These Are The U.S. Cities With The Highest Value Homes A study by Badeloft USA examined high-value home density across cities using real estate data. After analyzing land area, average home price, and the number of properties exceeding that price, the study concluded that Miami leads in housing density, with the most above-average-priced homes per square mile. Miami tops the list with 105 above-average-priced homes per square mile, the highest density of premium real estate. With just 36 square miles of land, its limited space drives this concentration, making it a prime destination for luxury living. The city’s average home price stands at $584K. New York City ranks second, with 38 luxury homes per square mile. While its density is lower than Miami’s, it leads in total premium properties, boasting 11,000 across 300 square miles. With an average home price of $763K, NYC remains a global real estate hub. Las Vegas follows in third place with 26 high-value homes per square mile. Spanning 142 square miles, it has 3,701 premium properties, nearly double the density of Chicago, signaling its rising influence in the luxury market.Philadelphia ranks fourth, with 23 premium homes per square mile. It hosts 3,214 above-average-priced properties across 134 square miles. Despite having the lowest average home price in the top cities at $218K, its density reflects strong real estate growth. Washington, D.C., takes fifth place with 17 premium homes per square mile. With 1,225 high-value properties spread over 68 square miles and an average home price of $589K, it maintains a strong luxury market. Boston lands sixth with 14 premium homes per square mile. Though it has just 698 above-average-priced properties, its compact 48-square-mile size boosts density. With an average home price of $745K, Boston remains a high-end market. San Antonio ranks seventh, also with 14 luxury homes per square mile. Despite nearly 7,000 premium properties, its vast 500-square-mile area lowers overall density. Detroit follows in eighth place with 13 luxury homes per square mile. It has 1,803 high-value properties, but its $74K average home price—the lowest on the list—underscores its affordability despite growing premium real estate. Chicago comes in ninth, with 12 premium homes per square mile. With 2,759 above-average-priced properties across 227 square miles, its density is comparable to Honolulu, offering ample opportunities for buyers and investors. Honolulu rounds out the top ten, also with 12 high-value homes per square mile. Despite its ranking, it boasts the most expensive average home price at $773K, with just 826 above-average-priced homes, distinguishing it from other cities. A spokesperson from Badeloft USA commented: “High-value home density sheds light on how urban geography, land distribution, and market pressures shape housing trends. Cities with smaller land areas often experience concentrated demand for premium properties, while larger regions show more varied growth patterns.” They continued: “These findings highlight the intricate balance between affordability, housing accessibility, and economic forces driving real estate markets. Buyers and investors should carefully consider these factors when evaluating opportunities in different markets.” You can see the full research by this link. Tyler Durden Fri, 03/14/2025 – 04:15

Former Head Of Israeli Military Intelligence Welcomes ‘Chaos’ In Syria Via Middle East Eye The former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate has voiced his support for the “power struggle” in Syria, adding that the “chaos” benefits Israel. “The chaos in Syria is beneficial. Let them fight each other. But Israel should remain silent on this matter and not make any public statements. It should act calmly,” Tamir Hayman said in an interview with the Israeli Army Radio. Hayman, who now serves as the director of the Institute for National Security Studies, welcomed the conflict between the different factions in Syria, but added that Israel must stay quiet. “We wish victory to all forces, but we must do one thing, do this silently, and not talk about it.” HTS member, via AFP He said while in the short term there appears to be power struggle in Syria, the new government is trying to extend its control.   “Everyone is fighting each other. An agreement with the Kurds on the first day, a massacre against the Alawites on the second day, and a threat to the Druze on the third day… All this chaos in addition to an Israeli attack on the south… All this chaos is somewhat good for Israel,” he explained.  The former military commander was referencing the violence that began on last Thursday when gunmen allegedly loyal to Assad launched attacks on security forces in the coastal region, home to members of the Alawi community, to which Assad and most of his loyalists belong.  