news

The newly arrived tanker, the Vasily Lanovoy, has previously been deployed to transport condensate linked to Russia’s sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project – an operation already under heavy scrutiny from U.S. and European regulators. In this latest instance the vessel departed from the Baltic port of Ust-Luga on October 27 traveling across the Atlantic. It arrived at Venezuela’s oil loading complex at Puerto José on November 22. Its presence near the Seahorse in the Caribbean is raising renewed questions about how Russia’s vast network of opaque shipping assets is skirting international sanctions and maintaining energy flows through unconventional routes. Just two weeks ago Canada imposed sanctions on the Vasily Lanovoy following similar measures by the UK and the EU in September and October 2025. The vessel has repeatedly engaged in spoofing or disengaging its AIS signal.

The U.S. Navy’s encounter with the Seahorse earlier this month underscores the growing friction surrounding this clandestine segment of the global energy trade. American officials have not publicly detailed the nature of the standoff with the U.S. destroyer USS Stockdale, but analysts say the incident highlights escalating efforts by Washington to disrupt Russia’s sanctions-evading logistics. The arrival of the Vasily Lanovoy – a vessel with a well-documented history of conducting high-risk cargo operations – adds an additional layer of complexity. The vessel without an ice classification picked up several loads of condensate from the Arctic LNG 2 project between August and October 2024. The vessel disengaged its AIS transponder for parts of those journeys. Venezuelan waters have increasingly become a crossroads for ships with checkered histories, drawn by the country’s permissive regulatory environment and longstanding energy ties with Moscow.

For U.S. officials and sanction monitors, the latest development is another signal of Russia’s growing reliance on dark-fleet infrastructure—aging, poorly insured tankers operating with minimal transparency—to navigate tightening export restrictions. With China’s help the country recently engaged in the first shadow fleet ship-to-ship transfer of LNG off Malaysia’s coast.

For my whole career in finance, I have distrusted the obvious. And yet, for many years there was one number I assumed was an actuarial fact: the U.S. poverty line. Yes, I saw Americans feeling poorer every year, despite economic growth and low unemployment. But ultimately, I trusted the official statistics. Until I saw a simple statement buried in a research paper. And I realized that number—created more than 60 years ago, with good intentions—was a lie. The statement was this: “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.” When I read it I felt sick. And when you understand that number, you will understand the rage of Americans who have been told that their lives have been getting better when they are barely able to stay afloat.

In 1963, Mollie Orshansky, an economist at the Social Security Administration, observed that families spent roughly one-third of their income on groceries. Since pricing data was hard to come by for many items (e.g., housing), if you could calculate a minimum adequate food budget at the grocery store, you could multiply by three and establish a poverty line. Orshansky presented her findings in 1965. She was drawing a floor, a line below which families were clearly in crisis. For that time, that floor made sense. Housing was relatively cheap. A family could rent a decent apartment or buy a home on a single income. Healthcare was provided by employers and cost relatively little (Blue Cross coverage cost in the range of $10 per month). Childcare didn’t really exist as a market—mothers stayed home, family helped, or neighbors (who likely had someone home) watched each others’ kids. Cars were affordable, if prone to breakdowns. College tuition could be covered with a summer job. Orshansky’s food-times-three formula was crude, but as a crisis threshold—a measure of “too little”—it roughly corresponded to reality. But everything changed between 1963 and 2024. Housing costs exploded. Healthcare became the largest household expense for many families. Employer coverage shrank while deductibles grew. Childcare became a market, and that market became ruinously expensive. College went from affordable to crippling.

The labor model shifted. A second income became mandatory to maintain the standard of living that one income formerly provided. But a second income meant childcare became mandatory, which meant, for many, two cars became mandatory. The composition of household spending transformed completely. In 2024, food-at-home is no longer 33 percent of household spending. For most families, it’s 5 to 7 percent. Housing now consumes 35 to 45 percent. Healthcare takes 15 to 25 percent. Childcare, for families with young children, can eat 20 to 40 percent. If you keep Orshansky’s logic—if you maintain her principle that poverty could be defined by the inverse of food’s budget share—but update the food share to reflect today’s reality, the multiplier is no longer three. It becomes 16. Which means if you measured income inadequacy today the way Orshansky measured it in 1963, the threshold for a family of four—the official poverty line in 2024—wouldn’t be $31,200. If the crisis threshold—the floor below which families cannot function—is honestly updated to current spending patterns, it lands at close to $140,000.

