Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Rutte Says Post-Ukraine Peace To Include NATO Boots By Air, Land & Sea: Unacceptable To Russia


Rutte Says Post-Ukraine Peace To Include NATO Boots By Air, Land & Sea
TYLER DURDEN


NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said the so-called "coalition of the willing" will deploy forces across Ukraine - on land, at sea, and in the air - once a peace agreement with Russia is signed, making clear that Western boots, jets, and naval assets would follow any ceasefire.

Rutte said Ukraine needs binding commitments and security guarantees in order to prevent future Russian aggression. This is to include the deployment of European forces and a "crucial" US "backstop". His words are consistent with the Western position - and specifically the European view - on what a final Ukraine peace deal would require.

The Kremlin has as expected consistently rejected this 'option' as a non-starter, given this is why Russia went to war in the first place: to stop a NATO troop outpost right on its border, and constant NATO expansion.

What Moscow will find doubly alarming is that Rutte issued the words directly before Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (the unicameral parliament of Ukraine). Other NATO states, Rutte laid out, would continue to assist through additional channels in a support role to Western boots on the ground.

But Russia has again warned that foreign boots on the ground in Ukraine would warrant a military response, and that they could be targets for future Russian action. All of this contradicts Russia's 'red lines' for what it says is acceptable.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been even more blunt, stating that security guarantees for Ukraine based on "foreign military intervention on some part of Ukrainian territory" would be unacceptable to the level that a post-war "peacekeeping" mission would fast spiraling into the next flashpoint.

According to more of Rutte's words, summarized via The Guardian:

  • Rutte also urged for more equal “burden-sharing” as some allies “are doing a lot” and a few are “doing nothing”. He stressed the positive contributions of countries including Norway, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Canada and Sweden.

  • Rutte said Russia’s full-scale invasion, launched in February 2022, was “crazy” and said its continuing assault on Ukraine is targeting civilian infrastructure, creating “chaos” for innocent civilians.

  • Rutte said Ukraine is ready “to play ball” and come to a deal – acceptable to Kyiv – with the Russian side, but added that the massive Russian attack last night was a “really bad signal” ahead of future negotiations.

Yet, Russia will not "play ball" on these terms, and this signals that US-Russia negotiations continue to be stuck, going nowhere substantial, but the reality remains - at least the two sides are being candid and are communicating.


This represents Europe keeping up its intractable position, also as territorial concessions are a prime point of disagreement. US officials have at times signaled their view that European leaders are more hostile to peace, or even thwarting it, amid Trump's apparent good-faith efforts to bring a resolution to the war which is about to enter its fifth year, after hundreds of thousands have perished. Still, Trump could bring pressure on Kiev - including halting all arms deliveries, and forcing it to make serious land concessions - but there's as yet no evidence he's done this in any meaningful way.



Earthquake Rattles Illinois Near St. Louis, Missouri


Earthquake Rattles Illinois Near St. Louis, Missouri
 


Another relatively weak  earthquake rattled Illinois last night adding to other recent seismic events in the area. According to USGS,  the magnitude 2.0  event struck   near the Illinois/Missouri border near Monroe City which is south of   St. Louis, Missouri.  The earthquake, with a depth of 11.2 km, struck at 8:23 pm local time yesterday.  People that reported they felt and/or heard the quake were in both states.

There have been steady earthquakes about  100 miles south, but that area is  closer to the heart of the New Madrid Seismic Zone, or NMSZ for short, where seismic activity has been elevated in recent months.

Illinois is at risk from two major seismic zones, the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone and the New Madrid Seismic Zone.  The Wabash Valley Zone is located between southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana.  According to USGS, the largest earthquake in recent years occurred on the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. This earthquake registered a magnitude of 5.4 and occurred in Mt. Carmel, Illinois on April 18th, 2008.

But the NMSZ, which has seen recent seismic activity,  is no stranger to big earthquakes. Over the winter of 1811-1812, a series of violent earthquakes struck the region. And  scientists say more significant seismic events in this region will be repeated again.

