☕️ THE NEW ABNORMAL ☙ Wednesday, March 12, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Terrific EPA news buried in NYT spin; Ukraine’s instant ceasefire deal & its historical echoes; Kursk disaster reshapes the war; inflation wrecks Dem narratives on eggs & gas; and much more.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Wednesday! Your roundup today includes: terrific EPA news buried in educational NYT fake news story; everything you need to know about the nascent peace deal after Ukraine immediately agreed to a cease fire; historical precedents shape the negotiations; Ukraine suffers catastrophic battlefield loss; predicting the unpredictable; inflation defies Democrat predictions for egg prices and gasoline; and the headlines continue painting a depressing picture of progressive failure.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🗞️🗞️🗞️

In the “fake news detector” department, the New York Times ran a beautiful bit of emotionally manipulative journalistic malfeasance yesterday, headlined, “E.P.A. Plans to Close All Environmental Justice Offices.” Oh no! (Mr. Bill.) The Times resumed its default factory setting: triggered outrage. Let’s learn how to spot them.

The ‘story’ began with words, always a red flag. It’s about a memo. The tearful Times received a leaked memorandum from new EPA Director Lee Zeldin (who is crushing it), that directed reorganizing and eliminating the EPA’s “offices of environmental justice” at all 10 regional headquarters plus Washington. These “environmental justice” sub-departments are exactly what you’d expect — a DEI staffing bonanza — featuring a mission the credulous Times described as “trying to ease the burden of pollution on poor and minority communities.”

Trying.

From the Times’ skeptical perspective, the memo was the worst thing that has ever happened in human history, including the Black Death, the Battle of Aguincourt, or even the final episode of Lost. (“We know exactly where the story is going,” they kept telling us for six mysterious seasons, lying the whole time. We should have known better. It was right in the show’s title, which turned out to be the storyline’s self-description. Duh. Anyway, I’m not bitter.)

Even worse, Zeldin also canceled hundreds of EPA grants this week (it was running a miniature USAID). The Times said many of the grants were “designated for environmental justice.” I call it a good start. But not to the Grey Lady’s editors. Closing these silly, useless offices proved “this administration gives not a single damn for the people of the United States,” said former E.P.A. official Matthew Tejada, who now receives a generous salary from a progressive NGO. Of course.

Yikes! That doesn’t sound like an overreaction at all. They don’t care about us! Not one little bit! And this proves it!

The obvious implication was that Trump and Zeldin are racist and are cutting crucial and effective environmental justice offices, putting poor people in a pickle, or tossing them into radioactive sludge or something.

But if you read critically, you can spot the trick. It’s not hard.

The Times’ article never actually cited a single concrete example of the EPA’s “justice” offices ever accomplishing anything. Instead, it leaned on fuzzy generalizations (“three decades of work”), appeals to authority (quoting former officials and activist groups), and heated emotional rhetoric (suggesting the closures disregard human lives). The only semi-specific claim — a lawsuit against a petrochemical plant located near a black neighborhood, now dismissed — was filed by the Biden administration, not any of the crack team of EPA’s “environmental justice” employees.

So, the first fake news flag was the article’s framing as about Zeldin — but it never explained the Director’s argument, or even quoted him explaining his decision. The reporters described nothing that EPA critics complain about. Even though the lack of any identifiable accomplishments strongly suggested utter uselessness, the Times studiously avoided mentioning it at all.

There was a second giant fake news flag: the article never quoted anyone who supports the decision to close the EPA’s environmental justice offices, even though it quoted multiple critics at length. Many of those were anonymous, like unnamed EPA employees “bracing for firings” and DOJ employees framed as reluctantly complying with Zeldin’s orders to drop the petro-plant lawsuit.

Modern definitions of propaganda include: persuasion through careful curation of true information, selective omissions, hamhanded emotional appeals instead of evidence, ‘framing’ to shape perception, appeals to cherry-picked authorities, and diligent suppression of counter-narratives.

You can every one of those propaganda elements used in this short NYT article that is ostensibly just about a memo.

