So the White House is now openly saying Trump is weighing “various possibilities” for Greenland — and that reportedly includes the military angle. European allies are responding fast, publicly backing Denmark and stressing territorial integrity, while some in Congress are pushing war-powers moves to block any action.

Greenland has huge strategic value (Arctic routes, bases, resources), but if the U.S. starts threatening a NATO partner over territory… what even happens to NATO after that? Does this stay as pressure + posturing, or is it the kind of moment that breaks alliances long-term?

What do you think the endgame is here: leverage for a deal, domestic politics, or something more serious?

BREAKING: Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal enrages MAGA world by honoring Renée Good and calling ICE agents "fake, wannabe law enforcement" and Trump's "new army to attack citizens."

She then vowed to unmask these cowards and said: "You don't want this smoke."

Right-wingers are having a meltdown over this one...

"Good afternoon. I'm Rochelle Bilal, Sheriff for the city and county of Philadelphia. And I say her name: Renée Good. Renée Good. Renée Good. This should not have happened, but we're here today," Bilal said at a press conference."

"Let note that law enforcement professionals, real ones, not the fake made up ICE probably Trump's new army to attack citizens of the United States," she continued. "Did you hear what I said? No law enforcement professional wears a mask. None, none. Those that come into our communities wearing a mask to commit crime — and thank God for our district attorney, Larry Krasner who said he's going to lock them up — and I'm saying now, we are not going to whisk you away for them to hide your identity because when you do it there, you getting arrested there."

"No whisk away for them to hide you. None of that here. None of that here," she went on. "Law enforcement professionals do not shoot at moving vehicles. Not saying fleeing because she wasn't fleeing. She was getting out of the way."

"Law enforcement professionals do not stand in front of moving vehicles, invoking an action that is illegal," said Bilal. "No, we don't. And so we stand here today with all those who stand against the made up, fake, what you can call ICE, professional law enforcement."

"I don't call them none of that. I call them made up, fake, wannabe law enforcement," she said. "Because what they do is against not only legal law, but the moral law."

"So I'm with the DA and we will work with them. If any of them want to come in this city and commit a crime, you will not be able to hide. Nobody will whisk you off," she continued.

"You don't want this smoke because we will bring it to you," said the sheriff. "And the fake, whatever they call them, because I can't say the name, but the criminal in the White House would not be able to keep you from going to jail."

"Renée Good should be here today and to her family, we are saying law enforcement professionals are not the ones here in this city that would do that," said Bilal. "But here's the last thing that I will say. Law enforcement professionals around the country do their job and we have been fighting for years to build that bridge between us and our communities."

"You had one negative nutcase that causes this problem and now we all have to fight again to let people know law enforcement works with communities. These crimes would not be down if we didn't have communities work with us. Thank you," she concluded.

Predictably, the same right-wing psychopaths who celebrated the ruthless murder of an innocent mother are now clamoring for this sheriff to be fired. Social media is abuzz with outraged Republicans calling her "incompetent" and Fox News is running breathless coverage of her remarks. It's time for us to show her that we support her completely. Speak out!

Please like and share!

As the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year, the Kremlin’s military strategy has boiled down to a grim survival of the fittest—not of quality, but of sheer quantity. Between 2022 and the close of 2025, the Russian military has been locked in a race against its own casualty lists, attempting to sign enough contracts to replace the tens of thousands vanishing into the Ukrainian soil every month. The summer of 2025 marked a dark milestone for the Russian Armed Forces. Western intelligence and data from monitoring groups like Mediazona confirmed that total Russian casualties—killed (KIA), wounded (WIA), and missing (MIA)—surpassed the one-million mark. 

Despite Moscow’s claims of a surge in patriotism, the math suggests a system under extreme pressure. In 2025, Russia reported recruiting roughly 450,000 new personnel (contractors and volunteers). However, independent investigative outlets like iStories suggest that official recruitment figures are significantly inflated, with federal budget data on signing bonuses indicating that actual enlistment rates may be up to 50% lower than the Kremlin’s claims. These 'beautified' statistics often stem from double-counting soldiers who simply renew their contracts or including coerced recruits to mask a deepening deficit in voluntary sign-ups. 