Clashes spiraled into revenge attacks on civilians, leaving hundreds dead and thousands displaced. The killings have stoked an atmosphere of sectarianism and intimidation, and posed a massive challenge for the credibility of Syria’s nascent government. Civilians belonging to the Alawi community were particularly targeted. Tensions in the area had been high ever since Assad’s ouster, with Alawis saying they have been victims of occasional reprisal attacks. While the new Syrian administration’s defense ministry said it had completed its operations against “regime remnants”, residents of the coastal cities say violence has not ended, despite being reduced. Further destabilization and attacks Meanwhile, Israel carried out an air strike on the Syrian capital Damascus on Thursday, as its defence minister threatened Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, adding to the chaos in Syria.  Israel’s military said it was targeting what it described as a command center belonging to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which it said was used to direct “terrorist activities” against Israel. Major General (Ret.) Tamir Hayman, Wiki Commons Middle East Eye could not independently verify the claim. The strike took place in a residential area at the edge of Damascus, Syrian state media reported. The target of the strike was a Palestinian person, two Syrian security sources told Reuters. It was not immediately clear if anyone was wounded in the attack. Elsewhere on Thursday, Israeli forces advanced into the countryside in Syria’s al-Quneitra region with tanks and military vehicles, detonating former military sites, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.  Last month, Israel carried out a series of air strikes on what it said were military bases in Syria, following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech demanding a “complete demilitarisation” of Syria’s south. At least two were killed in the attacks.  During the speech, Netanyahu made specific reference to Syria’s Druze community, who live predominantly in the Sweida region. “We will not tolerate any threat to the Druze community in southern Syria,” he said. Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Syria led by Jolani are going from door to door and massacring Alawite families in the most cruel, sadistic ways. What we see on social media must only be a glimpse of the savagery that Jolani’s jihadists are committing. Entire families have been… https://t.co/FAQYKiKphf — Uzay Bulut (@bulutuzay_) March 13, 2025 On Thursday, Israel’s foreign ministry confirmed it had sent humanitarian aid to Druze communities in Syria over the past few weeks. Analysts have suggested that Israel’s overtures to the Druze community are part of attempts to divide Syria.  Israel has carried out heavy air strikes against Syrian military infrastructure since December, leaving the new administration – already battered from 14 years of civil war – with little capacity to respond militarily. Tyler Durden Fri, 03/14/2025 – 03:30

Ukraine’s Kursk Blunder Opens The Door For Russian Invasion Of The North The true purpose behind Ukraine’s attack on the Kursk region of Southwest Russia has been hotly debated, mostly because the area holds little to no traditional strategic purpose.  Not all seized territory has equal value in a war; some territory has no value.   Some believe that the incursion was meant to open a door to an attack on the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, which could then be held hostage or sabotaged, leaving a radioactive mess for the Russians to clean up.  But the plant is too far from the border to be successfully captured by anything other than a large scale offensive force with superior logistics.  Others argue that the mere act of invading Russian soil (no matter how useless) was intended to send a message to Ukraine’s western allies that Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” are a false front and that he would never respond with a nuclear defense.  In other words, Kursk was supposed to encourage US and European officials to enter the war with boots on the ground.   It remains to be seen if Putin would in fact use the nuclear option, but Ukraine certainly isn’t worth taking the risk, at least not for the majority of western citizens.    Kyiv has claimed that the action was designed to lure Russian troops away from the eastern front where they have been making significant gains, thus slowing the Kremlin’s attrition machine and giving Ukraine a better position at the negotiating table.  If this was the intent, then the plan failed.  The momentum in Kursk was contained within a couple weeks of the operation and the Ukrainians have been stuck there ever since.  In the past month their gains in the area have been whittled down and now their lines are imploding.  It is expected that Russia will take back the last Ukrainian holdings within the next two weeks, but this is not the biggest problem Ukraine faces after the failure of their Kursk operation. At the end of February the Russians were already initiating cross-border strikes into the Sumy Oblast of Northern Ukraine and it looks as though these strikes might turn into a full invasion.  As we noted at the end of December, the Kursk attack by Ukraine could end up backfiring in spectacular fashion.  With tens of thousands of Russian troops amassed in the region, the fall of Ukrainian lines means the path is open for those same troops to come pouring into Sumy and cut the country in half.   