In a sense, there was a poetic kind of ‘justice.’ Like the wasteful EPA, the Times wasted 1,200 words wailing over offices it couldn’t even claim had ever done anything helpful except for “trying.”

Wait! I have an idea: Maybe they should apply for an EPA grant.

The real outrage wasn’t Zeldin’s memo—it was that the Times thinks we’re dumb enough to keep falling for its manipulative jiggery-pokery. Read critically.

🚀🚀🚀

Once Kiev’s Martial Law Administrator Zelensky was removed from the equation, it only took a single day for the U.S. and Ukrainian teams in Riyahd to negotiate a “deal.” The Wall Street Journal ran the story yesterday under the headline, “U.S. to Restore Military Support to Ukraine After It Agrees to Cease-Fire.”

Not surprisingly, the deal’s inspecific terms were met with deep skepticism from all sides. But there is some sort of agreement. Following a joint statement by the negotiating teams, Zelensky himself posted a video on X reinforcing his new willingness to work with President Trump. “We are ready to take such a step,” Zelensky said, clad in his normal avocado-toast-colored garb.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters, “Today we made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a cease-fire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that’s enduring and sustainable and accounts for their interests, their security, their ability to prosper as a nation.”

The Secretary added, “We will take this offer now to the Russians, and we hope that they’ll say ‘yes’— that they’ll say ‘yes’ to peace. The ball is now in their court.” That final sentence — I don’t believe this was coincidental — echoed Putin’s 2018 words to President Trump at the Helsinki summit. And every European leader picked up on it:

All we know is the ‘deal’ traded the U.S. restarting its military aid and intelligence sharing in return for Ukraine’s compliance with a complete cease-fire and stand-down— but only if the Russians agree. Kiev also agreed to immediately commence negotiations with their Russian counterparts.

Most commenters focused on Russia’s consistent position that it would never agree to a cease-fire, since it would only give the Ukrainians a chance to re-arm and dig in. But Russia has also consistently said it would negotiate at any time. And last year, Russia proposed terms for a workable cease-fire, which included Ukraine’s removal of its troops from the contested areas and its agreement not to seek NATO membership.

So, the best way to read yesterday’s ‘deal’ is that the U.S. is making an opening offer and is shepherding Ukraine to the negotiating table.

This morning, Reuters ran a story headlined, “Russia says it's waiting to hear from US on Ukraine 30-day ceasefire plan.” The Kremlin responded to yesterday’s news by saying it needs to be fully briefed before it comments on whether the proposed ceasefire is acceptable to Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a call between President Trump and President Putin could be organized quickly, if needed.

It was undeniable and unexpected progress. But before we look forward trying to predict the unpredictable future, let’s look back.

🚀 There are three useful historical parallels. In 1973, the U.S. commenced talks to end its proxy war with Russia in Vietnam. At first, the U.S. took a maximalist position, demanding a complete mutual withdrawal, but only because President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu mulishly refused to agree to any deal that would leave North Vietnamese troops in any part of South Vietnam.

As now, in 1973 the U.S. threatened to withhold military aid from South Vietnam, but Thiệu stubbornly refused to compromise. Ultimately, the U.S. signed a peace deal, the Paris Accords, without South Vietnam, and by 1975, lacking American support, Saigon fell.

In Korea in 1953, the U.S. first demanded an armistice, with President Eisenhower even threatening nuclear escalation. But by the end of negotiations, with the South Koreans remaining the obstacle to a deal, the U.S. agreed to divide Korea, letting the North Koreans establish an independent communist state, which remains the status quo. (Notably, Russia recently renewed its alliance with North Korea. Thanks, Joe Biden.)

By 2019 —just like now— President Trump had decided the war in Afghanistan was unwinnable. His administration undertook direct talks with the Taliban, sidelining mulish Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, who refused any compromise. The resulting 2020 Doha Agreement required the U.S. to withdraw all our troops within 14 months. The Taliban only promised to not harbor terrorists, but made no concessions to the Afghanis.

As you surely recall, Biden’s generals executed a chaotic, disastrous, and deadly flight in 2021, leaving vast amounts of U.S. military equipment behind, presumably (and moronically) expecting the Afghan government to use it all for self-defense. But, without direct U.S. assistance, the Afghan government collapsed virtually overnight, and the Taliban grabbed everything before it could be secured or destroyed.

🚀 Both Putin and Zelensky are keenly aware of Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan as historical examples. Both are likely shaping their current strategies accordingly. Those previous catastrophes explain why Zelensky is so insistent on long-term U.S. security guarantees. He doesn’t want Ukraine to wind up like any of the U.S.’s prior proxy war allies.

For his part, Putin knows that American patience has limits and can collapse in short order. The Russian President also knows that it would be madness for Trump to agree to any long-term security guarantees. If he did, Trump would forever be at Zelensky’s mercy, since the Martial Law Administrator (or any future Ukrainian president) would hold the baleful power to provoke an incident forcing U.S. involvement. Another forever war.

Thus, the peace talks are fraught with fully justified fears and expectations firmly founded in historical precedent.

Zelensky’s best move is to work with Trump, instead of against him. History teaches that leaders who don’t cooperate, who hold out for maximalist results expecting the U.S. to do all the hard work in peace talks get buried behind the proxy war’s chicken coop.

It also explains both the U.S.’s sudden pause in military support and its just-as-sudden agreement to switch support back on. Trump showed Ukraine the historical whip hand— and by turning aid back on, he preserves that leverage.

🚀 As talks kept its leaders occupied in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine suffered the greatest battlefield disaster in its short history—an unthinkable, bloody collapse that will haunt its leadership for years to come. It has never experienced a more catastrophic battlefield setback since it became an independent nation in 1991. Consider this pro-Ukraine map dated from last August, back when corporate media were euphoric over Ukraine’s daring invasion of Russia in the so-called Kursk pocket:

Kiev’s goal, never officially admitted, was to capture the Kursk nuclear power plant and the rumored nuclear weapons stored there. The Russians never let them get anywhere close to the power plant. But instead of withdrawing, the Ukrainians settled into a salient, which is the military term for being mostly surrounded— on three sides, instead of four.

Kiev also shipped its most experienced and most effective troops into the Kursk salient, for no good strategic reason making any kind of military sense.

Apart from the obvious encirclement problem, salients suffer from an even more profound logistical weakness. A salient is a death trap waiting to happen. Supplies can only come through a single route. Cut off that vital artery, and the isolated defenders quickly starve, run out of ammo, and die.

Over the last eight months, the Russians have steadily built up their forces along the edges and tightened the noose around the salient’s neck. Last week, Russian forces finally achieved full ‘fire control’ over the one open highway enabling the Ukrainians to ship critical supplies and troops to the encircled forces inside the salient.

Then, on Monday, the Russians sprang the trap. They commenced a long-planned, massive pincer movement, in two days brutally collapsing the Kursk pocket down to a disorganized nub. Reports say Ukrainian defenders lost an astonishing 200 kilometers of territory. Although reports are parsimonous —corporate media is trying its best to pretend nothing’s happening— the catastrophic battlefield results suggest thousands of top Ukrainian troops have been killed or captured.

It is also a political disaster. Zelensky staked his faltering political reputation on his bold counter-invasion of Russia. He gambled his reputation on Kursk—and now he may not survive the fallout.

Related: The fanatically pro-Ukraine UK Telegraph ran an op-ed on Monday headlined, “We may be approaching the final days of Zelensky’s presidency.”

🚀 Unsurprisingly, salients are notorious for causing military disasters. Ironically, one of the most famous examples happened in precisely the same locale, except backwards. In 1943, the Soviets left a massive, tempting bulge in their lines in Kursk, tempting Hitler into an ill-considered attack. Germany launched Operation Citadel, an all-out effort to encircle and destroy the Soviet forces in the Kursk salient.

But the Soviets were ready; they knew the attack was coming. They dug in, prepared deep defenses, and transformed the salient into a German death trap. The Germans’ gross miscalculations ultimately led to the loss of the entire Eastern Front.

Some have speculated that Russia tricked the Ukrainians with a “Reverse Citadel” strategy— tempting Kiev into its own Kursk salient death trap. Like the Soviets in 1943, the Russians were again ready, except this time they flipped the script, becoming the attackers instead of the defenders.

Mark Twain said history never repeats itself, but it often rhymes. Ukraine thought it was breaking through, but fell for the same Kursk temptation that doomed the Germans 80 years ago.

Although the media is silent, this devastating Kursk loss is so big that it is hard to imagine all the possible consequences.

🚀 All of this returns us to where we started: the U.S.’s opening bid for a cease-fire or permanent conclusion of the war. As the Kursk disaster makes brutally clear, Russia is ratcheting up the pressure on Kyiv— precisely when negotiations begin in earnest. We await the Russians’ demands for a cease-fire. Will Russia reiterate last year’s ceasefire terms? Or will Ukraine’s latest defeat embolden them to demand even more?

History suggests that the side negotiating from a position of strength rarely settles for the same deal twice.

The Kursk salient is collapsing in real time. Its resolution is now only days away. Kursk is not just a battlefield loss—it’s a strategic shift. Very shortly, many Russian forces and assets that just successfully defeated Ukraine’s top troops will become available for deployment elsewhere. Where can Kiev expect to meet them next?

🔥🔥🔥

Yesterday, Newsweek ran a surprisingly encouraging headline: “Inflation plummeting, new data shows.” The inflation rate has plunged to its lowest point since December, 2020— when Trump was last in office. How about that?

Newsweek cited Truflation, a blockchain-based provider of real-time economic data. The non-governmental service reported yesterday that inflation has slowed to around 1.3%, falling below the 1.5% mark at the start of March, less than half of December’s 3.1% rate. Inflation is also now well below the Trump team’s stable target of 2%.

Whereas Biden-flation peaked at over 11.5% back in June 2022.

🥚 It’s horrible news for Democrats, who’ve been pathologically obsessed with the price of eggs and their terrors of tariffs. Even worse for the donkey party’s hopes for a Trump takedown, the Department of Agriculture reported that, having stopped culling defenseless hens for bird flu mania, the price of eggs is falling. A dozen eggs now costs less than when Trump took the oath:

Whoops. Narrative fail! It’s not just eggs, either. Behold this stunning narrative switcheroo, published by CBS-Boston on Monday:

Experts! Without experts, you might have thought that falling gas prices were a Trump promise kept. That’s why the experts need to run things, so they can make prices higher and educate we deplorable ignoramuses about all the benefits. You’ll pay more and be happy.

🔥 Peace talks underway, inflation down, gas prices down, egg prices down. That is exactly what we voted for. Which helps explain why the headlines for Democrats continue to be so, well, depressing. Headline from a long, hopeless New York Times op-ed, yesterday:

The op-ed ended observing, “the problem for Democratic optimists is that neither substantial mobilization nor a cogent strategy to counter Trump has materialized.” In other words: they’ve got nothing.

On Monday, Politico agreed, mournfully noting that Democrats have neither a message nor a strategy:

And yesterday, the Hill reported on the latest Democrat surrender, which is bound to enrage progressive activists:

Hilariously, Senate Democrats are hogtied by indecision. Their options are to vote for the GOP’s budget bill, which they hate, or oppose it and shut down the federal government. But they also fret that a government shutdown is just what Trump wants. What to do?

Senator Angus King (Maine), an independent who votes Democrat, complained to the Hill that, “I suspect we’re dealing with many people who think a shutdown would be a good thing, and they could prolong it and use it to expand the president’s power even beyond what they’re already considering. So that’s something that has to be considered. This isn’t normal.”

On that, we can agree. We aren’t living in normal times. But so far, since January, it has been amazingly abnormal.

Have a wonderful Wednesday! There’s lots more to cover, so get back here in the morning for another packed roundup of all the essential news and commentary.

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com