"If you want to make God laugh, make plans.” 

That well-known phrase about change has probably been spoken by countless travelers heading to Rome this week, travelers who still might be thinking and praying about whether heading to Italy is still worth the time, effort, and money. 

And who could blame them? 

After all, they’re facing myriad changes in their original travel itineraries due to the death of Pope Francis and the subsequent postponement of the canonization of Carlo Acutis this coming Sunday, Divine Mercy Sunday, April 27th. 

If tourists and pilgrims are willing, however, to put aside their feelings of disappointment and frustration, they could be opening themselves up to what just might be a glass that’s not just half full versus half empty, but one that just might be overflowing with appreciation and a deeper understanding of the Papacy and the Catholic faith thanks to what they will witness in the Eternal City.  

“As in all aspects of life, the more we meticulously plan, the more God can surprise us with His plans! While your visit to Italy, and in particular, Rome may not be the exact experience you planned, I believe it is an opportunity to have a far more profound and beautiful experience,” said John Hale, President of Corporate Travel Service in Southeastern, Michigan.  

According to the Vatican, over 80,000 teens have registered for this weekend’s Jubilee of Teenagers.

The jubilee events will go on, minus the canonization, of course, but with an opportunity, as Hale stresses, to be part of something that has profound significance, in the Catholic Church and the world.  

“These will be historic days in Rome, and the ability to witness the continuity of the Catholic Church for nearly 2000 years will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I suggest you surrender your plans to a higher set of plans that could be transformative for you and your life, Hale added. 

Corporate Travel is practicing what they preach as they work closely with several high-profile groups arriving in Rome this week, including the Catholic executive group Legatus, FOCUS (Fellowship of Catholic University Students), as well as 200 pilgrims being led by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York.

While keeping those plans along with being open to new and different possibilities, top of the list of action items or must-dos when it comes to journeying to Rome during late April and early May, here are a few other suggestions that can also have a profound impact on your pilgrimage:

1) Spend more time in the Papal Basilica of Saint Mary Major.  

This important church is one of the four major basilicas in Rome and is typically part of any Christian Rome tour.  It is also the place where Pope Francis will be buried. It houses the famous Marian icon, the Salus Populi Romani (Salvific Health of the Roman Peoples), so special to Francis that he would stop there to pray before and after each journey.  

So why not follow the late Pope’s example and ask for the Blessed Mother’s intercession for your own journey, including the new one suddenly set before you?

2) Find a view from above.  

With limited access to Saint Peter’s and the dome of the basilica during the visitation and funeral of Pope Francis, consider heading to another location to get a view of history, possibly taking in the sights and sounds from above. 

The roof of Castel Sant'Angelo, along the Tiber River and down the street from the Vatican, offers an incredible vantage point on any given day.  Imagine what it will look like to see so many people from around the world lined up along the Via della Conciliazione (Road of Reconciliation), the main road leading to the Vatican?  

Just one of the many moving moments you might have missed had you decided to stay home and watch the events on TV.

3) Stop texting and start talking.  

If you plan on waiting in the long lines to pay your respects to the Pope, why not honor Francis by embracing his prayer intentions for April, in which he focused on the use of new technologies. 

In his message released April 1, 2025, he said that he longed for Catholics and others to reconnect with one another via actual facetime, minus cell phones and laptops.  

“How I would like for us to look less at screens and look each other in the eyes more. Something’s wrong if we spend more time on our cellphones than with people. The screen makes us forget that there are real people behind it who breathe, laugh, and cry.”  

So why not use the waiting as an opportunity to make new friends, talk about your Catholic faith, and again honor not only the memory but some of the heartfelt concerns of the 266th Pope?

France and the UK reportedly showed a weakening desire to deploy troops to Ukraine at recent talks

France and the UK displayed a weakening resolve to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, during recent talks in London, The Times has reported, citing anonymous sources.

Defense chiefs from a number of European NATO states have been debating deploying forces to Ukraine as part of a self-titled “coalition of the willing.”

The idea, led by France and the UK, was proposed as a means of providing Kiev with security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire with Russia. Moscow has rejected outright the idea of troops from the US-led military bloc being deployed to Ukraine under any pretext.

According to The Times, the UK-French plan was rolled back during talks in the UK capital on Wednesday.

“Sir Keir Starmer and President Macron of France have offered to deploy troops to Ukraine to keep the peace as part of a ‘coalition of the willing,’ but during talks in London sources told The Times there appeared to be a softening of the commitment,” the newspaper wrote on Wednesday.

However, a defense source told the outlet that the UK is not prepared to abandon the plans entirely.

Some European officials realise that Moscow would never tolerate the deployment of a force of NATO members' troops to Ukraine, The Times reported.

Russia has warned that it will consider such a troop presence as a NATO deployment, under the guise of peacekeepers or otherwise, and will treat it as a valid military target. Moscow has repeatedly stated that NATO’s eastward expansion and Kiev’s aspirations to join the military bloc are among the root causes of the Ukraine conflict.

The deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine could lead to a direct clash between the US-led bloc and Russia, setting off World War III, Russia’s National Security Council Secretary and former Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has said.

The troop deployment plan comes as EU states have floated a $840 militarization plan for the bloc, citing a perceived threat from Russia.

Moscow has repeatedly criticized the EU’s continued flow of armaments to Ukraine, arguing that Western European nations appear more interested in prolonging the fighting rather than resolving the conflict diplomatically.

Good morning to you all, and a continued Happy Easter! Christus Surrexit! Surrexit Vere!

I apologize yet again, to those very few who enjoy reading here, for light blogging in the extreme lately. If you only knew how the current state of national policies is increasing my workload…

Long days, long, long days. Stuporous nights.

Anyway, to the post. The title of this post is a callback to an ancient local Catholic blog that adopted the puntastic name you see up top. It also describes the content herein. No one asked, so here are some of my random things to say about the upcoming conclave and pope business stuff:

1. I’ll move past the fact that with things being so crazy and unreal these days my first thought was that it was super convenient to use JD Vance’s visit to Bergoglio as a means to definitively fix the time of his death. As in, he didn’t die long ago when no one had any proof of life for like a fortnight in the hospital. JD saw him! All the appointments made after hospitalization were A-OK, super humble as usual. Perry Mason stuff. I say I am moving past it because who is to say who’s been making the appointments all along? And they sure are from the same spirit that animates them all. In other words, maybe one day we will learn but right now there are bigger fish to fry.
2. As any Catholic would for any soul that leaves this life, even one who appears quite vile, I pray for repentance, mercy and salvation. Heck, it was my last blog post. But this post that describes the “traditionalist response” to Bergoglio’s death is beyond dreck. I read an excerpt of the piece at another site and stifled a gag reflex. And then I realized that it was from T.S. Flanders at OnePeterFive. So “traditionalist” was just an expression one uses without knowing its meaning, I guess.
3. Ann Barnhardt’s novena to St. Catherine of Siena for a restoration of the papacy and a holy and true pope is a very good intention to a very good saint. I recommend it to everyone. Mundabor’s prayer for us to be given an “unmerited break” is spot-on as well.
4. Archbishop Vigano, who, if we really do get an unmerited break, seems like an excellent choice to be pope, gave an interview that went unpublished, so he is publishing the questions and answers at his X site. Here is one that gets to things pretty well:

“What will be the future of the Church now that Pope Francis has died?”

“The death of Bergoglio crystallizes, so to speak, a situation of widespread illegitimacy. Of the 136 Cardinal electors, 108 were “created” by him; which means that whatever Pope is elected in the upcoming Conclave – even if he were a new Saint Pius X – his authority will be compromised by having been elected by false cardinals, created by a false Pope. For this reason, some time ago, I asked my Brothers in the Episcopate to clarify these aspects before they proceed with the election of a new Pope.   Certainly, the situation is disastrous and humanly without a solution. However, as Bishop and Successor of the Apostles I cannot help but remind everyone that the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is destined to face the passio Ecclesiæ following the example of the Lord. It will be precisely from this passion – in which everything will seem lost as on that Good Friday 1,992 years ago – that the Church will be reborn, regenerated, and purified.   During these days in which we celebrate Easter, every Catholic finds in Christ’s triumph over death and sin the reasons for their own faithfulness to the Gospel. Our Lord told us, shortly before He faced His Passion: Do not be afraid: I have overcome the world.”

5. Finally, a question many have asked over the last 12 years, myself included, is what to make of the upcoming conclave if one takes into account that it is governed by Universi Dominci Gregis, the Apostolic Constitution of Pope John Paul II, with some modifications by Pope Benedict XVI, and one further considers that Bergoglio has purported to make the overwhelming majority of voting age “Cardinals”, as Vigano describes above. Yet further consider that not all, but most, of these were “made Cardinals” and then immediately walked over to see Pope Benedict XVI, with beaming photos and what not. In other words, were these men actually made Cardinals by the Pope Benedict XVI? One is sure of nothing here. But UDG requires that only Cardinals can participate in the conclave.

There is so much shrouded in things we cannot know that it seems like the foggy gnostic mists of actual sedevacantism loom. We pray to God to avoid that morass. Because, as others have pointed out, the Church of Christ is VISIBLE. And she endures to the end of time and in eternity. Pope Benedict’s purported resignation while remaining pope was visible. Whether the next group of men who enter the conclave are all Cardinals is not so visible. I have speculated that perhaps if the pre-Bergoglian Cardinals participate and back the selection it may be enough. According to the terms of the governing law it may not. I decline to make that call, at least not now.

It will be tough enough (speaking in purely human terms) to get a true pope, let alone a good one, let alone a holy one. One of the intentions in the St. Catherine of Siena novena prayer is for the good Lord to let us clearly see where His Church is so we may support and love her– and most importantly be counted among her members. But Christ is steadfast and He is omnipotent. We can and must trust Him in this as in all things. Watch and pray…

I think I will take some time in the interregnum to reread the legal texts above and pray to God that He has mercy on us.