Vladimir Putin’s recent appearance in Kursk and ample geolocation data in the town of Sudzha proves that the area is well under Russian control despite claims that the Ukrainians are holding.  Russian incursions into Sumy have also escalated.  The troop surge comes just as the Trump Administration positions for peace negotiations, an effort which is meeting resistance from all sides.  Even US allies within NATO are insisting that the war continue until Ukraine gains back all of its lost territory (which they know is not going to happen).  The precarious nature of peace talks is amplified by Putin’s refusal to enter into a ceasefire agreement.  Putin claims the ceasefire would serve no purpose other than to allow Ukraine to strengthen their lines.  The western media continues to promote the narrative that Russia is using thousands of North Korean soldiers as “meat waves” to run Ukraine out of Kursk.  We’re still waiting for any significant evidence to back this claim but none has materialized.  Russia has multiple ethnic groups within the country that “look Asian” and the presence of these people on the battlefield is not proof of North Korean troops.  To this day there is no evidence of “meat waves” or a large contingent of DPRK soldiers.    In any case, Kursk is lost to the Ukrainians, which will hopefully give Vladimir Zelensky and Kyiv motivation to finally agree to realistic peace negotiations.  If not, then the Russians are perfectly positioned to invade Northern Ukraine and close in on Kyiv.  Putin has presented two terms for any agreement:  Ukraine must give up the captured Donbas region and allow the separatists to join Russia.  And, Ukraine is never allowed to join NATO.   Sadly, these were the basic terms at the very beginning of the war.  Hundreds of thousands of lives (perhaps millions when the true tally is revealed) could have been saved if peace talks had not been interfered with in 2022.  If peace is achieved now, at least World War III can be avoided.  Tyler Durden Fri, 03/14/2025 – 02:45

Britain Wants Ukraine’s Minerals Too Authored by Mark Curtis via Declassified UK, When U.K. officials signed a 100-year partnership with Ukraine in mid-January, they claimed to be Ukraine’s “preferred partner” in developing the country’s “critical minerals strategy.” Yet within a month, U.S. President Donald Trump had presented a proposal to Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky to access the country’s vast mineral resources as “compensation” for U.S. support to Ukraine in the war against Russia. Whitehall was none too pleased about Washington muscling in.  When Foreign Secretary David Lammy met Zelensky in Kyiv last month he reportedly raised the issue of minerals, “a sign that [Keir] Starmer’s government is still keen to get access to Ukraine’s riches”, the iPaper reported.  Lammy earlier said, in a speech last year: “Look around the world. Countries are scrambling to secure critical minerals, just as great powers once raced to control oil.” The U.K. foreign secretary was correct, but Britain itself is one of those powers, and Ukraine is one of the major countries U.K. officials — as well as the Trump administration — have their eyes on.  It’s no surprise why. Ukraine has around 20,000 mineral deposits covering 116 types of minerals such as beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium, zirconium, rare earth metals and nickel.  The country, whose economy has been devastated by Russia’s brutal war, also possesses one of the world’s largest reserves of graphite, the largest titanium reserves in Europe, and a third of the continent’s lithium deposits.  These resources are key for industries such as military production, high tech, aerospace, and green energy.  In recent years, the Ukrainian government has sought to attract foreign investment to develop its critical mineral resources and signed strategic partnerships and held investment fora to showcase its mining opportunities. The country has also begun auctioning exploration permits for minerals such as lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel, offering lucrative investment opportunities.  Media narratives largely parrot the U.K. government’s interests in Ukraine being about standing up to aggression. But Whitehall has in the past few years stepped up its interest in accessing the world’s critical minerals, not least in Ukraine. ‘Critical Minerals Work’ Map of minerals of Ukraine, 2022. (Zbigniew Dylewskie / Wikimedia Commons /CC BY 3.0) Nusrat Ghani, a trade minister in Rishi Sunak’s government, held at least 10 meetings on the subject of critical minerals in 2023 and the first half of 2024, government transparency data shows.  Among the companies she met were giant U.K. mining corporations Rio Tinto and Anglo American, and arms exporter BAE Systems and military aerospace lobbyists, ADS. It is not clear if Ukraine was the subject of these discussions but one other prominent firm Ghani met to discuss “mineral supply chains” was Rothschilds, which has extensive interests in Ukraine.  