Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,
Check out this Orwellian statement by French President Emmanuel Macron.
France to Deploy Forces to Saudi Arabia RedThe Wall Street Journal reports France to Deploy Forces to Protect Saudi Red Sea Oil Port
"We are going to send military assets, that is, soldiers, radar systems, and defense systems to protect this site," Macron said in a TV interview on Thursday. However, he stressed that France was "not getting involved in any conflict," adding that the decision had been finalized with Saudi authorities.
We need to pause her for a second and reflect on how and why sending soldiers to Saudi is "not getting involved in any conflict."
In the absence of sending troops one might have a poor claim. But this is insane.
What happens if someone is killed while not getting involved?
Asked whether France could deploy Rafale jet fighters to help protect the site, Macron said it would depend on how the situation evolves, adding that some planes were already in the region.
Stretching 750 miles across Saudi Arabia from the kingdom's oil-producing heartland on the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, the East-West pipeline has become a vital wartime artery, allowing Saudi crude to reach global markets without passing through the Strait of Hormuz. It was built in the early 1980s, when the Iran-Iraq War threatened shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The pipeline can carry up to 7 million barrels a day - about 2 million for domestic Saudi refiners and the rest for export - but had never operated at full capacity for an extended period before the war.
Saudi Arabia said the pipeline was hit in multiple attacks in the Riyadh and Medina regions on Sept. 10, which caused injuries. It said the drones were fired from Iraq, where authorities have struggled to control Iran-backed militias that have repeatedly targeted Saudi infrastructure.
Two Things This Tells UsMacron is desperate
France is woefully short of diesel
France24 reports Average EU Diesel Price Hits Record 2.23 Euros a Litre
Diesel prices at pumps across the European Union have hit a new high of 2.23 euros per litre, up from 2.16 euros the previous week, an AFP analysis of European Commission data published Thursday showed.
The fresh peak - equivalent to $9.63 per US gallon - comes as the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine have choked off crude supplies and damaged refineries, causing energy prices to surge worldwide.
Nineteen EU countries including Germany, France and Italy have registered record average prices, according to weekly data going back to 2005.
Among the countries setting new records, Denmark and Finland have reported the highest prices, at 2.56 euros per litre of diesel, followed by Germany at 2.46 euros.
Prices in Belgium and France are both close to 2.40 euros and are nearly 2.30 euros in Italy.
The Domestic Fallout in FranceThe severe price shock - supercharged by the ongoing wars disrupting global refining capacity and Middle East supplies - is creating immediate political and economic problems for Macron's government:
Subsidies and Empty Coffers: To head off potential street protests, the French government just doubled its targeted fuel relief package to €450 million, offering €100 payouts to low-income, high-mileage commuters. This brings total emergency energy relief spending to €1.4 billion, severely blowing out France's budget deficit.
Supply Shortages & Protests: Roughly 16% of French petrol stations are currently reporting shortages of at least one fuel type. Angry fishermen have already resorted to blocking oil depots and Mediterranean ports to protest the devastating impact of fuel costs on their livelihoods.
This domestic crisis is precisely why Macron is using the "infrastructure security detail" narrative to justify deployment to the Yanbu port.
Macron is attempting to spin a military deployment as a direct kitchen-table defense against the energy shock hitting French drivers.
Three Things Macron Did Not DoBlame Biden
Blame Obama
Blame Trump
Only one of those makes any sense. And that's door #3 of course.
But that's OK because nothing can possibly go wrong. Trump says peace talks with Iran are back on.
The "sources" are back
U.S. and Iranian negotiators are discussing a phased agreement to end the conflict: Reuters
But...
The main obstacle remains sequencing: neither side wants to surrender its leverage first, leaving negotiations fragile.
Seems like there is just one obstacle. So, how desperate is Trump?
Tyler Durden Fri, 09/25/2026 - 03:30The $20 that buys one inexpensive restaurant meal in the U.S. buys about three in Japan, nine in India, and 12 in Bangladesh.
In eight European countries, led by Switzerland, it would not cover even one.
All 98 prices come from Numbeo, accessed on August 24, 2026.
Numbeo’s prices are crowdsourced from users reporting what they paid locally and converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates. The prices represent a meal at an inexpensive restaurant by local convention, so the ranking compares the lower-cost end of each country’s restaurant market rather than one identical dish priced 98 times.
The roster moves between pulls: Israel, Luxembourg, and Russia carried no data on the access date and are absent here, though they appear in other pulls of the same dataset.
Switzerland Is the Most ExpensiveAt $31.20, Switzerland is a clear outlier, costing nearly a third more than second-place Norway at $23.60.
The table, via Visual Capitalist's Sofie Gilbert, ranks all 98 countries and territories from most to least expensive, including the 38 the graphic leaves out.