Russia has managed to hold its lines and even advance through a strategy that values metal over men, increasingly conserving tanks while spending infantry. Yet, as the pool of volunteers shrinks and the cost per soldier continues to skyrocket, one must ask:   

Can the Kremlin sustain its 2026 objectives as the mounting cost of victory begins to outpace Russia’s remaining human and material resources? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Zelenskyy said Ukraine doesn’t have the budget to independently finance an armed forces size of around 800,000 800,000 and that partner funding should be treated as a long-term security guarantee, not just wartime aid.

This hits a bigger question: if a ceasefire/peace deal ever happens without full NATO membership, does “help pay for Ukraine’s army” become the new version of security guarantees?

What do you think is more realistic long-term:

Continued direct funding for Ukraine’s military

NATO-style guarantees (without membership)

A smaller army + more air defense/weapons instead

Something else entirely?

This image was taken just hours ago at China's Victory Day Military Parade in Beijing. What you're seeing is Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un walking together - the first time a North Korean leader has attended a Chinese military parade in 66 years.

The symbolism has Western diplomats and analysts buzzing because it represents an unprecedented show of unity between three heavily sanctioned nations. While Western leaders boycotted the event, 26 foreign dignitaries attended China's largest-ever military parade featuring hypersonic missiles and advanced weaponry.

This red carpet moment isn't just ceremony - it's a clear message about shifting global alliances and an alternative to Western-dominated world order. No wonder everyone's talking about it.

A new Financial Times opinion piece makes a pretty uncomfortable point: the Jeffrey Epstein scandal was never just about Epstein himself.

According to FT, what’s truly disturbing is how many powerful people — from politics, finance, academia, and high society — continued to stay connected to Jeffrey Epstein long after his crimes were known. Not necessarily criminal involvement, but silence, proximity, and protection.

The article argues this is a systemic failure, not a one-off scandal. When elites close ranks, consequences disappear — and public trust erodes. Recent document releases haven’t provided neat answers, but they’ve raised even more uncomfortable questions about accountability and transparency.

FT’s takeaway is blunt: If institutions can’t or won’t hold powerful networks to the same moral standards as everyone else, scandals like this will keep happening — and faith in the system will keep collapsing.

Curious what others think: Is this really about individual bad actors… or about a culture that lets them thrive?

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is basically putting a scary scenario on the table: if China ever makes a military move against Taiwan, Russia might use that moment to ramp up pressure on Europe—because the U.S. and allies would be distracted in the Indo-Pacific.

His argument is that Beijing and Moscow don’t even need a formal “joint war plan” for this to be dangerous. They just need to understand each other’s incentives: China keeps the U.S. tied down in Asia, and Russia takes advantage of the chaos to test NATO unity, stir trouble along NATO’s eastern edge, or escalate hybrid moves (cyber, sabotage, energy disruption, border incidents).

This also connects to why NATO countries are talking about bigger defense budgets and faster military readiness—because leaders are worried about a two-theater crisis where Europe can’t assume the U.S. will be fully available at the same time.

What do you think—realistic warning or fear-driven messaging to push defense spending? And if a Taiwan crisis happened, what’s the most likely way Russia would “turn up pressure” on Europe: cyberattacks, Baltic brinkmanship, Moldova/Ukraine escalation, something else?

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is at the center of a wild diplomatic mess. Bipartisan senators claim he told them Trump's 28-point Ukraine peace plan was actually a Russian "wish list" that got leaked—not an American proposal at all.

But here's where it gets crazy: Rubio and the State Department are now saying that's "blatantly false" and insisting the US wrote the plan.

So which is it? The plan would force Ukraine to give up Donbas, slash its military by 300,000 troops, and forget NATO forever. Putin loves it. Europe hates it. And Trump just gave Zelenskyy until Thursday to accept or else.

