It’s kind of what you’d expect from a country whose parliament gave a standing ovation to a former member of the Nazi Waffen-SS. Readers should put ‘Nazi T4 program’ into a search engine to see where this could lead.

by Andrew Korybko

This is the grand strategic context within which Russia’s talks with the US and Ukraine are taking place.

Casual observers are convinced that Trump is a madman with no method behind his madness, but the reality is that he and his team – collectively known as Trump 2.0 – are slowly but surely implementing their grand strategy against China. Every one of their moves abroad should be seen as a means to this end. They want to comprehensively contain China and then coerce it into a lopsided trade deal that “rebalance[s] China’s economy toward household consumption” per the National Security Strategy.

Trump 2.0 doesn’t want to go to war over this, however, which is why they’re careful to avoid replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent. Piling too much economic-structural pressure on China at once could spook it into lashing out in desperation before the window of opportunity closes. They therefore decided to gradually deprive China of access to markets and resources, ideally through a series of trade deals, in order to imbue the US with the indirect leverage required to peacefully derail China’s superpower rise.

The US’ trade deals with the EU and India could ultimately result in them curtailing China’s access to their markets under pain of punitive tariffs if they refuse. In parallel, the US’ special operation in Venezuela, pressure against Iran, and simultaneous attempts to subordinate Nigeria and other leading energy producers could curtail China’s access to the resources required for fueling its superpower rise. The combined effect thus far is already placing immense pressure upon China to cut a deal with the US.

This is the grand strategic context within which Russia’s talks with the US and Ukraine are taking place. It too is coming under immense pressure after Trump 2.0 unexpectedly (from their view) perpetuated the proxy war in Ukraine, pioneered a breakthrough to Central Asia through last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” across the South Caucasus, and got India to curtail its oil imports. Russia must now decide whether to cut its own deal with the US or become more dependent on China.

The first scenario could include a resource-centric strategic partnership with the US in exchange for compromising on its maximalist goals in Ukraine, which could deprive China of access to the deposits that the US invests in as explained here. As for the second scenario, Russia could continue its special operation indefinitely with growing Chinese support in exchange for China receiving unrestricted access to its resources at bargain-basement prices, thus greatly helping China prepare for war with the US.

Framed in this way, reaching a deal with Russia could facilitate China’s strategic surrender to the US without spiking the risk of war, while failing to do so could spike the risk of war if Russia turns itself into China’s raw materials reserve for the aforesaid reason and with the same outcome vis-à-vis the US. This imbues Putin with leverage vis-à-vis Trump 2.0, but they’re also not desperate to reach a deal with Putin at any cost, ergo why they haven’t coerced Zelensky into his demanded concessions and might never.

If Trump 2.0 can’t cut a deal with Putin, then they’ll prepare for war with China, which their National Defense Strategy envisages given its explicitly declared World War-like military build-up. Be that as it may, replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent in that case dangerously risks a 21^st-century Pearl Harbor, thus imperiling their planned restoration of unipolarity. It’s therefore better for Trump 2.0 to coerce Zelensky into giving Putin what he wants in order to continue peacefully containing China instead.

You might have seen that Labour’s leader Chris Hipkins gave his state of the nation speech Monday.

It was remarkable only for its total lack of a plan for New Zealand.

Labour is two years into Opposition and devoid of any new ideas to take the country forward. In March 2024, Chris Hipkins promised details of how they would deliver on key issues including future tax policy.

His speech contained no new ideas, no plan.

Hipkins’ only policy so far is a reheated proposal for a capital gains tax which proves that Labour is set to repeat the same formula of ‘spend more, tax more, borrow more’ that wrecked our economy and pushed up the cost of living.

It has taken National two years of careful economic management to start undoing the damage Labour did to the economy, put it into recovery and get more money into Kiwis’ pockets.

National has reduced taxes, stopped wasteful spending, got inflation under control and delivered an average mortgage holder savings of around $10,000 each year. There is much more work to do to create more jobs and lift wages and help Kiwis get ahead.

The last thing New Zealand needs is an economic wrecking ball in the form of a Labour-Greens-Te Pati Māori Government that spends uncontrollably and sends interest rates back to record highs, pushing up costs for Kiwis, and increasing debt for future generations.

National has a plan to fix the basics and build the future that will mean a more stable and prosperous future for Kiwis and their children.

Nicola Willis

National Party Finance spokesperson

Unsurprisingly it has produced a lot of memes; here are a few:

Or as we say, the ‘Stuff it’ list.

ACT blows the whistle on Army cultural overreach

The attempt to indoctrinate the Army into a ‘Māori world view’ is totally wrong and absurd. Thanks to ACT MP Todd Stephenson blowing the whistle, the rollout has now been paused, raising an important question about what the New Zealand Army should focus on.

People don’t join the Army to sing waiata or recite karakia – they join to serve their country. Thanks to Todd raising the alarm, the Defence Minister has now paused the rollout and demanded answers.Todd wrote to the Defence Minister after receiving the Army’s cultural skills framework, which outlined requirements for personnel to:

• Perform karakia

• Recite pepeha

• Learn waiata

• Memorise these requirements off by heart

The framework went well beyond reasonable expectations for a professional, politically neutral defence force.