And always avoid any suggestion or temptation to see the Church or this election as a political matter.

The Catholic Church risks a schism if it does not choose an “orthodox” leader, German Cardinal Gerhard Müller has warned ahead of next month’s conclave.

Müller, 77, has long been a leading light among traditional Catholics who often opposed the reformist approach of Pope Francis, and he is one of a handful of “conservative thinkers” in the Catholic Church based in Rome, alongside US Cardinal Raymond Burke, reports The Times.

Müller says he disagrees with the use of the labels “liberal” and “conservative” for the Catholic Church, pointing out the divide in the Church is deeper. The new pope, he said, “must be orthodox – neither a liberal nor a conservative”.

He said that “the question is not between conservatives and liberals but between orthodoxy and heresy”, adding: “I am praying that the Holy Spirit will illuminate the cardinals, because a heretic pope who changes every day depending on what the mass media is saying would be catastrophic.”

The next pope, Müller argues, should not “look for the applause of the secular world that sees the Church as a humanitarian organisation doing social work”.

Müller described Francis as a “good man” though they disagreed on much. Müller listed his differences with Francis, starting with the late pope’s 2023 decision to allow the blessing of same-sex couples. Pope Francis said at the time that “we cannot be judges who only deny, push back, exclude”, but the move sparked enormous controversy, with bishops in Africa and Asia refusing to permit the blessings.

The list of Müller’s grievances with Francis’s papacy also extends to the late pontiff’s focus on migrants and the environment, The Times reports.

Müller notes that “Pope Francis is well viewed by the mass media and there is a risk [the cardinals] are saying, ‘We should continue’”. Instead, he said, “they have the responsibility [at the conclave] to elect a man who is able to unify the Church in the revealed truth”.

RELATED: Cardinal Nichols on conclave vote: ‘intimidating’ but it’s our duty

He added: “I hope cardinals are not so influenced by what they are reading in the headlines.”

Nearly 80 per cent of the 135 cardinals eligible to vote were picked by Francis, pointing to a potential so-called liberal majority within the conclave, The Times reports. But the views of many will not be known until they mingle with fellow cardinals at the pre-conclave meetings known as general congregations, and which could well influence subsequent votes.

Asked if he would promote his brand of doctrinal Catholicism at those meetings, which begin in earnest after Francis’s funeral this Saturday, Müller said: “I have to do it; I owe it to my conscience.”

The alternative, he cautioned, was a Church that risks splitting in two if an “orthodox” pope is not elected.

“No Catholic is obliged to obey doctrine that is wrong,” he said, adding: “Catholicism is not about blindly obeying the Pope without respecting holy scriptures, tradition and the doctrine of the Church.”

Appointed by Francis’s traditionalist predecessor Benedict XVI as the Vatican’s doctrinal chief, Müller kept his job after the Argentinian pontiff’s election in 2013 but soon challenged his leader’s liberal agenda.

In 2017 he was dropped by Francis after criticising the Pope’s decision to allow communion for divorcees who remarry outside the church. His views are likely representative of other “conservative” cardinals determined to elect a more orthodox successor to Francis.

A former bishop of Regensburg in Germany, Müller has also been the head of dogmatic theology at Munich’s Ludwig Maximilian University.

In a 2023 book that The Times says “will be a convenient manual for conservatives at the conclave”, Müller criticised Francis’s deal with China to jointly appoint bishops, likening it to Vatican appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s and warning: “You cannot strike deals with the devil.”

Gerhard Müller also cautioned cardinals arriving for the conclave vote to avoid the backroom manoeuvres depicted in the Oscar-winning film Conclave.

“It’s not a power game played by stupid people looking to manipulate, like in this film, which has nothing to do with reality,” the German cardinal said.

RELATED: Social media push for Cardinal Sarah as next pope gains momentum

Photo: German Cardinal Gerhard Müller attends the funeral procession of Cardinal Joachim Meisner in Cologne. (Credit Elke Wetzig.)

The post Cardinal Müller warns Church risks split if ‘orthodox’ pope not chosen first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Cardinal Müller warns Church risks split if ‘orthodox’ pope not chosen appeared first on Catholic Herald.

This angst that so many felt, started immediately after Pope Francis' election on 3/13/13.

So, let me offer my opinion on Pope Francis' papacy from the peripheries of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.

For the most part, I appreciated his pastoral sensitivities. But in this regard, I also felt that St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were very pastoral too, Benedict in a different way than JPII. But neither of them wore their pastoral initiatives on their sleeve in order to tout their accessibility and pastoral concerns. They also understood that much of our pastoral outreach has to be within the context of the internal forum and accepting people as they present themselves.  It's not a one size fits all.

Vatican II or its aftermath emphasized pastoral care of the laity. Seminaries, including my own, had classes for seminarians on how to be pastoral. These were helpful and in the immediate post-Vatican II Church, many Catholics had experienced priests who were not pastoral but rather purely doctrinaire and laying burdens on the laity rather than assisting them. Often the laity were dismissed in their foibles. 