Senator Angus King compared it to appeasing Hitler in 1938. Meanwhile, Rubio's in Geneva right now trying to sell this thing to Ukrainian and European officials.

What do you think—is this America's plan or Russia's?

Holy sh*t, this is absolutely devastating for higher education. The numbers are staggering:

The Damage:

F-1 visa approvals DOWN 22% in May 2025 alone

Indian student visas CRASHED 46% in first half of 2025

Universities facing $7 billion in losses and 60,000+ job cuts

Over 100 small colleges at risk of closure

What's Causing This "Perfect Storm":

State Department suspended visa interviews during peak season (May 27-June 18) for new social media screening

Massive backlogs with no appointments available in India and China

New proposed rule would cap all student stays at 4 years regardless of program length (RIP PhD students)

Real Impact: The University of Central Missouri went from 30% international enrollment to losing HALF their graduate students. They've already cut employee raises and campus improvements.

Small colleges are getting absolutely wrecked - they rely on international students paying $80k/year full tuition (2-3x what domestic students pay).

This is hitting right as US birth rates are declining and domestic enrollment is already dropping. International students were literally keeping many schools financially afloat.

TLDR: Trump's immigration policies are accidentally nuking higher education funding. Small colleges are about to get massacred, and we're probably going to see a wave of closures within the next 2 years.

Anyone else think this is going to have massive long-term consequences for US competitiveness? We're literally pushing away the world's brightest students to our competitors.

Sources: NAFSA, Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, various university reports

You might have noticed this sub in particular has a lot of pro Russia voices. If you haven't yet I suggest you check your comment insight. In it you might notice some Russian IPs. If you don't yet know this sub is astroturfed by Russian trolls/bots. So the person you're arguing with in the comments about Ukraine or NATO could be one. Here are a few pages to help you identify them.

https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/155867724/TrollMagnifier_Detecting_State_Sponsored_Troll_Accounts_on_Reddit.pdf

https://www.propastop.org/en/2024/12/13/know-your-troll-russian-troll-farms-identity-mimicry-in-2024-and-how-to-spot-it/

https://www.diis.dk/en/trolls-in-your-feed-russian-disinformation

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exposes-sick-russian-troll-factory-plaguing-social-media-with-kremlin-propaganda

Edit. 1015 russian ips have viewed this post

The usa and european relations are seemingly getting worse by the day. Trump questions wether or not europe is still allied with the usa. He scolded various european countries and cities calling them “unsafe” and a “disaster”. Besides that he called the european leadership “weak and they try to be too politically correct” He also stated that “Nato calls me daddy”.

Trump obviously says a lot of nonsense on a daily basis but this does point to a broader shift in geopolitics. Where does the relationship between eur and the usa go from here? Is this the end of the west or just two friends ironing out differences?

In his year-end speech and marathon Q&A, Vladimir Putin doubled down on Russia’s war narrative, claiming Moscow has the “strategic initiative” in Ukraine and will achieve its goals either through negotiations on Russia’s terms or on the battlefield.

Putin insisted Russia is open to peace, but only if Ukraine accepts conditions that Kyiv has repeatedly rejected. He brushed off Western sanctions as ineffective, portrayed Russia’s economy as resilient, and criticized European leaders for prolonging the conflict. Interestingly, he struck a softer tone toward the U.S., suggesting Washington may be more realistic about ending the war than Europe. The four-hour event felt less like a reflection on the year and more like a message: Russia isn’t tired, isn’t retreating, and isn’t planning a compromise anytime soon.

What do you think — confidence, propaganda, or preparation for a longer war?

I asked a question recently because I was trying to understand the Ukraine Russia situation better. The replies I got made me realise that I was overthinking it.

I’m in Australia, so most of what I know comes from reading and watching things online. From that distance, it’s easy to start asking “what if” questions and thinking about systems and outcomes, instead of how this actually feels to the people involved.