Ghani held a discussion with the Paris-headquartered global advisory firm in April 2023 while her successor Alan Mak did so the following year in May. Mak met the firm “to discuss Rothschild’s critical minerals work,” the data show. The corporation was invited to the 2023 Ukraine Recovery Conference held in London and is a member of the U.K.-Ukraine Finance Partnership. It has also been the main adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance since 2017. Rothschilds, on whose board sits former U.K. National Security Adviser Lord Mark Sedwill, has no less than $53 billion invested in Ukraine.  ‘British-Ukrainian Partnership’ (GOV.UK) Writing recently in Unherd, researcher Sang-Haw Lee quotes a senior Labour figure saying the U.K. was involved in extensive negotiations for the whole of last year relating to securing exclusive access to Ukraine’s minerals, but that adequate government support was not forthcoming. Some other meetings have crept into the public domain. Last April, two prominent U.K. parliamentarians met one of Ukraine’s largest mining investment companies in London to discuss “British-Ukrainian partnership in the field of critical minerals mining.”  BGV Group, which has investments of $100 million in Ukrainian mining projects, held discussions with then energy minister, Lord Martin Callanan, and Bob Seely, then a Conservative MP who sat on Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.  The company is seeking investors for its graphite and beryllium projects and said in a media release that “Ukraine has all the prerequisites to become one of Britain’s main suppliers of critical minerals crucial for advanced technologies and the green energy transition.”  “As Ukraine’s ultimate European ally, the U.K. could leverage its strong position within NATO to help secure mining sites and transportation routes”, writes Andriy Dovbenko, the founder of U.K.-Ukraine TechExchange. ‘Vast Resources’ The U.K. government’s “Ukraine Business Guide” notes that “Ukraine has vast resources” and “a rich mineral base of iron ore, manganese, coal, and titanium.” Certainly, enhancing access to critical minerals has been a broad priority across Whitehall over the last three years.  The U.K. produced its first-ever Critical Minerals Strategy in 2022 and updated this with a refresh” the following year. It identifies 18 minerals with “high criticality” for the U.K., including several present in Ukraine, such as graphite, lithium and rare earth elements.  The U.K.’s strategy aims, among other things, to “support U.K. companies to participate overseas” in supply chains for these minerals and “champion London as the world’s capital of responsible finance for critical minerals.” As part of its critical minerals strategy, the government set up a so-called Task & Finish group, analysing the risks to U.K. industry, and including participants from BAE, Rio Tinto and ADS. The group highlights titanium, rare earth elements, cobalt and gallium as among the minerals with a supply risk to the U.K. military sector.  Zelenskyy pouring water for Starmer during a NATO Ukraine Council session at the military alliance’s summit in Washington, D.C., in July 2024. Then President Joe Biden and NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg on right. (Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) The U.K. has also launched a Critical Mineral Intelligence Centre and established a Critical Minerals Expert Committee to advise the government. A report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on critical minerals published in December 2023 concluded that “the U.K. cannot afford to leave itself vulnerable on supply chains that are of such strategic importance.”  A sign of how seriously the government is taking the issues is that it says it will “ensure consideration for critical minerals is embedded” in the free trade agreements it is negotiating with a range of countries. ‘Regulatory Structures’ Starmer and Zelenskyy in Kiev in January when they signed a 100-year partnership agreement. (Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street/ Flickr/ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) Accessing minerals overseas often depends on loosening government regulations to enable foreign corporations to strike favourable deals. The 100-year partnership declaration commits the U.K. and Ukraine to “supporting development of a Ukrainian critical minerals strategy and necessary regulatory structures required to support the maximisation of benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources, through the possible establishment of a Joint Working Group.” The thrust of the partnership is to “support a more enabling environment for private sector participation in the clean energy transition” and to “attract investments of British companies in the development of renewable energy sources.” More generally, the two sides will “work together to boost and modernise Ukraine’s economy by progressing reforms that aim to attract private finance” and “boost investor confidence.”  As Declassified recently showed, British aid to Ukraine is focused on promoting these pro-private sector reforms and on pressing the government in Kyiv to open up its economy to foreign investors.  