While the US West Coast is well known for its seismic faults and potent quakes, many aren’t aware that one of the largest quakes to strike the country actually occurred near the Mississippi River. On December 16, 1811, at roughly 2:15am, a powerful 8.1 quake rocked northeast Arkansas in what is now known as the New Madrid Seismic Zone.  The earthquake was felt over much of the eastern United States, shaking people out of bed in places like New York City, Washington, DC, and Charleston, SC. The ground shook for an unbelievably long 1-3 minutes in areas hit hard by the quake, such as Nashville, TN and Louisville, KY. Ground movements were so violent near the epicenter that liquefaction of the ground was observed, with dirt and water thrown into the air by tens of feet.  President James Madison and his wife Dolly felt the quake in the White House while church bells rang in Boston due to the shaking there.

But the quakes didn’t end there. From December 16, 1811 through to March of 1812, there were over 2,000 earthquakes reported in the central Midwest with 6,000-10,000 earthquakes located in the “Bootheel” of Missouri where the New Madid Seismic Zone is centered.

The second principal shock,  a magnitude 7.8, occurred in Missouri weeks later on January 23, 1812, and the third, a 8.8, struck on February 7, 1812, along the  Reelfoot fault in Missouri and Tennessee.

The main earthquakes and the intense aftershocks created significant damage and some loss of life, although lack of scientific tools and news gathering of that era weren’t able to capture the full magnitude of what had actually happened. Beyond shaking, the quakes also were responsible for triggering unusual natural phenomena in the area: earthquake lights, seismically heated water, and earthquake smog.


Residents in the Mississippi Valley reported they saw lights flashing from the ground. Scientists believe this phenomena was “seismoluminescence”; this light is generated when quartz crystals in the ground are squeezed.  The “earthquake lights” were triggered during the primary quakes and strong aftershocks.





Iran Hardens Stance Ahead of US Nuclear Talks, Rejects Uranium Transfers and Ballistic Missile Limitations


Iran Hardens Stance Ahead of US Nuclear Talks, Rejects Uranium Transfers and Ballistic Missile Limitations


A top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signaled that Iran has hardened its negotiating stance ahead of renewed nuclear talks with the United States, publicly rejecting any transfer of uranium out of the country and refusing to negotiate over ballistic missiles or terrorist proxy forces.

The latest comments from Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a senior official on Iran’s Supreme National Defense Council, came as tensions continued to rise between the US and Iran over a potential military escalation in the Middle East.

In an interview with the Lebanese news outlet Al Mayadeen published on Monday, Shamkhani insisted that Iran’s nuclear program is “peaceful and within local capabilities,” while firmly reiterating nonnegotiable conditions for any resumption of talks with Washington.

“Iran neither seeks nor will ever seek nuclear weapons or stockpile them, but the other side must pay a price in return for this commitment,” Shamkhani said. 

“Enrichment at 60 percent can be rolled back to 20 percent if there are concerns, but only if the other side offers something in return,” he continued. 

The senior Iranian official also rejected media reports suggesting Tehran might transfer its stored enriched uranium abroad, including to Russia, saying, “There is no reason to move the stored material out” of the country.

This week, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are scheduled to meet with representatives from several Arab and Muslim countries, as they push forward renewed efforts to restart nuclear negotiations.

Set to take place on Friday, the high-level meeting would mark the first direct engagement between US and Iranian officials since nuclear talks collapsed after last June’s 12-day war, during which the US and Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The potential restart of negotiations comes as Iran faces growing international pressure over its violent crackdown on anti-government protests, with the US escalating a massive military buildup in the region and repeatedly threatening the Islamist regime.

Just days ahead of the talks, the Iranian government has reportedly imposed new demands that retract previously agreed terms, including relocating negotiations from Istanbul to Oman and limiting them to a strictly bilateral format with Washington, threatening to destabilize an already fragile process, according to a report from Axios.