Consider this: The median household income is roughly $80,000. We have been told, implicitly, that a family earning $80,000 is doing fine—safely above poverty, solidly middle class, perhaps comfortable. But if Orshansky’s crisis threshold were calculated today using her own methodology, that $80,000 family would be living in deep poverty. To understand why, you need to look at the real costs of sustaining a family today. I wanted to see what would happen if I ignored the official stats and simply calculated the cost of existing. I built a basic needs budget for a family of four (two earners, two kids). No vacations, no Netflix, no luxury. Just the “participation tickets” required to hold a job and raise kids in 2024. Using conservative data for a family in New Jersey:

• Childcare: $32,773
• Housing: $23,267
• Food: $14,717
• Transportation: $14,828
• Healthcare: $10,567
• Other essentials: $21,857
• Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500. This is Orshansky’s “too little” threshold, updated honestly. This is the floor. The single largest line item isn’t housing. It’s childcare: $32,773. This is the trap. To reach the median household income of $80,000, most families require two earners. But the moment you add the second earner to chase that income, you trigger the childcare expense. If one parent stays home, the income drops to $40,000 or $50,000—well below what’s needed to survive. If both parents work to hit $100,000, they hand over $32,000 to a daycare center. Then take housing. Critics will immediately argue that I’m cherry-picking expensive cities. They will say $136,500 is a number for San Francisco or Manhattan, not “Real America.” So let’s look at “Real America.”

The model above allocates $23,267 per year for housing. That breaks down to $1,938 per month. This is the number that serious economists use to tell you that you’re doing fine. I analyzed a modest “starter home,” which turned out to be in Caldwell, New Jersey—the kind of place a Teamster could afford in 1955. I went to Zillow to see what it costs to live in that same town if you don’t have a down payment and are forced to rent. There are exactly seven 2-bedroom+ units available in the entire town. The cheapest one rents for $2,715 per month. So when I say the real poverty line is $140,000, I’m being conservative. I’m using optimistic, national-average housing assumptions. If we plug in the actual cost of living in the zip codes where the jobs are—where rent is $2,700, not $1,900—the threshold pushes past $160,000. The housing market isn’t just expensive; it’s broken. Seven units available in a town of thousands? That isn’t a market. That’s a shortage masquerading as an auction.

Then there is everything else you need to function in society, the cost of the “participation ticket.” Back in 1955, that included a $5 phone line. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $58. Except that in reality, to function today—to factor authenticate your bank account, to answer work emails, to check your child’s school portal (which is now digital-only)—you need a smartphone plan and home broadband. That’s not $58. It’s $200 or more. Economists will look at my $140,000 figure and scream about “hedonic adjustments.” And yes, cars today have airbags, homes have air conditioning, and phones are supercomputers. The quality of many goods has gotten markedly better. But we are not calculating the price of luxury. We are calculating the price of participation. Now run this kind of participation audit across the economy. In 1955, Blue Cross family coverage was roughly $10 per month ($115 in today’s dollars). Today, the average family premium is over $1,600 per month. That’s 14x inflation. In 1955, the Social Security tax was 2 percent on the first $4,200 of income. The maximum annual contribution was $84. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $960 a year. Today, a family earning the median $80,000 pays over $6,100. That’s 6x inflation. And childcare? In 1955, this cost was zero because the economy supported a single-earner model. Today, it’s $32,000. That’s an infinite increase in the cost of participation. The only thing that actually tracked official Consumer Price Index was... food. Everything else—the inescapable fees required to hold a job, stay healthy, and raise children—inflated at multiples of the official rate when considered on a participation basis. Yes, these goods and services are better. I would not trade my 65″ 4K TV mounted flat on the wall for the 25″ TV that dominated a living room, but I also don’t have the choice to pay less money and buy the old model.

TOKYO, Nov 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump asked Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takiachi not to further escalate a dispute with China during talks this week, sources with knowledge of the matter said, as he tries to preserve a fragile trade war truce with Beijing.

Takaichi touched off the biggest diplomatic dispute with Beijing in years when she told parliament this month that a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan that threatened Japan could justify a military response.

Her remark enraged Beijing, prompting it to warn its citizens against travel to its East Asian neighbour. In Tuesday's telephone call with Takaichi, Trump said he did not want to see further escalation, said the two Japanese government sources, who sought anonymity as the matter is a sensitive one.

Trump made no specific demands of Takaichi, however, one of the sources said, suggesting that he did not echo Beijing's call for a retraction. Japan has said her remarks reflect longstanding government policy. At a regular press briefing on Thursday, its Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara declined to comment on the details of the "diplomatic exchange".

