforms—a perfect blend of desperation and delusion.