Foreign Office documents on its flagship aid project in Ukraine, which supports privatisation, note that the war provides “opportunities” for Ukraine delivering on “some hugely important reforms.” The U.K. supports a project called SOERA (State-owned enterprises reform activity in Ukraine), which is funded by USAID with the U.K. Foreign Office as a junior partner.  SOERA works to “advance privatization of selected SOEs [state-owned enterprises], and develop a strategic management model for SOEs remaining in state ownership.” U.K. documents note the programme has already “prepared the groundwork” for privatisation, a key plank of which is to change Ukraine’s legislation.  “SOERA worked hand-in-hand with GoU and proposed 25 pieces of legislation of which 13 were adopted and implemented,” the most recent documents note.  ‘Geostrategic Rivalries’ Much U.K. foreign policy and wars can be explained by Whitehall wanting British corporations to get their hands on other countries’ resources.  The 2003 invasion of Iraq was mainly about oil while decades earlier the U.K.’s brutal war in Malaya in the 1950s was substantially about rubber. Britain’s support for apartheid South Africa is significantly explained by the U.K. wanting continued access to South Africa’s massive mineral resources. But the main concern now is China, which is the biggest producer of 12 out of the 18 minerals assessed by the U.K. as critical.  The Ministry of Defence’s major geopolitical forecast, its “Global Strategic Trends,” released last year, makes 57 mentions of minerals, noting that they “will become of increasing geopolitical importance” and could lead to “new geostrategic rivalries and tensions.” History suggests that Whitehall’s international strategy on critical minerals, and its scramble for Ukraine’s, will continue to shape U.K. foreign policy and contribute to these future international tensions. Tyler Durden Fri, 03/14/2025 – 02:00

Escobar: Made in China 2025 – Revisited Authored by Pepe Escobar, The Two Sessions, part of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, held last week at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, were a pretty serious deal. Not only because the sessions set the framework for Beijing to confront serious economic challenges ahead. But also because of the stellar performance by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who forcefully imprinted in the collective psyche of the Global Majority how China should be regarded as a premier source of stability in this extremely turbulent geopolitical juncture, standing firm “in the right side of History”. So let’s start with the key Wang Yi takeaways – which translate as de facto setting the tone for Beijing’s diplomacy throughout 2025. US-China: Beijing is ready to engage with Trump 2.0 on the basis of mutual respect. Yet “if the US continues to contain China, we will resolutely counteract.” It’s “fully possible” for US and China to become partners. But this should be seen as the paramount concept: “No country should fantasize that it can suppress China and maintain good relations with us at the same time.” The Global South: That is a “key force for maintaining world peace, driving world development and improving global governance”. These developing nations, accounting for over 40 per cent of global GDP, “hold the key to bringing stability to the world and making it a better place.” Wang Yi emphasized once again how China is “a natural member of the Global South.” Russia – and Ukraine conflict: Russia and China’s“mature and resilient relationship (…) will not be swayed by any turn of events or be affected by any third party.” Wang Yi defined Beijing’s position on the conflict as “objective and impartial” – and crucially did not call for Europe – or Ukraine – to be included in the upcoming US-Russia negotiations. His major point – which echoes Russia’s analysis: “Security is mutual and equal; the security of one country cannot be built on the insecurity of others.” Gaza: No Chinese endorsement of the Trump Gaza Riviera Resort and Casino gambit: “Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people”. And “changing its status by forceful means will not bring peace but new chaos”. Beijing supports the Egyptian peace plan. Once again, Wang Yi made it clear that “the crux of the cycle of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in the fact that the two-state solution is only half achieved.” Europe: Wang Yi praised the “capacity and wisdom” of EU-China to “deepen strategic dialogue and mutual trust.”Beijing, at least in theory, believes that Europe could become a trusted partner. The EU and the European Commission (EC) in Brussels may have other – belligerent – ideas. South China Sea: Wang Yi went straight to the point on the manipulation of Philippines by “external forces”: “Infringement and provocation will backfire, and those acting as others’ chess pieces are bound to be discarded.” Yet he stressed the South China Sea remains “stable”, because China and ASEAN want it to remain so. Taiwan: Wang Yi forcefully stated that “Taiwan has never been a country (…) It was not in the past, and it will never be in the future.” Moreover, “seeking Taiwan independence is doomed to backfire, and using Taiwan to contain China