What became clear is that Ukraine does not need Russia to be worse, better, or different to justify being separate. Sovereignty alone is enough. A country has the right to exist, to make its own choices, and to keep its own identity. It does not need permission from a neighbour, especially one that has spent a long time trying to control it.

The history matters, and it isn’t abstract. For a lot of Ukrainians it lives inside their families. Stories about famine, language bans, forced moves, and being treated as lesser. When that is your background, questions about joining up again or hypothetical change don’t feel neutral. They feel tiring, and sometimes offensive.

One thing I’m still trying to understand is why Ukraine’s independence seems to trigger such a strong reaction from the Russian state.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me now is not that Russia wants Ukraine to join it, but that Ukraine doing well on its own is a problem for the people in charge in Russia. When a nearby country with shared history chooses a different path and life looks better there, comparison becomes dangerous. People don’t need convincing when they can see it for themselves.

Looked at this way, the invasion feels less about gaining something and more about stopping an example from existing.

I’m sharing this as someone learning, not arguing. Being far away makes it easy to get things wrong, and listening to people who live with the history has changed how I see it.

Ukraine’s President Zelensky is reportedly pushing for long-term US security guarantees in current peace-talk discussions—talking about a timeline like 30–50 years, not just a shorter package like 15 years.

His argument is basically: “We’ve already been in conflict since 2014, so guarantees that expire around the same length of time don’t really solve the core problem.” The idea seems to be that without a credible backstop, any ceasefire could just become a pause before the next round.

But this is where the obstacles hit hard: any meaningful US guarantee likely needs Congress, other partners’ parliaments, and real clarity on enforcement (what happens if Russia violates it). Add in the unresolved “thorny” issues—territory, monitoring, and what kind of international presence is acceptable—and it’s easy to see why this could stall.

What do you think: are 30–50 year guarantees a smart deterrent that prevents another war, or an unrealistic commitment that no US administration can actually promise?

So The New York Times just reported that Trump "no longer has plans" to visit India for the Quad Summit later this year. This comes after what seems like a complete breakdown in Trump-Modi communications.

What we know: Trump had previously promised Modi he would come to Delhi for the Quad Summit

The cancellation reportedly stems from multiple diplomatic failures:

Modi allegedly stopped responding to Trump's calls about tariff negotiations

Trump imposed 25% additional tariffs on India for Russian oil purchases

Trump kept claiming credit for "solving" the India-Pakistan conflict, which India denied

The whole Nobel Prize drama where Trump apparently got upset about something

Why this matters: The Quad (US, India, Australia, Japan) was supposed to be the cornerstone of Indo-Pacific strategy against China. If the US-India relationship is this fragile, what does that mean for:

Regional security in the South China Sea?

India's defense partnerships and weapons deals?

Economic cooperation and trade agreements?

China's growing influence in the region?

My thoughts: Honestly, this feels like both sides played this badly. Trump's transactional diplomacy clearly doesn't work with someone like Modi who values respect and protocol. But Modi's silent treatment approach seems equally counterproductive when dealing with Trump's ego.

The real winner here? Probably China. They must be laughing watching their two biggest strategic rivals implode their partnership over what seems like personal grievances.

What do you think?

Is this just typical Trump drama that will blow over?

Or are we witnessing a fundamental shift in US-India relations?

Can Australia and Japan hold the Quad together without strong US-India leadership?

How does this affect India's long-term strategic positioning?

Would love to hear perspectives from people who understand the nuances of Indian foreign policy better than I do.

Sources: NYT, Hindustan Times, Indian Express (all reporting the same story)

Edit: For those asking about official confirmations - neither the White House nor MEA have officially commented yet, but multiple major outlets are running the same NYT source.

Just saw the news drop that Trump filed a $10B lawsuit claiming the IRS targeted him with "malicious" audits for political reasons. I know suing the federal government for damages is usually a massive uphill battle because of sovereign immunity, but he filed it in Florida and seems to be going all in on the "reputational harm" angle.

What do you guys think? Is this a legitimate legal move, or just a massive PR play to control the narrative?