Rank Country Meal at an Inexpensive Restaurant (USD) Region 1 🇨🇭 Switzerland $31.20 Europe 2 🇳🇴 Norway $23.60 Europe 3 🇩🇰 Denmark $23.43 Europe 4 🇧🇪 Belgium $23.36 Europe 5 🇳🇱 Netherlands $23.36 Europe 6 🇮🇪 Ireland $23.35 Europe 7 🇬🇧 United Kingdom $21.82 Europe 8 🇮🇹 Italy $20.19 Europe 9 🇺🇸 United States $20.00 N. America 10 🇦🇹 Austria $18.68 Europe 11 🇨🇦 Canada $18.11 N. America 12 🇦🇺 Australia $17.91 Oceania 13 🇬🇷 Greece $17.52 Europe 14 🇫🇮 Finland $17.52 Europe 15 🇩🇪 Germany $17.52 Europe 16 🇪🇸 Spain $17.52 Europe 17 🇪🇪 Estonia $17.52 Europe 18 🇨🇾 Cyprus $17.52 Europe 19 🇲🇹 Malta $17.52 Europe 20 🇫🇷 France $17.52 Europe 21 🇺🇾 Uruguay $16.17 S. America 22 🇸🇪 Sweden $15.30 Europe 23 🇳🇿 New Zealand $14.93 Oceania 24 🇦🇷 Argentina $14.34 S. America 25 🇱🇹 Lithuania $14.01 Europe 26 🇵🇹 Portugal $14.01 Europe 27 🇱🇻 Latvia $14.01 Europe 28 🇸🇮 Slovenia $14.01 Europe 29 🇭🇷 Croatia $14.01 Europe 30 🇵🇷 Puerto Rico $13.50 N. America 31 🇭🇺 Hungary $12.88 Europe 32 🇧🇬 Bulgaria $11.94 Europe 33 🇲🇽 Mexico $11.83 N. America 34 🇸🇬 Singapore $11.82 Asia 35 🇲🇪 Montenegro $11.68 Europe 36 🇿🇦 South Africa $11.24 Africa 37 🇷🇴 Romania $11.11 Europe 38 🇨🇷 Costa Rica $10.98 N. America 39 🇦🇲 Armenia $10.98 Asia 40 🇰🇿 Kazakhstan $10.85 Asia 41 🇵🇱 Poland $10.83 Europe 42 🇬🇪 Georgia $10.56 Europe 43 🇦🇱 Albania $10.10 Europe 44 🇧🇾 Belarus $10.02 Europe 45 🇻🇪 Venezuela $10.00 S. America 46 🇷🇸 Serbia $9.96 Europe 47 🇲🇩 Moldova $9.88 Europe 48 🇨🇿 Czech Republic $9.69 Europe 49 🇹🇷 Turkey $9.36 Middle East 50 🇸🇰 Slovakia $9.34 Europe 51 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates $9.26 Middle East 52 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan $8.82 Asia 53 🇨🇱 Chile $8.71 S. America 54 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic $8.52 N. America 55 🇺🇦 Ukraine $8.38 Europe 56 🇭🇰 Hong Kong (China) $8.29 Asia 57 🇶🇦 Qatar $8.24 Middle East 58 🇨🇴 Colombia $8.12 S. America 59 🇵🇦 Panama $8.06 N. America 60 🇧🇦 Bosnia And Herzegovina $7.77 Europe 61 🇰🇼 Kuwait $7.70 Middle East 62 🇲🇰 North Macedonia $7.60 Europe 63 🇰🇷 South Korea $7.21 Asia 64 🇧🇭 Bahrain $7.02 Middle East 65 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia $6.65 Middle East 66 🇲🇺 Mauritius $6.44 Africa 67 🇧🇷 Brazil $6.42 S. America 68 🇿🇼 Zimbabwe $6.33 Africa 69 🇯🇵 Japan $6.29 Asia 70 🇨🇺 Cuba $6.00 N. America 71 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan $5.90 Asia 72 🇽🇰 Kosovo $5.84 Europe 73 🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan $5.72 Asia 74 🇯🇴 Jordan $5.64 Middle East 75 🇴🇲 Oman $5.20 Middle East 76 🇹🇼 Taiwan $4.71 Asia 77 🇮🇶 Iraq $4.58 Middle East 78 🇲🇦 Morocco $4.33 Africa 79 🇹🇳 Tunisia $4.13 Africa 80 🇵🇭 Philippines $4.05 Asia 81 🇪🇬 Egypt $3.93 Africa 82 🇰🇪 Kenya $3.86 Africa 83 🇲🇾 Malaysia $3.71 Asia 84 🇵🇪 Peru $3.58 S. America 85 🇪🇨 Ecuador $3.50 S. America 86 🇮🇷 Iran $3.27 Middle East 87 🇹🇭 Thailand $3.06 Asia 88 🇨🇳 China $2.98 Asia 89 🇱🇰 Sri Lanka $2.88 Asia 90 🇩🇿 Algeria $2.72 Africa 91 🇵🇰 Pakistan $2.16 Asia 92 🇮🇳 India $2.09 Asia 93 🇳🇵 Nepal $1.96 Asia 94 🇻🇳 Vietnam $1.91 Asia 95 🇳🇬 Nigeria $1.85 Africa 96 🇧🇴 Bolivia $1.73 S. America 97 🇮🇩 Indonesia $1.70 Asia 98 🇧🇩 Bangladesh $1.63 AsiaThe 38 countries omitted from the graphic, priced between $12.88 and $6.33, are mostly in Eastern Europe and Latin America. The global median of $9.35 falls between Turkey and Slovakia.