Thus, pastoral care and sensitivity are necessary. But this is an art not a science. Pope Francis had the gift of the art of pastoral care but he dogmatized it and made it too showy. 

The other thing I would mention in this brief essay is that if Pope Francis had blended his pastoral sensitivity with a humble acceptance of the papacy and its trappings, it would have soothed people who have otherwise now experience a great deal of anger toward him. 

Pope Francis, wittingly or unwittingly, used pastoral theology to open the door to changing moral teachings of the Church, a conversion of these teachings rather than a conversion of sinners. He may not have intended it, but liberal, post Catholic Catholics think he was on their side in terms of everything the LGBTQ+++ Catholics envision for the Church and the priesthood. They think he was on their side as it concerns the neutering of Humanae Vitae and an anything goes approach to sexual expression in a guilt free way. 

In some way, if the next pope is more inclined to these post Catholic changes, Pope Francis has begun the processes toward acceptance of these abominations. 

My biggest critique of Pope Francis, which was also my critique of JPII during his pontificate is that too much emphasis is placed on the person of the pope and his personality and how many people showed adulation of them. This is not humility but pride and turns the papacy away from the "cult of the institution of the papacy" to the "cult of the personality." That is not good and needs a true reform with the next pope.

Pope Benedict XVI certainly tried to do this.

A little over a year ago, I spent a week living and studying at the Vatican as a guest lecturer at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, a university-like organization of scholars that explores ideas of interest to the Vatican. Last year, the Academy addressed the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas on the 750th anniversary of his death.

This is not an esoteric subject. Aquinas taught that all rational persons are capable of discerning right from wrong and good from evil by the exercise of free will and human reason, and they do not need the government to aid them in this endeavor.

This is generally known as Natural Law. My presentation was on the concept of natural rights, a derivation of Natural Law.

The Vatican, which is a fraction of the size of Central Park in New York City, has a fine guest house on the grounds, called The Domus, which was my home for four days. It was also the permanent residence of Pope Francis.

My 24 colleagues and I were dining in the small Domus dining room on our first day there, when the Pope came in and sat two tables away from us. It was surreal.

Here is the backstory.

How do we know what we know?

Aquinas set about to answer that intriguing question. How do we know that we exist, that 2 plus 2 equals 4, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? These are truisms; thus, they cannot change and all rational people can discern them. They are true intrinsically, whether we believe they are or not. 

Aquinas taught that all rational adults can discover the truth by the exercise of free will. That exercise requires rational thinking. At the time he taught this, it was radical, as other scholars taught that forces outside of us drew us to discover truths.

Let’s say you like chocolate ice cream. Aquinas taught that you can rationally choose chocolate whenever you have an ice cream choice to make. Others taught that you really didn’t choose chocolate; it chose you — meaning that you can’t control your tastebuds.

This is not hairsplitting; rather it is central to Western thinking. If we don’t have free will, if we are just animals drawn to satiate our tastes, then are we responsible for our behavior? Can we take credit when we hit a home run or compose a symphony, or is all this just animal instinct acting out?

Aquinas’ views are known today as Natural Law. And the derivative of Natural Law are natural rights. Aquinas taught that the same God who made us in his own image and likeness gave us the gift of free will. We can use that free will to discover truth, practice baseball, learn music or choose our favorite ice cream. We can also use that free will to harm others, like stealing a purse or robbing a bank.

Aquinas taught that when we see a purse being stolen or a bank being robbed, we instinctually know that we are witnessing evil. How do we know this? We are hardwired by our Creator to discern good from evil.

But we cannot know this unless we have the free will to reject it. As God is perfectly free, so are we — his creatures — perfectly free.

The theory of natural rights — extrapolated from Aquinas — teaches that our rights are permanent claims against the whole world that no one, not even government, can take away. Of course, the purse snatcher and the bank robber give up their rights when they violate the rights of the purse owner and the bank depositors.

Today, we allow the government to take our property, privacy and free speech from us all the time.

Aquinas knew that government is the negation of liberty. We in the 21st century realize that we have a government that is utterly indifferent to our rights. The folks who run the federal government — no matter which political party is in power — believe they can kill any foe, steal any property, extinguish any right, declare any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event and insinuate themselves into any relationship so long as they can get away with it politically — all in defiance of Natural Law.

In America today, we see the destruction of Natural Law principles and the rejection of natural rights.

Now, back to the Pope.

Catholics believe that he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. But Francis may have been the worst pope in history. He watered down Church teachings on marriage, sexuality and confession. He declined to judge right from wrong. He forbade the Mass that every canonized saint in Heaven attended and participated in since 1564. He has even claimed that all religions are equal and welcomed in the eyes of God — contrary to 2,000 years of express Church teaching. This is heresy.

He attacked long-standing theology, universal liturgy and Thomistic Natural Law; when his principal job was to preserve them. He even questioned the concept of sin.

Nevertheless, it was surreal when he was brought into the guesthouse dining room, using a walker and an assistant at each arm. It was bizarre when he sat with his back to us. I wanted to go up to him and greet him, but the Swiss Guards had warned us not to approach him or call his name.