BALANCING TRADE AND TAIWAN

That telephone conversation came after Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who told the U.S. leader Taiwan's return to China was central to Beijing's vision for the world order, the official Xinhua news agency said.

Democratically governed Taiwan rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claim.

Trump, who plans to travel to Beijing in April, has not commented publicly on whether the talks featured Taiwan, saying instead that the world's two biggest economies have "extremely strong" ties and are close to finalising a broad trade deal.

"The United States' relationship with China is very good, and that's also very good for Japan, who is our dear and close ally," Trump said in a statement issued by the White House in response to questions from Reuters.

"We signed wonderful trade deals with Japan, China, South Korea, and many other nations, and the world is at peace. Let’s keep it that way!"

In Tokyo, some officials have long worried that Trump may be prepared to soften support for Taiwan in pursuit of a trade accord with China, a move they fear will embolden Beijing and spark conflict in an increasingly militarised East Asia.

"For Trump, what matters most is U.S.-China relations," said Kazuhiro Maejima, a professor of U.S. politics at Sophia University. "Japan has always been treated as a tool or a card to manage that relationship."

WORRYING SILENCE

Trump's public silence on Japan's escalating dispute with China has further frayed nerves in Tokyo.

Washington's envoy to Tokyo has said the United States supports Japan in the face of China's "coercion", but two senior ruling party lawmakers told Reuters they had hoped for more full-throated support from their top security ally.

Japan hosts the largest overseas concentration of U.S. military, including an aircraft carrier strike group and a U.S. Marine amphibious force that hem in China's military ambitions.

Washington has welcomed Tokyo's defence build-up in recent years that has also irked Beijing.

"We’d like a word from Trump himself," said one of the lawmakers, speaking on condition of anonymity. Trump's public silence could be perceived as a green light for Beijing to exert more pressure on Japan, he added.

Beijing has turned up the rhetoric.

China urged the United States to rein in Japan to prevent "actions to revive militarism", the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily said in an editorial on Thursday that highlighted the role of Japan as their common enemy during World War Two.

"China and the United States share a common responsibility to jointly safeguard the post-war international order and oppose any attempts or actions to revive militarism," it added.

China's defence ministry said Japan would pay a "painful price" if it stepped out of line over Taiwan, in response to Tokyo's plans to put air defence missiles on its westernmost island, Yonaguni, just 110 km (68 miles) from Taiwan's coast.

Asked about Takaichi's call with Trump, the prime minister's office referred Reuters to its official summary that said the two discussed U.S.-China ties, but did not elaborate.

It also denied an earlier Wall Street Journal article that said Trump advised her not to provoke Beijing on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty.

Takaichi's off-the-cuff remark in parliament on Taiwan broke from the strategic ambiguity of her predecessors, who declined to publicly discuss the scenarios that could be deemed a sufficient threat to Japan to trigger military action.

Now that the comments are in the public domain, however, they will be hard to retract, officials previously told Reuters, making it all the harder to defuse a dispute that could hammer the economy and usher in a long winter in China-Japan ties.

PRESS RELEASE

Urgent Message: Military Attempting To Stop Electoral Process In Guinea Bissau 11/26/2025

The West African Country of Guinea Bissau held presidential and legislative elections on Sunday 23rd of November, 2025. Prior to election day the illegally established Supreme Court disqualified the African Party of Independence of Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde (PAIGC) candidates by inventing the technicality that the PAIGC had not submitted its candidates before the due date. This illegal exclusion led the PAIGC to endorse the candidacy of Fernando Dias da Costa, Social Renewal Party (PRS) President and backed by the Inclusive Patriot Alliance (API) Big Calabash and the Terra Ranka Coalition led by Domingos Simões Pereira of the PAIGC.

Upon completion of voting, official reports to the Regional Electoral Commissions (CRE) from the 10 Regions indicate that Fernando Dias da Costa won the election with a confirmed vote tally of 54%, while Ebalo SIssoco, the illegitimate president seeking re-election, garnered 44% of the vote. These results were confirmed and signed today, 26 November and are due to be officially proclaimed on tomorrow, 27 November by the National Electoral Commission.

In an attempt to prevent the announcement of Sissoco's defeat, military forces loyal to him attempted to invade several Regional Electoral Commissions (CRE) but were unable due to the Masses of People who surrounded the CRE Headquarters.

On 26 November, after Sissoco himself announced to several news outlets, such as Jeune Afrique, that he was the victim of a coup, the same group of soldiers loyal to Sissoco announced on National Television that they have “..taken Total Control of the Country..”. Shots have been fired in the streets of the Capitol City Bissau. Domingos Simões Pereira, President of the African Party of Independence of Guinea Bissau (PAIGC), and President of the National People's Assembly (ANP) has been arrested by these same military forces loyal to Embalo Sissoco. Sissoco’s whereabouts remain unknown.

The All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (AAPRP) and our sister Party the PAIGC view these military actions as a futile attempt to keep Sissoco in power by pretending to be the victim of a military coup which Sissoco himself orchestrated after falsely proclaiming himself the winner of the elections. The revolting military forces intervened when both candidates claimed to win the election, causing a “crisis of uncertainty”. Their real intent is to prevent the proclamation of Fernando Dias da Costa and his PAIGC backers, the winners of Sunday's election.

The A-APRP calls upon all international institutions, regional bodies, progressive and peace loving People, to join the masses of People in Guinea Bissau to demand:

The immediate release of Domingos Simões Pereira and all citizens that have been illegally detained That the military harm no one That all military troops return to the barracks That the electoral process be allowed to go forward with the official proclamation of the vote count and announcement of the winners of the Sunday’s elections.

We soundly condemn the desperate attempt by Sissoco and his imperialist masters to once again overthrow the popular will of the Guinean masses and thwart the sovereignty of Guinea Bissau.

Central Committee All-African People’s Revolutionary Party

𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑾𝑨𝑷𝑶 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒏 𝑮𝒖𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒂-𝑩𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒖 West African Peoples Organisation (WAPO) Organisation des Peuples de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (OPAO) Organização dos Povos da África Ocidental (OPAO)

The President of the Coordination Council

STATEMENT

We condemn the fascist coup d’État led by Umaru Sissoko Embaló and demand the immediate release of Comrades Domingos Simões Pereira, PAIGC President, and Fernando Dias da Costa, President-Elect of Guinea-Bissau.

Since yesterday, 26 November 2025, a fascist scenario has unfolded — a self-coup orchestrated by Umaru Sissoko Embaló, who was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls. The very clear aim is to prevent the electoral body from announcing results that are unfavorable to this well-known agent of the neo-colonial system.

The blatant proof of this grotesque scheme is the arrest of our Brave and Fearless comrades Domingos Simões Pereira, President of the PAIGC (a member party of OPAO/WAPO), and President-Elect Fernando Dias da Costa.

Umaru Sissoko Embaló thus reveals himself once again as a habitual coup instigator and a fierce Enemy of Democracy, of the Sovereignty of the People, and of its Republican Institutions. Already in December 2023, he dissolved the democratically elected National People’s Assembly.

The West African Peoples Organization – WAPO (OPAO):

1. Demands the immediate release of Comrades Domingos Simões Pereira, PAIGC President, and Fernando Dias da Costa.

2. Demands the announcement of the results and the recognition of President-Elect Fernando Dias da Costa.

3. Congratulates the swift reaction of the patriotic organisations of Guinea-Conakry and Guinea-Bissau itself.

4. Calls on all WAPO sections to protest vigorously, in various ways, for the immediate release of the detained Comrades and for the proclamation of the results from the polls.

Cotonou, 27 November 2025

Prof. Philippe Toyo NOUDJENOUME President of the WAPO Coordination Council.

Shares in Michael Saylor-led Strategy, the world’s biggest corporate bitcoin holder, have tumbled 50 per cent over the past three months, dragging down scores of copycat companies.

About $77bn has been wiped from the stock market value of these companies, which raise debt and equity to fund purchases of crypto, since their peak of $176bn in July, according to industry data publication The Block.

With Saylor’s company now worth less than the bitcoin it holds, investors worry that a business model that relied on a virtuous circle of rising crypto prices and massive share and debt issuance is now unravelling.

“There’s going to be a fire sale at these companies; it’s going to get worse,” said Adam Morgan McCarthy, senior research analyst at crypto data firm Kaiko. “It’s a vicious cycle. As soon as the prices start tanking, it’s a race to the bottom.” Line chart of $ showing Strategy's falling share price

Saylor’s software business inspired a raft of copycats in industries including film production, vaping and electric vehicles, after its pivot to a “bitcoin treasury” strategy drove a huge increase in its share price. Purchases by such companies have been a big driver of bitcoin hitting a record high last month.