will be nothing but a futile attempt. China will realise reunification, and this is unstoppable.” Made in China 2025 On Overdrive Now let’s focus on China’s extremely complex domestic equation. At the opening of the Two Sessions, Premier Li Qiang came up with a rallying call for the whole nation to rise up to a series of “very challenging” goals, including growth of 5% in 2025 (it was 4.9% last year). Essentially, to revitalize the economy, Beijing will issue 1.3 trillion yuan (around US$182 billion) in ultra-long special treasury bonds. The deficit-to-GDP ratio was set at around 4%. The official policy of “opening up” will reach the internet, telecoms, healthcare and education industries – meaning more opportunities for foreign investors and possible partnerships up and down the industrial supply chain. All those moving parts of the ambitious Made in China 2025 tech project will be on overdrive: AI, smart terminals, the Internet of things, 5G, plus a new mechanism set up for “future industries” to support hi-tech domains,including biomaterials manufacturing, quantum technology, embodied intelligence and 6G. Premier Li enthusiastically praised the role of regional growth drivers such as the Greater Bay Area – the super high-tech cluster in Guangdong province linked to Hong Kong. Predictably, he extolled the “one country, two systems” model and the further economic integration of both Hong Kong and Macau. Arguably this is the best analysis anywhere not only of why Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson had to get rid of its port operations in the Panama Canal, but also because it offers a crisp Chinese evaluation of the “three powers” behind Trump 2.0: Wall Street, heavy industrial capital (energy, steel, mining) and Silicon Valley. CK Hutchison Holdings, founded in Hong Kong by notorious tycoon Li Ka-shing, essentially had to sell 80% of Hutchison Port Group, a subsidiary that owns 43 container ports in 23 countries, including a 90% stake in the Balboa and Cristobal docks at either end of the Panama Canal, because of hardcore geopolitics. Hutchison will continue to control its ports in China, including Hong Kong. President Trump made a huge fuss about the BlackRock-led deal. The view in Hong Kong is more pragmatic. Hutchinson was not eager to engage in a furious court battle in US courts – not to mention potential sanctions. So they chose to opt for a “strategic exit”. Finding Shelter From the Coming Storms Premier Li noted how consumption in China now is “sluggish” and, somewhat euphemistically, how there were “pressures on job creation and income growth”. Enter a promised “vigorous boost” to household demand, plus the creation of 12 million new urban jobs, with help focusing on fresh university graduates and migrant workers. In parallel, Beijing will expand its military budget by only 7.2% in 2025, reaching roughly 1.78 trillion yuan (US$ 245 billion). That’s not much compared to the Pentagon budget. It’s quite enlightening to observe the proposals of the Two Sessions – and the tone-setting by Wang Yi – in relation to the analysis by a certified Asian star such as former Singaporean ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani. Kishore once again resorts to Sun Tzu, explaining how Chinese rulers always privilege the best way to win as not fighting kinetic wars. What matters is to coordinate expansion – epistemologically, educationally, economically, industrially, techno-scientifically, financially, diplomatically, militarily – under the aegis of deterrence. The bottom line is that Beijing will not be trapped by any possible, bombastic provocation coming from Trump 2.0. Once again, it’s all about “coordinated expansion”. Example. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, partly funded by the Australian military, and frankly Sinophobic – and Russophobic – at least did something useful by developing a Critical Technology Tracker of 64 current, critical technologies. This is their latest report, fromAugust 2024. It shows that between 2003 and 2007, the US led in 60 of 64 technologies. China led in only 3. Cue to between 2019 and 2023: the US led in only 7, whereas China led in 57 – including semiconductor chipmaking, gravitational sensors, high-performance computing, quantum sensors, and space launch technology. All that is inextricably linked to the successful planning – and achieved targets – of Made in China 2025. Talk about two five-year plans back to back (Made in China was conceived in 2015). So this is what China 2025 will be all about: serious investments coupled with lots of partnerships with the whole Global South. Once again, in a sort of Sun Tzu framework tweaked by Bruce Lee, China is bound to use Trump 2.0 and the coming mix of confrontation, competition and periodic negotiation as a trampoline to expand its global reach even further. That might be one of the unstated meanings of what Xi Jinping told Putin in Moscow nearly two years ago: “Changes unseen in a century.” Beijing will be sure to find shelter from the storm – any storm. And without having to fight a single kinetic war. *  *  * Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Thu, 03/13/2025 – 23:25