“Rather than focusing on operational effectiveness and merit, the framework imposes cultural competencies that would not normally be expected of public servants” – Todd Stephenson.

Because Todd spoke up, the Minister is now aware of the issue, and the Army is being asked to explain itself.

ACT delivers largest-ever reduction in court backlog

Courts Minister Nicole McKee has helped drive the largest reduction in the District Court criminal backlog on record, down 22 percent in a single year. That’s 1,562 fewer cases waiting to be heard, and 1,562 fewer victims stuck waiting for justice.

“This means at least 1,562 fewer victims waiting for their day in court to see justice delivered” – Nicole McKee

Justice delayed is justice denied. Faster court times mean victims get closure sooner – and taxpayers spend less housing offenders in custody while they wait.

There’s more work to do, but this result shows what happens when Government focuses on practical reform and fixing what matters.

Pharmac proposing two new therapies for adults with leukemia

Listen to Radio NZ report

“Whatever else you say about Seymour, he has been outstanding in the role of Pharmac Minister.” That’s how the media has described the cultural shift at Pharmac since David took responsibility – with a clear mission to make medicines more accessible.

Pharmac is now proposing to fund two new combination therapies for people with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL): venetoclax with ibrutinib, and venetoclax with obinutuzumab –using money saved from other contracts.

“Improving access to cancer medication in New Zealand is important to cancer patients, and their families. That’s why it has been a focus of this Government.

“The right treatment means patients can live longer, more fulfilling lives. Venetoclax with ibrutinib or obinutuzumab will help patients achieve longer lasting remission, and avoid the need for traditional chemotherapy.” – David Seymour

Pharmac heard from the blood cancer community that these treatments will help patients live longer, more fulfilling lives, achieve longer-lasting remission, and avoid traditional chemotherapy.

Consultation is now open, with funding expected to begin from 1 May 2026 if approved. Have your say here.

Brooke makes employment law fairer

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill has now passed its third reading, delivering reforms to make employment law fairer and bring more flexibility for workers and confidence for employers. “This Bill is about backing business to hire with increased confidence.

“When employers can hire and grow their business with confidence, more people get opportunities. That means more jobs and higher paid jobs.” – Brooke van Velden

The changes clarify who is an employee and who is a contractor, restore freedom for workers to negotiate their employment agreements from day one, ensure serious misconduct no longer results in financial payouts, and set a $200,000 income threshold for unjustified dismissal personal grievances.

“Rebalancing the employment relations settings, as this law does, brings more choice for businesses and workers to create and enter working arrangements that suit their individual needs” – Brooke van Velden

Most of these changes will take effect shortly, helping to boost business confidence and support job creation.

David stands up for Aucklanders on housing plan

“The Government has listened and is changing its position on Plan Change 120” – David Seymour

Auckland’s housing capacity target will be reduced from 2.08 million homes to 1.6 million – shifting away from an arbitrary number and toward coordinating growth with infrastructure like roads, pipes, and sewers.

“This is good news. Zoning is important for coordinating growth with infrastructure” – David Seymour

This change only happened because David, as the MP for Epsom, made sure the concerns of Aucklanders were heard. The Government must now pass legislation through Parliament to give effect to the new target, expected within the next month after Auckland Council produces updated zoning maps.

“There is still a process to go through, but we just took a big step to a better Auckland for home owners and home buyers alike” – David Seymour.

There is still a process to go through with the changes announced this week (there always is in Government) but this is a big step to a better Auckland for home owners and home buyers alike.

Zohran Mamdani, the Marxist mayor of New York, elected last year on a promise of lots of free Stuff.

CJNG = Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación. Maybe if Blinken-Biden and NATO hadn’t rushed to supply Zelensky & Co. with armaments which they then sold on the black market including to the cartels, this wouldn’t be so bad?

by Simon O’Connor from OnPoint

The motivations to stop using X – be it media or now the Clerk of New Zealand’s parliament – are couched in moral terms by opponents, but it’s all really about control, curation, and censorship.

In what I can only describe as a rather poorly considered, and mostly likely politically motivated action — unconsciously or otherwise – the Clerk of New Zealand’s Parliament has decided that the Parliament will no longer use the social media site X (formerly Twitter).

To be clear, this is a decision of the Parliament as an entity – not the MPs or Ministers, many of the latter who continue to use the platform to disseminate views and engage constituents.

The stated justification from the Clerk of the House is a concern around X’s AI system, Grok, and in particular its handling of deepfake and abusive imagery. This echoes the view of reporter Andrew Vance and her media outlet’s owner, Sinead Boucher. This is curious, although of course, one cannot prove a linkage.

Regardless of what one thinks of X, or any social media platform for that matter, it is one the most downloaded free news app in New Zealand. It is clearly how many New Zealanders are choosing to access their news. Yes, X comes with a whole array of terrible material too, but that is not unique to X. In fact, when one considers that the head of Meta is currently admitting in open court that they have failed to protect kids under 13, one might ask when the Parliament is going to drop posting to Meta’s platforms?

If the Parliamentary Service wants to be consistent, then many more social media channels need to be closed as well. This would fly in the face of the, now somewhat ironic, stated intent to be as accessible as possible.

So it is peculiar that only X has been targeted, and one cannot help speculate that all the formal excuses are just a cover for not liking X, Elon Musk, or that the platform has arguably the broadest approach to free speech.

Ultimately, there is a clear perception of bias behind the decision – whether real or not is secondary. For a constitutional role, at the heart of our parliamentary system, and which is to be assiduously neutral, the decision could not look more compromised.

I think important to make a quick point that much of this obnoxious content, and certainly the AI functionality (again, not unique to X), is more often than not, user initiated.

As New Zealand Herald writer, Fran O’Sullivan noted “X remains a superb platform if you curate it”. And that is the key – for those who use it responsibly, it is an excellent platform for sourcing news.

Which leads us to the rather extraordinary opinion piece in The Post by reporter Andrea Vance. She writes that politicians using X are effectively supporting and encouraging child abuse. It was a masterclass in abstraction, exaggeration, and a poorly hidden agenda.

Echoed by the owner of Stuff, Sinead Boucher on a LinkedIn post, both made the claim that because X is so ridden with smut, filth, pornography, and vice that anyone using it – particularly politicians – are effectively aiding and abetting such things. The accusation did not extend to their fellow reporters and others who use X, but directed solely at politicians.

You might have thought that both Vance and Boucher had mistakenly picked up their own publications – filled with cheap clickbait, pornography promotion, degradation of women (think of Vance’s earlier article abusing a female Member of Parliament while simultaneously decrying misogyny and abuse of women), promotion of the chemicalisation and mutilation of children – and mistaken it for X.

Just like X, mainstream media can be mixture of gold and utter drivel, insight and insanity.

Strikingly, Vance et al haven’t commented on the likes of BlueSky – a social media site that has become a left wing leviathan, devouring itself in ever increasing violent wokery, as each progressive voice tries to out virtue, out perform, the next.

And so, the progressives preferred narrative around X is as The Post has pushed, and Clerk of the House echoed, that it is solely a site of exploration and abuse. But this narrative is not simply for the purpose of opinion, but to further political and financial aims.

Many in mainstream media want to restore their ability to control, censor, and curate the narrative. Sadly, the Office of the Clerk’s decision also plays into the censorship side.

Some mainstream media outlets have become used to controlling what their audience sees, reads, and hears.

This is also about mainstream media struggling as alternative media, like X, grows. Mainstream media’s business model is failing partly due to simple commercial competition, but also audiences sick of having ideologically infused views thrust into just about every story and perspective.

We no longer need to buy a physical newspaper or even subscribe to get behind a paywall. Instead we can get our news from X and a myriad of other avenues.

Instead of reporters like Vance or owners like Boucher, reflecting their own editorial choices, they instead seek to remove the competition. Instead of incorporating a wider set of views, allowing debate and contention, they instead generate misdirected moral outrages – again to remove competition, rather than responding competitively.

I would suggest, the best way to diminish X’s influence is to write better content. Content that doesn’t talk down on people, mocking those with different views, or simply censoring views they disagree with.

It will be still be a challenge, for technologically, the media landscape has changed. As someone who hosts regular podcasts and online radio, as well as writing here on Substack, I am daily part of this change. That you are reading this makes you part of the change too.

But we are also seeing the rise of citizen journalism. Via the likes of X, we can access and see/hear from ourselves what is happening. We no longer need the news curated by a mainstream outlet. Worse still for many in mainstream media, their views and reporting angles have been called out by the likes of X simply putting up the actual footage or audio to events.

The reasons being put forward to leave or ban X are cheap and fragile, and as such, most see the motivations behind such calls. In doing so, be it mainstream media or our Parliament, they harm only themselves. And due to this, no one wins.

We need a strong fourth estate, but op-eds such as those we are discussing here (free as they are to write them!) and the arrogance within, is self-inflicting damage. Media leaders continue to blame their readers and viewers, not themselves, for the problems they face. There is little self-reflection that what is happening is an own goal by a media increasingly out of step with the views and expressions of their readers/viewers.

Due to the likes of X, people have a new avenue to approach information, knowledge, and truth.

What Stuff (and other mainstream media) wants is for all political messages to come via them. To be curated by them. And it seems, our Parliament only wants to share information to the approved platforms of some, not the many.

I would make one final point. Whether mainstream media or the Clerk of the House, they once delighted in X. When it was dominated by the progressive left wing and alternative voices were canceled, it was a platform to be celebrated. They were all on there.

Once ownership and philosophy changed – notably to a libertarian, light handed oversight – the appreciation for X cooled considerably. It seems that freedom of speech – according to the mainstream media – is not to be celebrated, but attacked.

As some have written, something once deemed desirous is now seen as dangerous. Whether you like X or not; use X or not; it remains a tool for gaining information. Yes, it can be misused too, but as we have seen with many mainstream reporters and outlets, misuse and manipulation of the truth is not the sole monopoly of X.