But the craze has soured as cryptocurrencies bore the brunt of a sell-off in speculative assets this autumn, in a sharp reversal for a sector that had been buoyed by President Donald Trump’s pledge last year to turn the US into a “bitcoin superpower”.

Shares in Japan’s biggest bitcoin holder Metaplanet have plunged 80 per cent since their June peak. The company on Tuesday raised a $130mn loan backed by its bitcoin, which it said would be used for purposes including buying back stock. The Smarter Web Company, the UK’s biggest bitcoin buyer, has experienced a 44 per cent stock price drop this year. It is valued at £132mn while the bitcoin it holds is worth about $232mn.

“It was inevitable,” said Jake Ostrovskis, head of OTC trading at Wintermute, referring to the sell-off in digital asset treasury stocks. “It got to the point where there’s too many of them.”

Several companies have begun selling their crypto stockpiles in an effort to fund share buybacks and shore up their stock prices, in effect putting the crypto treasury model into reverse.

North Carolina-based ether holder FG Nexus sold about $41.5mn of its tokens recently to fund its share buyback programme. Its market cap is $104mn while the crypto it holds is worth $116mn. Florida-based life sciences company turned ether buyer ETHZilla recently sold about $40mn worth of its tokens, also to fund its share buyback programme.

Sequans Communications, a French semiconductor company, sold about $100mn of its bitcoin this month in order to service its debt, in a sign of how some companies that borrowed to fund crypto purchases are now struggling. Sequans’ market capitalisation is $87mn while the bitcoin it holds is worth $198mn.

Georges Karam, chief executive of Sequans, said the sale was a “tactical decision aimed at unlocking shareholder value given current market conditions”.

While bitcoin and ether sellers can find buyers, companies with more niche tokens will find it more difficult to raise money from their holdings, according to Morgan McCarthy. “When you’ve got a medical device company buying some long-tail asset in crypto, a niche in a niche market, it is not going to end well,” he said, adding that 95 per cent of digital asset treasuries “will go to zero”.

Strategy, meanwhile, has doubled down and bought even more bitcoin as the price of the token has fallen to $87,000, from $115,000 a month ago. The firm also faces the looming possibility of being cut from some major equity indices, which could heap even more selling pressure on the stock.

But Saylor has brushed off any concerns. “Volatility is Satoshi’s gift to the faithful,” he said this week, referring to the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin.

“We’re reshaping how we build and field the Fleet, working with industry to deliver warfighting advantage, beginning with a strategic shift away from the Constellation-class frigate program,” Navy Secretary John C. Phelan said in a post on X. Phelan said that four ships under contract but yet to be built by Fincantieri would now be cancelled. “The navy and our industry partners have reached a comprehensive framework that terminates for the Navy’s convenience the last four ships of the class which have not begun construction,” he said. “We greatly value the shipbuilders of Michigan and Wisconsin. While work continues on the first two ships those ships remain under review as we work through this strategic shift. Keeping this critical workforce employed and the yard viable for future navy shipbuilding is of foremost concern,” he added.

keeping the critical workforce employed by cancelling all their work

Italian shipyard Fincantieri won the contract to build the frigates in 2020 at its Marinette Marine yard in Wisconsin, with the US Navy eyeing an eventual order of 20 ships. The baseline design was Fincantieri’s FREMM frigate, which is already in service with the French and Italian navies among others. The U.S. Navy originally reported “basic and functional designs” were 88% complete. But a March report by the United States Government Accountability Office claimed the U.S. Navy proceeded to order numerous design changes, meaning that five years on, the program was only 70% complete and three years late. “As a result of these changes, in part, the frigate now bears little resemblance to the parent design that the Navy touted as a built-in, risk reduction measure for the program in 2020,” the report stated. “Now, in 2025, the ongoing redesign has driven weight growth at levels that exceed available tolerances. Already the Navy is considering a reduction in the frigate’s speed requirement as one potential way, among others, to resolve this weight growth,” the report added. In his statement on Tuesday, Phelan said, “The facts are clear. It is time to deliver the ship our warfighters need at a pace that matches the threat environment, not the comfort level of the bureaucracy.”

In a statement, Fincantieri said it expected to receive new orders for “amphibious, icebreaking and other special mission” ships to compensate for lost business. “On top of the aforementioned award of future orders, in order to cover the above, the agreement indemnifies Fincantieri Marine Group, on existing economic commitments and industrial impacts through measures provided by the U.S. Navy, as a result of the contractual decision made for its own convenience,” the firm said. Fincantieri said it has invested more than $800 million in its four U.S. shipyards: Marinette, Green Bay, Sturgeon Bay, and Jacksonville, and now employs 3,750 staff in the United States. George Moutafis, CEO of Fincantieri Marine Group, said, “Our investments in the U.S. shipyards are a testament to our long-term vision: to be a cornerstone of the U.S. maritime industrial base and a driving force to sustain the momentum of the national shipbuilding renaissance, the American shipbuilding renaissance.” Sources in Italy told Defense News the work on the six frigates had been worth $6 billion. Continuing work on the first two, plus indemnities agreed with the U.S. government, would be worth $3 billion, while new orders planned would be worth $2 billion.

Phelan’s decision to truncate the Constellation program was praised by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). “I commend (the Navy secretary) for canceling the troubled Constellation-class frigate program — a tough but vital call. Biden-era design changes derailed the contractor, but Fincantieri Marinette Marine will remain key to our shipbuilding future. This is a clear signal that Navy program management is being fixed and accountability restored. Stronger Navy ahead!” In his statement, Phelan added, “The Navy needs ships and looks forward to building them in every shipyard that can. A key factor in this decision is the need to grow the fleet faster to meet tomorrow’s threats. This framework puts the Navy on a path to more rapidly construct new classes of ships and deliver the capability our warfighters need in greater numbers on a more urgent timeline.”

European Parliament legislators voted 457-148, with 33 abstentions, to approve a 1.5-billion euro ($1.7 billion) program, with 300 million euros ($345 million) slated for the Ukraine Support Instrument. Raphaël Glucksmann, an EU lawmaker from France’s S&D party, said that the defense program “will enable us to build a more resilient and sovereign Europe” through partnering with Ukraine to build a cutting-edge military industrial complex. “This is key to making sure we can protect our democracies effectively and autonomously,” he said. Ukraine’s defense industry “needs us,” EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius told EU lawmakers before the vote in Strasbourg, France, without mentioning the ongoing peace negotiations to end the war. “But we need Ukraine’s defense innovations even more.”

He said that allowing Ukrainian access to the EU’s Defence Investment Program “makes it possible to procure defense equipment in, with and for Ukraine.” EU defense spending is expected to total around 392 billion euros (more than $450 billion) this year, almost double the amount of four years ago, before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. The Trump administration has signaled that it’s prioritizing U.S. security on its own domestic borders and in Asia. It has told Europeans that they must fend for themselves and Ukraine in the future.

Born out of the carnage of the two world wars, the EU started as a trading bloc designed to avert conflict. But Russia’s war in Ukraine has spurred a shift in the Brussels-based bloc, heightening its defense and security posture. The European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, believes that about 3.4 trillion euros ($4 trillion) will probably be spent on defense over the next decade. To help, it intends to propose boosting the EU’s long-term budget for defense and space to 131 billion euros ($153 billion).

“We shall be powerful geopolitically if we shall be strong in our defense, and we shall be strong in defense if we shall be strong in our defense industry, and if we shall be strong in our defense industry, we shall be industrially independent, autonomous and much less fragmented,” Kubilius said.

uh, Europeans are getting Mao-pilled?

also very funny to talk about being "powerful geopolitically" when you're a vassal state that barely even has geopolitics of its own - all this power, just to be wielded by your master's hands?

EU member countries are being urged to buy much of their military equipment within the bloc, working mostly with European suppliers — in some cases with EU help to cut prices and speed up orders. Under the road map, EU nations should only purchase equipment from abroad when costs, performance or supply delays make it preferable. Kubilius said that EU-based defense companies can apply for tax breaks and other financial incentives to fund so-called European defense projects of common interest that “no member state can ever build alone, but that will protect the whole of Europe,” like Eastern Flank Watch, Drone Defense Initiative or Space Shield. Permitting Ukrainian companies to participate in these projects “allows us to inject Ukrainian military innovation in the European defense industry,” he said.

Last week, the European Commission rolled out a new defense package to allow tanks and troops to deploy more rapidly across Europe as well as the EU Defense Industry Transformation Roadmap, which aims to simplify and unify regulations on the EU’s defense industry, and corral investment into domestic production of weapons, vehicles, satellites, shells and bullets. Before the vote, Kubilius said that the defense program is meant to make sure big nations cannot seize territories of weaker nations. “My country Lithuania was really a victim of such previous policies prevailing in the European continent,” he said, referring to the Soviet occupation of Lithuania for 50 years. “That is why I am for a strong Europe and a strong European defense industry.”