Two days later, I turned a corner in the guest house lobby, and there he was, 10 feet away — just the two of us. I gently bowed and whispered, “Your Holiness.” He looked at me and moved on.

Now, mercifully, Francis is gone. I pray for his soul and I pray for his successor. Please Lord, may the next Pope be a Catholic Pope.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

 Can we pray that our next pope wears a fully lined cassock????

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Aptos","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Aptos; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Aptos; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standardcontextual; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

Letter from law professor, Stephen Mikochik urging Delaware Governor Meyer to veto assisted suicide bill HB 140, “The Ron Silverio/Heather Block End of Life Options Law.”

Stephen MikochikDear Gov. Meyer:

I am a professor emeritus of Constitutional Law at Temple Law School in Philadelphia and a senior lecturer in Jurisprudence at Ave Maria Law School in Naples, Florida. I have reviewed numerous state proposals to legalize physician-assisted suicide. House Bill 140 would authorize that practice in Delaware.

I urge you not to sign H.B. 140. The bill threatens vulnerable patients, is not needed to mitigate pain at the end of life and creates a right that all competent persons who wish to end their lives for whatever reason will demand.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that physician-assisted suicide is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution;[1] and nowhere has the Supreme Court of Delaware held it protected under the State Constitution. Therefore, the question of whether to legalize assisted suicide is one of policy in Delaware; and the balance clearly weighs in favor of rejecting it.

On the one hand, a chief reason for rejecting assisted suicide is the protection of vulnerable patients from abuse. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained:

As shown in the attached letter to Sen. Sokola, H.B. 140 provides only phantom safeguards for vulnerable patients.

It is argued on the other hand that assisted suicide is needed to mitigate physical pain at the end of life. Most terminal patients, however, die peacefully; palliative care can control the pain of those who do not; and sedation is available if that care proves ineffective. Irremediable pain is not a major concern terminal patients express for seeking assisted suicide and is not a qualifying condition in H.B. 140 or nearly all other assisted suicide measures. Thus, it is not a factor that should tip the balance in favor of legalization.

It is further argued that H.B. 140 is needed to mitigate distress at the end of life. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed, however, many patients who request assistance in suicide withdraw that request when their depression is treated.[3] Depression, of course, affects others who have no terminal condition; but that only strengthens their claim for access to assistance in suicide since they may face distress, not  for months, but for a life-time.

Finally, it is argued that assisted suicide protects the dignity of terminal patients by respecting their choice. Yet, the threat to dignity is death itself; choosing death by poison over death by cancer is a feeble capitulation to that threat. To recast that choice as the right to act on one’s deepest beliefs on the meaning of life would make “the right to suicide and the right to assistance in suicide … the prerogative of at least every sane adult[:]”[4]

The depressed twenty-one year old, the romantically-devastated twenty-eight year old, the alcoholic forty- year old who choose suicide are also expressing their views … [on] existence, meaning, the universe, and life; they are also asserting their personal liberty.[5]

The State may act gradually to avoid the free-fall that Canada has faced; it may make exceptions for those whose family obligations would fall upon it if they died; but, once suicide is legalized for terminal patients, expansion is inevitable: How could the State distinguish among persons’ beliefs about the meaning of their lives?

You alone can sign H.B. 140 into law. You thus have the awful power to choose between life and death. I urge you not to sign it, and choose life.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen L. Mikochik

Okinawa Island has seen a spate of sexual assaults reportedly committed by American military personnel over the past year

Two US Marines stationed on Japan’s Okinawa Island are under investigation for allegedly raping local civilian women, Kyodo News reported on Thursday.   

A Marine, said to be in his 20s, is suspected of raping a Japanese woman in a bathroom at a US military base last month. The suspect is also facing charges for injuring a second woman, a civilian worker at the base, who tried to intervene and help the victim. Another Marine, also in his 20s, is accused of raping a woman at a different base in January, according to the outlet.  

The reported incidents follow a spate of sexual assaults that have reportedly been committed by American service members on the island over the past year. The southernmost prefecture hosts 70% of all US military facilities in Japan, despite comprising just 1% of the country’s territory.   

Okinawa prefectural police referred the case to prosecutors earlier this month, Kyodo said. The Japanese authorities launched an investigation in coordination with the US military and conducted a voluntary interview with the Marines involved.  

Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki, a vocal critic of US military bases in Japan, condemned the alleged rapes as “very deplorable” and called on American military officials to take measures “that would be effective to prevent a similar incident.”  

US Ambassador to Japan George Glass expressed “deep” concern over the reports, stating that he was troubled by the allegations.  

“We deeply value the ties of trust and friendship we have built over many decades with our Japanese hosts, and I am committed to doing everything I can to prevent actions that may jeopardize these bonds,” Kyodo quoted the envoy, who arrived in Japan last week.  