Several wealthy economies also fall in this middle range, including Singapore at $11.82, Hong Kong at $8.29, and South Korea at $7.21. Every Gulf state does as well, from the UAE at $9.26 to Saudi Arabia at $6.65.
Europe Dominates the Most Expensive CountriesSeventeen of the 20 most expensive countries are European; the exceptions are the United States, Canada, and Australia. Behind Switzerland, the Nordic and Benelux countries bunch tightly: Norway at $23.60, Denmark at $23.43, Belgium and the Netherlands at $23.36, and Ireland at $23.35 span just 25 cents.
Currency conversion helps explain two visible clusters. Eight countries at $17.52, including France, Germany, and Spain, and five at $14.01, including Portugal and Croatia, are eurozone members reporting round local prices of €15 and €12.
Europe is far from uniform, however. Hungary sits at $12.88 and Bulgaria at $11.94, while the continent’s spread runs more than fivefold from Switzerland to Kosovo at $5.84.
The U.S. Ranks NinthThe U.S. ranks ninth at $20.00, making it the only non-European country in the top 10. Italy sits just above it at $20.19.
Austria ranks 10th at $18.68, followed by Canada at $18.11, about 10% cheaper than the U.S.
Japan Is the Cheapest G7 CountryJapan ranks 69th of 98 at $6.29, below the global median and far cheaper than any other G7 economy. The next-cheapest members, France and Germany, cost nearly three times as much.
The low price does not signal a thin restaurant sector: Japan ranks third worldwide with 351 Michelin-starred restaurants, behind only France and Italy.
Japan also undercuts Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea. Among its high-income neighbors, only Taiwan, at $4.71, is cheaper. Japan’s placement reflects what a visitor holding dollars would pay, not what the meal represents to a household earning yen.
Asia and Africa Have the Cheapest MealsIndonesia at $1.70 and Bolivia at $1.73 sit just above Bangladesh at the bottom. Eleven of the 20 cheapest countries are in Asia and five are in Africa, where Nigeria is the cheapest entry at $1.85.
South Asia clusters near the bottom, with Nepal at $1.96, India at $2.09, and Pakistan at $2.16. China comes in at $2.98.
Six of the world’s 10 most populous countries rank among the 20 cheapest, meaning some of the lowest restaurant prices in the dataset apply to countries containing a substantial share of the world’s population.
If you enjoyed this visualization, check out The World’s Best Cities for Food on the Voronoi app.
Tyler Durden Fri, 09/25/2026 - 02:45The anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) won the Saxony-Anhalt state election by a wide margin but fell short of an absolute majority. Nevertheless, the party may still come to power if it can garner enough support from BSW or peel off a few MPs from rival parties.
This possibility has thrust an unused and radical clause of the German constitution, federal coercion or "Bundeszwang," to the center of a fight over how far Berlin can go if the right-wing party takes power.
The AfD took 43.8 percent of the vote in the Sept. 6 election, but the AfD remains three seats short of an absolute majority. However, Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD's 35-year-old lead candidate, could still become minister-president. The German government has plenty of tools for dealing with Siegmund if he steps out of line.
Germany's establishment threatens to use "federal coercion" clauseFederal coercion is one of the most radical mechanisms in the German constitution. Article 37 allows the federal government or a representative it appoints to issue binding orders to the states and their agencies. The Federal Republic of Germany has never resorted to this clause before.
Anna-Bettina Kaiser, a law professor at Humboldt University in Berlin, told Deutsche Welle the bar is extremely high.
"The term 'dramatic' is most apt here. This is why federal coercion has never been introduced in the history of the Federal Republic - it is treated as a last resort," she told Deutsche Welle, a state outlet that receives approximately €415 million a year in taxpayer money.
Until now, fights between Berlin and the states have been settled mainly in court.
"It is usually assumed that in the event of a specific legal dispute, the case will go to the Federal Constitutional Court and the given state will comply with the judgment issued by that body," Kaiser said.
Deutsche Welle reported that an extreme use of Article 37 could include naming a federal representative with power to issue binding orders in specific areas.
"Article 37 actually provides for the appointment of such a representative who has the power to issue binding orders," Kaiser said.
Any step would have to match the violation and meet constitutional tests. However, Article 37 lists no catalog of penalties. It speaks only of "necessary measures," leaving the article vague and open to interpretation.
Bundesrat consent would be essential. Under the chamber's rules, the affected state keeps its vote on Article 37 decisions.
Union parliamentary leader Thorsten Frei has since called Article 37 an option of last resort if an AfD state government acted against the constitution. Social Democratic floor manager Dirk Wiese said it was "good to know" the Basic Law allows constitutional conduct to be compelled by instruction if an "AfD-BSW Putin coalition" installed a far-right politician as premier. The Greens and the Left have not ruled the tool out.
Saxony-Anhalt's Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifies the state AfD as "confirmed right-wing extremist."
Cutting funding to an AfD governmentOn top of the constitutional power that Article 37 offers, the tried-and-tested method of cutting funding is also being discussed and it is not even clear yet if the AfD will be able to assume power in the state.
German officials have also discussed suspending some federal budget transfers to Saxony-Anhalt, which is still dependent on such transfers to prop up its economy. Tagesschau reported that structural funds could be frozen if an AfD government breached EU fundamental rights or rule-of-law conditions.
However, beyond these federal transfers, powerful German Green MEP Daniel Freund said after the vote that the European Commission should, if necessary, withhold money if an AfD-led state government acted against EU principles.
Freund was a notorious foe of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and a longtime advocate of the EU cutting funding to Hungary while his government remained in power. Freund not only succeeded in lobbying the EU to cut funding but this tool is generally seen as one of the primary contributing factors in toppling Orbán from power.
The reality is that this method of cutting or freezing funds has worked remarkably well for the EU, also in the case of Poland's previous conservative government. When funding is cut, the population suffers, and when they suffer, they punish politicians at the voting booth. Orbán could point the finger all he wanted at Brussels. It did him no good in the end.
If the EU or the German federal government cuts funding, Saxony-Anhalt will suffer, and there is nothing an AfD government can do about it.
For now, it appears for the EU establishment has a virtually fool-proof method for dealing with any voter rebellions or unfavorable democratic results.
A CDU-led federal government also has every incentive to make an example out of a regional AfD-led government. Shortly after the Saxony-Anhalt election, Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin would act if Saxony-Anhalt crossed lines set by the constitutional order.
"If boundaries are crossed there, I assure you that from the federal government's point of view we will do everything to correct it. The Basic Law also applies in Saxony-Anhalt," Merz said.
Merz pointed to migration and foreign policy. He also cited the unwritten duty of "federal loyalty." A state must act loyally towards the standards of the federal state. That covers "the entire immigration and foreigners policy," he said.
Fact-checkers later noted that Merz did not use the word "federal coercion," or "Bundeszwang." Nevertheless, the debate that followed is freely using the term and how it can be applied against the AfD.
The AfD casts itself as a "rule-of-law party"However, simply winning an election would not, by itself, justify federal coercion. Article 37 of the Basic Law allows the tool only if a state fails to fulfill duties imposed by the constitution or other federal law. The federal government may then, with the consent of the Bundesrat, take the measures needed to compel those duties.
The AfD's answer has been that it would govern inside the law, and that Berlin is trying to cancel a democratic result.
The morning after the vote, Siegmund again called the AfD a "rule-of-law party," and said he would act lawfully. He later thanked the Berlin press sarcastically for portraying him as a threat to democracy and said he wanted to "extend a hand" to every actor in the legislature.
AfD co-leader Alice Weidel called the result a mandate to govern, said Merz was the most unpopular chancellor Germany has had and told him his time was up. In the Bundestag she argued that the CDU-SPD coalition had failed. Merz accused her of pushing Siegmund into "electoral fraud" by urging him to hunt for a majority after he had promised to take office only with an absolute majority.
The issue of mass immigration, in the end, always appears to be the real point of contention. According to the European and German establishment, it must continue at all costs. In a 2024 ARD summer interview, co-leader Tino Chrupalla said an AfD-led state would no longer apply the "Königstein key," which apportions asylum seekers among the states.
"We would no longer go along with that," he said at the time.
Siegmund has promised "deportations from minute one" and a remigration offensive.
However, a federal government that wants to prove the AfD weak and ineffective is unlikely to allow such a remigration offensive to move forward. There are plenty of tools at its disposal to stymie the AfD and even sabotage its government. Siegmund may be facing a wave of funding cuts, litigation, and ultimately the federal government stepping in and essentially seizing power if he manages to gain power in the state.
Tyler Durden Fri, 09/25/2026 - 02:00