Cautious optimism about diplomacy has also been shaken by reported clashes between US and Iranian forces at sea.

The US military said on Tuesday that it shot down an Iranian drone that “aggressively” approached the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea. Hours later, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) forces harassed a US-flagged, US-crewed merchant vessel in the Strait of Hormuz.

In his Monday interview, Shamkhani said that if the White House seeks a mutual understanding, diplomatic talks should take place “away from atmospheres of threats and coercion,” with both sides having “equal standing at the negotiating table” and avoiding “illogical and unreasonable demands.”

 US President Donald Trump had reportedly demanded three conditions for resumption of talks: zero enrichment of uranium in Iran, limits on Iran’s ballistic missile program, and ending the regime’s support for terrorist groups and other proxies across the Middle East.

Iran has long said all three demands are unacceptable, but two Iranian officials told Reuters its Islamist, authoritarian rulers view the ballistic missile program, not uranium enrichment, as the bigger issue.


Middle East on the edge: What if Washington and Tehran trigger war for real?


RT



As a growing American naval armada moves into position in the Gulf of Oman, the long-simmering confrontation between Washington and Tehran is entering one of its most dangerous phases in years. While diplomacy remains officially on the table, starting in several days, regional experts warn that miscalculation, ambiguity, and hardened positions on both sides could push the Middle East toward a conflict with global consequences.

The American military buildup in the Gulf of Oman continues, placing US forces within striking distance of Iran should Washington decide to act. President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that Tehran must return to the negotiating table and make far-reaching concessions, not only on its nuclear program, but also on its ballistic missile arsenal, which the US and Israel view as a direct threat, and on Iran’s support for armed groups such as Yemen’s Houthis and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi signaled that Tehran was open to negotiations, and reports suggest talks could take place in the coming days. Yet many analysts remain skeptical that the Islamic Republic would agree to concessions touching what it considers its core strategic principles. If diplomacy fails, the risk of war looms large.

To better understand the motivations behind Washington’s posture and what a conflict could mean for the region, RT spoke with three experts from Gulf states that could face Iranian retaliation.


US naval build-up and rising tensions

RT: What’s behind the intention of President Trump to launch a potential war on Iran?

Salman Al-Ansari, prominent Saudi geopolitical researcher: From Washington’s perspective, Iran has long been viewed as a destabilizing regional actor through its support for militias, its nuclear enrichment program, and its ballistic missile capabilities. President Trump holds a strong personal conviction about the fundamentally negative nature of the Iranian regime, reinforced by sustained Israeli lobbying that urges decisive action against Tehran.

At its core, Trump’s objectives can be summarized in three demands: dismantling Iran’s nuclear enrichment, dismantling its network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, and dismantling its ballistic missile program. In contrast, Tehran’s strategy is far simpler: buying time. Time until Trump leaves office. Time to avoid irreversible concessions. Time to wait out political change in Washington.

Ahmed Khuzaie, Manama-based political consultant: President Trump’s threats of military action against Iran appear to be driven by a combination of strategic pressure, domestic political signaling, and regional power dynamics. 

His rhetoric has emphasized support for Iranian protesters facing regime crackdowns, while also warning Tehran that the US is “ready, willing and able” to act with overwhelming force if necessary. 

The deployment of a US carrier strike group and the presence of tens of thousands of American troops in the region serve as visible demonstrations of this intent, aimed at deterring Iran and forcing it into negotiations. However, the administration has not clearly defined its ultimate objective: whether it seeks regime change, deterrence, or simply leverage in talks, leaving the situation volatile and open to miscalculation.

The risks of such ambiguity are significant. Iran has vowed to retaliate immediately if attacked, raising the possibility of a wider regional conflict involving its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. 

A military confrontation could destabilize global oil markets, disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and strain US relations with European allies who favor diplomacy over force. Without a clearly articulated endgame, Trump’s threats risk creating chaos similar to the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s fall in Iraq, undermining both regional stability and international trust.


More....