The cases mark the latest in a series of violent attacks against women in Okinawa. In December, a Japanese court sentenced Senior Airman Brennon Washington to five years of hard labor after convicting him of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl the previous year. Last June, a Marine lance corporal was indicted for attempted sexual assault, while another lance corporal faced charges in September for injuring a woman during a sexual assault.  

Other high-profile cases – most notably the 1995 abduction and rape of a 12-year-old girl by three American servicemen – have fueled strong anti-base sentiment in Okinawa.   

The US and Japanese governments reportedly maintain, however, that the presence of American troops in Okinawa serves as a deterrent in light of concerns over China’s military activities in the South and East China Seas, as well as North Korea’s ongoing nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Western powers want to present the fall of the Syrian regime as a strategic defeat for Moscow, but its goals have changed in the past decade

The ousting of longtime Syrian President Bashar Assad has ushered in a new chapter of uncertainty in the country’s decades-long conflict.

Several questions remain regarding the surprising turn of events. Were the rebels externally backed? What are the implications for powers such as Russia? Will the ensuing power vacuum lead to the rise of new non-state actors?

It is apparent that the current power play is benefiting American and Israeli interests in the region. With the toppling of a key Russian partner and a major link in the Axis of Resistance against Israel, the geopolitics of the region will undergo a fundamental geopolitical shift.

Any hopes of resolving the Syrian question will be dim – nation-building has always been a more daunting, time-intensive, resource-consuming, and politically less rewarding process than orchestrating regime collapse. Given that Western governments share a voluminous history of exploiting grassroots organizations – from pro-democracy protest groups to the mujahedeen and Islamist outfits – to further their geostrategic ambitions, it is likely that the successful offensive by Islamist radicals against the Assad regime had tacit Western blessings.

Even though the US secretary of state only recently confirmed that Washington is in contact with Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) – a rebrand of the terrorist Al-Nusra Front affiliated with Al-Qaeda – US forces based in Syria had been actively aiding opposition groups at Deir Ezzor during the offensive against the Syrian regime. Furthermore, the neutral to positive coverage meted out to terrorist outfits, especially HTS, by referring to them with euphemistically neutral terms (“rebels”) despite the group being sanctioned by the United Nations, the US government, and other states as a terrorist organization prominently conveys America’s tilt in the current geostrategic developments.

The trend also reflected the proactiveness (or desperation) of the erstwhile Biden administration to attempt to mould US foreign policy post-election, that is, before leaving office in January 2025. The authorization to use ATACMS on Russia, the unrest in Georgia, the toppling of the Assad regime in Syria and subsequent Israeli violations of Syrian sovereignty are dots connecting the same pattern.

One can hope that Washington has learned its lessons from Afghanistan (which led to a strengthening of the Taliban) and its Iraqi fiasco (which led to the birth of the Islamic State), and that it won’t follow the same playbook in Syria. Elements of reform have been visible – despite the collapse of the Assad regime, government ministries are still functioning. The Islamist opposition leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani previously called for an end to the prosecution and eradication of rivals and rallied focus instead on nation-building.

Syria: The new grand chessboard

The sudden fast-paced downfall of the Assad regime underscores its chronic internal decay. For years, Syria had been rotting from within, with signs of systemic failure becoming increasingly evident. The ubiquitous change of flags at Syrian embassies worldwide and the defections of key military figures illustrate profound dissatisfaction with Assad’s governance at the institutional level. While Russia provided significant military backing, it was never the primary political advisor to Assad. The inherent internal instability, which may have been manifested through corruption, mismanagement, and crumbling loyalty within the Syrian army, ultimately made external support futile. These factors demonstrate that Russia’s role in Syria was limited to military facilitation rather than comprehensive regime stabilization.

While Westerners insist on pointing to a strategic loss for Russia, Moscow's strategic priorities in Syria have evolved since its initial intervention in 2015. At that time, Syria served as a critical arena for breaking the international isolation Russia faced following its integration of Crimea. By intervening decisively, with an official invitation in accordance with international law, Moscow projected itself as a resilient power capable of advancing its interests despite Western sanctions. Syria also acted as a showcase for Russian military capabilities, demonstrating the effectiveness of its weapons systems and operational strategies to potential buyers.

However, several factors have diminished Syria’s strategic importance to Russia.

Initially, Russia’s involvement in Syria was believed by some to have been at least partly aimed at preventing Qatar from establishing a gas pipeline to Europe, which would have undercut Russian dominance in the European energy market. Today, with Russia’s gas exports to Europe significantly reduced, this objective has lost relevance. Furthermore, the diversification of global energy sources and the rise of LNG markets have further diluted the importance of blocking a Qatari pipeline through Syria into Europe.

Russia’s military campaign in Syria also provided an opportunity to test and market its advanced weaponry. This mission was largely successful, but the conflict in Ukraine has now become the primary stage for showcasing Russian military technology under real combat conditions. The deployment of systems showcased by the Oreshnik intermediate range ballistic missile highlighted Russia’s continued innovation in military technology. Ukraine has become a proving ground for Russian military tech, further reducing Syria’s importance in this regard.

Russia’s campaign in Syria was previously driven by the goal of eradicating ISIS, a mission largely accomplished in 2017 with a limited military contingent. ISIS now being significantly weaker than it was in 2015 marked a clear achievement for Russian forces. With the group no longer posing a major threat, Moscow’s justification for maintaining a robust presence in Syria has weakened. The focus has shifted to broader regional stability rather than counterterrorism operations.

In January 2025, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called for Russia to withdraw its military bases from Syria, citing concerns over foreign interference in Syria’s internal affairs. However, the demand has been criticized as hypocritical, given Germany’s silence on the presence of US military bases in Syria, which also operate without explicit international legal authorization. As of January 2025, Russia maintained two key military facilities in Syria: the Khmeimim Air Base and the naval base in Tartus. However, Syria’s decision to terminate the Tartus port management contract with a Russian company has disrupted military logistics, complicating Russia’s position. However, a continuous shift to the east is still evident even in the Middle East. Russia seems to be executing a strategic pivot to Libya, relocating significant naval assets to the ports of Misrata and Al-Hums. This move grants Russia unprecedented access to the central Mediterranean, placing NATO’s southern flank, including bases in Italy and Greece, within close operational range.

Baerbock’s call for Russia to leave Syria reflects Germany’s alignment with broader Western efforts to curb Russian influence in the Middle East. However, the lack of similar demands for the withdrawal of US forces undermines the credibility of this stance, exposing the geopolitical double standards often employed by Western powers. For Russia, maintaining its bases in Syria was not just about preserving influence but also about avoiding the humiliation of abandoning critical assets, as witnessed in the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yet, Russia’s relocation of naval assets to Libya may now represent a calculated move to counterbalance its declining influence in Syria while attempting to expand its geopolitical reach. By establishing a strengthened foothold in Libya, Russia may gain leverage over NATO’s southern flank and the ability to monitor alliance operations in real time, significantly enhancing its tactical advantages in the Mediterranean. This dual strategy underscores Russia’s adaptability in navigating shifting geopolitical landscapes, ensuring it remains a key player in global security dynamics despite the regional challenges.

What does the future hold for Syria?

The current situation provides two major future possibilities:

The first arises out of a power vacuum in Syria. In this scenario, where the HTS can’t reach a compromise with the other factions of the rebel coalition, the situation quickly devolves into infighting among the rebel groups, providing fertile ground for the rise of new radical outfits akin to ISIS. Rather than working towards maintaining harmony, the existence of a power vacuum would be expediently exploited by external interests such as the US, Türkiye, and Israel to carve out their own zones of influence. In such a scenario, whether the Kremlin succeeds in carving out a Russian sphere of its own is up for debate.

A fractured Syria will consequently be a haven for numerous groups and coalitions supported by a myriad of external powers (which may cooperate or even compete with each other) transforming into a playground for foreign power projection. Rivalries and conflicts will provide a lucrative testing ground for the arsenals of major countries. Areas with rich natural resources (US-controlled Syrian oil fields) will assist in maintaining influence in the region. Proxies will be utilized for combating states antithetical to the external interests – US bases in Al Tanf and Deir Ezzor were utilized to counter Iranian influence and enhance sudden strike capabilities.

The current outreach may also be construed as proactive American involvement in the Middle East to counter Russian influence, as well as recent Russian and Chinese geostrategic advances in Africa. Since Russian bases in Syria acted as critical logistical hubs for Russian operations in the Sahel region, Washington may have hoped that the demise of a longtime Syrian ally would complicate Moscow’s options and strain supply chains to Russian mercenary groups, thus diminishing their regional influence. Russian intelligence agencies have suggested that the US and UK are plotting “terrorist attacks” against Russian bases in hopes of further destabilizing the fragile situation.

Ongoing Israeli action in Syria is backed by confidence that US President Donald Trump is sympathetic to the Israeli cause. The current violations of Syrian territorial sovereignty and military deployments on the ground within Syria are being met with silent approval from Washington. While hitching one's wagon to a greater power has its benefits, this may complicate domestic support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if his current policy of expansionism-to-placate-the-masses hits a roadblock or if Israel suffers significant casualties in any of the numerous conflicts it is involved in.

For the Kremlin, the situation is complicated but not yet hopeless. While the loss of the old regime ended decades of regional partnership, the Russians can still reach an agreement with the new government and strive to break new ground with the nascent regime. Providing diplomatic and logistical, possibly even military support in exchange for continued Russian operations in the country can be an initial step towards building relations with the new regime. Providing reparations to the coup leaders with the demanded return of Assad to Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa may be in the position to bargain to allow Russia to keep its influence for the benefit of the Syrian regime and its people. The question remains open which side actually is in desperate need of the other. On the tactical scale, maintaining a hard posture may be advantageous to show the strength of the pioneer Syrian government during talks with leading powers. Yet, from the strategic point of view, it may be in the interests of Syria itself to keep Russian influence in order to maintain the status quo strategic balance and not follow the path paved by Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

However, the question of whether Bashar Assad will be surrendered to the new Syrian regime remains open. His continued presence poses a potential obstacle to the evolving bilateral relations between Russia and the newly established Syrian government. Granting Assad asylum presents a considerable challenge to achieving a mutually acceptable foundation for cooperation, as it complicates efforts to reset relations and align national interests from the outset. However, Russia’s approach to diplomatic negotiations differs fundamentally from that of Western powers, where pragmatism and self-interest often take precedence. Moscow places significant emphasis on interpersonal relationships and expects reciprocal loyalty in its strategic engagements.