California Is Shaking Again - Why The Next Big One Won't Just Stay In California


California Is Shaking Again - Why The Next Big One Won't Just Stay In California
 PNW STAFF


The West Coast is shaking again. In recent weeks, seismic activity along the Pacific Ring of Fire--particularly along California's coastline and inland fault systems--has intensified. What many hoped would be a brief period of tremors has instead become a steady drumbeat of geological reminders that California sits on borrowed time.

In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, hundreds of small earthquakes have been recorded in just days. While most are minor and barely felt, their cumulative effect is unsettling. Earthquakes, unlike hurricanes or wildfires, offer no warning. They arrive without sirens, without forecasts, without mercy. And scientists have been clear for decades: the Big One is not a question of if, but when.

To understand why this matters--far beyond California--we must look honestly at what different earthquake scenarios would actually mean.


A magnitude 6.0 to 6.9 earthquake, while considered "strong," would be survivable in many areas due to modern building codes. But survivable does not mean painless.

In this scenario, older buildings--particularly unreinforced masonry structures common in historic districts--would suffer severe damage. Power outages could last days. Gas lines would rupture, sparking fires similar to those that devastated San Francisco in 1906. Hospitals would be overwhelmed with injuries. Schools and workplaces would close indefinitely.

Economic losses would likely range from $50 to $150 billion, depending on the location. Insurance companies would strain, but the system would hold. Life would resume--but with scars.

A magnitude 7.5 to 7.9 earthquake along the San Andreas Fault is the scenario most seismologists quietly lose sleep over.

In this case, entire neighborhoods could be rendered uninhabitable within minutes. Bridges and overpasses would collapse. Major freeways--lifelines for commerce and emergency response--would be severed. Ports in Los Angeles and Oakland, critical arteries for global trade, could be shut down for months.

Estimates from past studies suggest thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of injuries, and economic losses exceeding $500 billion. Millions could be displaced overnight.

Communication networks would falter. Cell towers would go down. Internet service would be intermittent or unavailable. In an age where nearly everything--from banking to emergency alerts--depends on connectivity, this alone would amplify chaos.

Temporary shelters would fill immediately. Hotels would be destroyed or unsafe. Rent prices in surrounding states would skyrocket as refugees flee inland. California would not just face homelessness--it would export it.

A magnitude 8.0+ earthquake, though less frequent, remains within the realm of possibility. In this worst-case scenario, parts of California would resemble a war zone.

Water systems could fail entirely, leaving millions without clean drinking water. Fires could burn unchecked for days. Airports would close. Ports would be crippled. Entire regional economies would freeze.

The cost? Trillions of dollars. The humanitarian impact would rival major global disasters. Federal disaster relief would be stretched to its limits, forcing difficult decisions nationwide.

And that's when the story stops being "about California."

Why the Entire Nation Would Feel It

California is not just another state. If it were its own country, it would rank among the world's largest economies. It produces a massive share of U.S. agriculture, technology, entertainment, manufacturing, and international trade.

A major earthquake would immediately rattle financial markets. Stock exchanges would plunge. Supply chains already fragile from years of global instability would snap. Food prices would rise nationwide. Fuel costs would spike. Shipping delays would ripple across the economy.

At the same time, America's global posture would weaken. A nation struggling with a massive domestic humanitarian crisis is less able to project strength abroad. Adversaries would notice. Markets would notice. Allies would worry.

In short, the ground shaking in California would be felt in New York, Texas, Washington, and beyond.


Earthquakes are uniquely cruel disasters. They punish complacency. They do not care about political debates, budgets, or optimism. California has done much to prepare--but preparation does not equal immunity.

The recent surge in seismic activity may amount to nothing more than a geological reminder. Or it may be the prelude to something far larger. No one can say for certain.

But one thing is clear: when the earth moves, denial offers no shelter.

The question is not whether California will face another major earthquake. The question is whether we--as individuals, communities, and a nation--are willing to confront the consequences honestly before the ground forces us to.

Because when the shaking starts, it will already be too late to prepare.