Vladimir Putin has cultivated a stable and trusting relationship with Bashar Assad, and despite the rapid collapse and apparent fragility of Assad’s regime, Russia’s willingness to offer asylum serves as a broader signal of its commitment to supporting its allies, even in adverse circumstances. Unlike the US, which has historically withdrawn support from leaders such as Hosni Mubarak or Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Russia’s strategic calculus suggests that Assad’s fate is unlikely to be a focal point in future negotiations between Moscow and Damascus. Over time, the new Syrian leadership will be compelled to adapt to this reality, shifting its demands toward other concessions that Russia may find more acceptable.

The second possibility deals with a stronger HTS successfully reaching a compromise with the rebel groups. Whether this evolves into a working coalition incorporating the other rebel factions or HTS balances by providing regional territorial influence within Syria remains to be seen.

If the new Syrian government decides to renegotiate military agreements, including the removal of Russian bases, Moscow’s leverage in the region could diminish. However, this scenario is far from certain. The current government has not declared Russia an adversary, focusing instead on Iran and Hezbollah as primary concerns. This divergence from the narrative presented by much of the Western media, which often portrays Russia’s position as unequivocally weakened, highlights the complexities of the situation. Rather than an outright loss, the ambiguity surrounding Russia’s role could offer Moscow greater space to maneuver diplomatically and strategically in the region.

While the collapse of the Syrian government poses new challenges, it does not fundamentally alter Russia’s position in the Middle East. Its strategic interests in Syria have shifted over the years. Although uncertainties remain, particularly regarding the future of Russian military bases, the absence of direct hostility from the new Syrian government provides room for maneuver. Ultimately, Syria’s downfall highlights the limits of external intervention in stabilizing fragile regimes, reinforcing the notion that Russia’s role in Syria has always been one of measured engagement rather than unconditional commitment.

Other NATO members must contribute more to deal with the threats they supposedly face, the Pentagon chief has said

European NATO members must overcome their dependence on the US for security and increase their own military spending, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has said.

The US is prioritizing the protection of its own borders “after decades of securing other people’s borders in far-off places,” Hegseth stated on Wednesday. This shift in focus from the Pentagon comes alongside an “increased allied burden-sharing” in strategic regions, he added, as he summarized his first 100 days in office in a speech at the Army War College in Pennsylvania.

“We have obtained commitments from Poland – one of many model allies – the Baltics, to spend 5% of their GDP on defense,” Hegseth reported. He emphasized that NATO’s longstanding spending target of 2% “is not enough, considering the threats you face.”

The time of the United States… being the sole guarantor of European security has passed. It’s long overdue Europe has to step up, fund its military, and lead. NATO needs to step up.

Hegseth also stated that shifting the responsibility for military assistance to Ukraine onto European countries is part of the Pentagon’s realignment.

The EU plans to borrow hundreds of billions of euros to spend on militarization, asserting the need to deter Russia. Moscow denies any aggressive intentions toward NATO members.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in a recent interview with French magazine Le Point, remarked that Europe has shot itself in the foot by following directives from former US President Joe Biden to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes” and to punish Russia with sanctions. It is now facing the repercussions of those decisions, Peskov believes.

“Europe cannot exist and be competitive without two key elements: affordable security and inexpensive energy,” he argued. “Europe used to enjoy security from the US at a low cost. And it received cheap energy from Russia.”

Peskov suggested that having lost both of these advantages, European nations are now facing deindustrialization and other economic challenges while stubbornly pursuing a failed policy, even as the administration of US President Donald Trump seeks to mediate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

The Trump administration has also clashed with various European nations over issues such as perceived unfair trade practices and Denmark’s management of Greenland, which the US has expressed interest in taking control of.

An emergency fund is often associated with working individuals preparing for job loss or unexpected expenses, but it is just as crucial for retirees. Having a dedicated emergency fund for retirees helps cover unforeseen costs without dipping into long-term investments, particularly during market downturns.Protecting retirement savings requires a financial cushion that prevents unnecessary withdrawals from investment accounts, allowing retirees to maintain stability and sustain their income for the long haul.This guide outlines why retirees need an emergency fund, how to determine the right amount to save, the best places to keep these funds, and strategies to replenish them when used.Why Retirees Still Need an Emergency FundWithout a steady paycheck, retirees rely on Social Security, pensions, investments, and savings to cover their living expenses. Unexpected financial shocks, such as medical emergencies, home repairs, or family support needs, can force withdrawals from retirement accounts at inopportune times.An emergency fund serves as: