Donald Trumps Gift to Adam Schiff

Published

2 years ago

November 6, 2023

admin

Representative Adam Schiff was mingling his way through a friendly crowd at a Democratic barbecue when the hecklers arrivedby boat. Schiff and two other Senate candidates, Representatives Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, convened on the back patio of a country club overlooking the port of Stockton, California. Schiff spoke first. Its such a beautiful evening, he said, thanking the host, local Democratic Representative Josh Harder.

It was hard to know what to make of the protest vessel, except that its seven passengers were yelling things as Schiff began his remarks. And not nice things. Although their words were tough to decipher, the flag flying over the craft made clear where they were coming from: FUCK BIDEN . Notably, of the three candidates, Schiff was the only one I heard singled out by nameor, in one case, by a Donald Trumpinspired epithet (Shifty) and, in another, a four-letter profanity similar to the congressmans surname (clever!).

Schiff is used to such derision and says it proves his bona fides as a worthy Trump adversary. Given the laws of political physics today, it also bodes well for his Senate campaign. The principle is simple: to be despised by the opposition can yield explicit benefits. This is especially true when you belong to the dominant party, as Schiff does in heavily Democratic California. One sides villain is the other sides champion. Adam Schiff embodies this rule as well as any politician in the country.

In recent years, Schiff has had a knack for eliciting loud and at times unhinged reactions from opponents, even though he himself tends to be quite hinged. The 45th president tweeted about Schiff 328 times, as tallied by Schiffs office. Tucker Carlson called the congressman a wild-eyed conspiracy nut. A group of QAnon followers circulated a report in 2021 that U.S. Special Forces had arrested Schiff and that he was in a holding facility awaiting transfer to Guantnamo Bay for trial (the report proved erroneous). Before Schiff had a chance to meet his new Republican colleague Anna Paulina Luna, of Florida, she filed a resolution condemning his Russia hoax investigation and calling for him to potentially be fined $16 million (the resolution failed).

This onslaught has also been good for business, inspiring equal passion in Schiffs favor. A former prosecutor, he became an icon of the left for his emphatic critiques of Trumps behavior in office, including as the lead House manager in Trumps first impeachment trial. You know you cant trust this president to do whats right for this country, Schiff said as part of his closing argument, a speech that became a rallying cry of the anti-Trump resistance. (I am in tears, the actor Debra Messing wrote on Twitter.) Opponents gave grudging respect. They nailed him, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Mitt Romney, according to an account in a new Romney biography by my colleague McKay Coppins. Schiffs own Trump-era memoir, Midnight in Washington, became a No. 1 New York Times best seller.Representative Adam Schiff speaks to supporters at a barbecue hosted by fellow Democratic House member Josh Harder in Stockton, California. (Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)

You could draw parallel lines charting the levels of vilification that Schiff has encountered and his name recognition and fundraising numbers. Both the good and the grisly have boosted Schiffs media profile, which he has adeptly cultivated. Schiff has come in at or near the top of the polls in the Senate race so far, along with Porter. A Berkeley IGS survey released last week revealed him as the best-known of the candidates vying for the late Dianne Feinsteins job; 69 percent of likely voters said they could render an opinion of him (40 percent favorable, 29 percent unfavorable). He raised $6.4 million in the most recent reporting period, ending the quarter with $32 million cash on hand, or $20 million more than the runner-up, Porter. Thats more than any Senate candidate in the country this election cycle, and a massive advantage in a state populated by about 22 million registered voters covering some of the nations most expensive media markets.

Read: A final chapter unbefitting an extraordinary legacy

Hes become an inspiration and a voice of reason for many of us, Becky Espinoza, of Stockton, told me at the Democratic barbecue.

Or at least the sector of many of us who dont want him dead.

Schiff started getting threats a few months into Trumps presidency. Welcome to the club, Nancy Pelosi, his longtime mentor, told him. He endured anti-Semitic screeds online and actual bullets sent to his office bearing the names of Schiffs two kids. I cant stand the fact that millions of people hate you; they just hate you, Schiffs wife, Eveyes, Adam and Evetold her husband after the abuse started. They just hate you.

No one deserves to be subjected to such menace, and the threats can be particularly chilling for a member of Congress who would not normally have a protective detail. (Schiffs office declined to discuss its security staffing and protocols.) Schiff is not shy about repeating these ugly stories, however. Theres an element of strategic humblebragging to this, as he is plainly aware that being a target of the MAGA minions can be extremely attractive to the Democratic voters he needs.

In June, congressional Republicans led a party-line vote to censure Schiff for his role in investigating Trump. As then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy attempted to preside, Democrats physically rallied around Schiff on the House floor chanting shame at McCarthy. On the day of his censure, Schiff was interviewed on CNN and twice on MSNBC; the next morning he appeared on ABCs The View. Whoever it was that introduced that censure resolution against him probably ensured Adams victory, Representative Mike Thompson, another California Democrat, told me. A few colleagues addressed him that day as Senator Schiff.

I dropped in on Schiff periodically over the past few months as he traversed the chaos of the Capitol, weighed in on Trumps legal travails, and campaigned across California. What did a Senate candidacy look like for a Trump-era cause clbre who is revered and reviled with such vigor? I found it a bit odd to see Schiff out in the political wildglad-handing, granny-hugging, and, at the barbecue in late August, nearly knocking a plate of brisket from the grip of an eager selfie-seeker. He has graduated to a full-on news-fixture status, someone perpetually framed by a screen or viewed behind a podium, as if he emerged from his mothers womb and was dropped straight into a formal courtroom, hearing room, or greenroom setting.

I watched a number of guests in Stockton clutch Schiffs hand and address him in plaintive tones. After I stopped crying a little bit, I just wanted to thank him for all he did during impeachment and to just save our democracy, said Espinoza, following her brief meeting with the candidate.

Nearby, David Hartman, of Tracy, California, put down a paper plate of chicken, pickles, and corn salad and made his way to Schiff. I just want to shake the mans hand and thank him, Hartman told me, which is what he did. So did his wife, Tracy (of Tracy!), who was likewise surprised to find herself in tears.

Im like a human focus group, Schiff told me, describing how strangers approach him at airports. Sometimes I will have two people come up to me simultaneously. One will say, You are Adam Schiff. I just want to shake your hand. Youre a hero. And the other will say, Youre not my hero. Why do you lie all the time?

For his first eight terms in Congress, Schiff, 63, was not much recognized beyond the confines of the U.S. Capitol or the cluster of affluent Los Angelesarea neighborhoods he has represented in the House since 2001. I think, before Trump, if you had to pick one of these big lightning rods or partisan bomb-throwers, you would not pick me, Schiff told me.

Largely true. Schiff speaks in careful, somewhat clipped tones, with a slight remnant of a Boston accent from his childhood in suburban Fraingham, Massachusetts. (His father was in the clothing business and moved the family to Arizona and eventually California.) A Stanford- and Harvard-trained attorney, Schiff gained a reputation as an ambitious but low-key legislator in the House, and a deft communicator in service of his generally liberal positions.A Fox News reporter and other guests at the barbecue in Stockton.(Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)

After Trumps election, however, Schiffs district effectively became CNN, MSNBC, and the network Sunday shows, along with the scoundrels gallery of right-wing media that pulverized him hourly. This included a certain Twitter feed. The worst abuse Schiff received started after Trumps maiden tweet about him dropped on July 24, 2017. This was back in an era of relative innocence, when it was still something of a novelty for a sitting president to attack a member of Congress by nameSleazy Adam Schiff, in this case.

Schiff tweeted back that Trumps comments and actions are beneath the dignity of the office. Schiff would later reveal that he rejected a less restrained rejoinder suggested by Mike Thompson, his California colleague: Mr. President, when they go low, we go high. Now go fuck yourself. Anyway, that was six years, two impeachments, four indictments, 91 felony counts, and 327 tweets by Donald Trump about Adam Schiff ago.

Adam Schiff: America must stand as a bulwark against autocracy

Adam is one of the least polarizing personalities you will ever find, said another Democratic House colleague, Dan Goldman, of New York. The reason hes become such a bogeyman for the Republican Party is simply that hes so effective. Goldman served as the lead majority counsel during Trumps first impeachment, working closely with Schiff. We originally met in the greenroom of MSNBC in June of 2018, Goldman told me. (Of course they did.)

Schiff understands that some of the rancor directed at him is performative, and likes to point out the quiet compliments he receives from political foes. Trump used to complain on Twitter that Schiff spent too much time on televisionin reality, a source of extreme envy for the then-president. Schiff tells a story about how Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law, came to Capitol Hill for a deposition from members of Schiffs Intelligence committee in 2017. Kushner comes up to me to make conversation, and to ingratiate himself, Schiff told me. And he said, You know, you do a great job on television. And I said, Well, apparently your father-in-law doesnt think so, and [Kushner] said, Oh, yes, he does. (Kushner didnt respond to a request for comment.)

One of Trumps most fervent bootlickers, Senator Lindsey Graham, walked up to Schiff in a Capitol hallway during the first impeachment trial and told him how good of a job he was doing. Schiff, who relayed both this and the Kushner stories in his memoir, says he gets that from other Republicans, too, usually House members hes worked withincluding some who lampoon him in front of microphones. A few House Republicans apologized privately to Schiff, he told me, right after they voted to censure him.

The apologies are always accompanied by Youre not going to say anything about this, are you? Schiff said. When I urged Schiff to name names, to call out the hypocrites, he declined.

I asked Schiff if he would prefer the more anonymous, pre-2017 version of himself running in this Senate campaign, as opposed to the more embattled, death-threat-getting version, who nonetheless enjoys so many advantages because of all the attention. He paused. Id rather the country didnt have to go through all this with Donald Trump, he said, skirting a direct answer.

As with many members of Congress seeking a promotion or an exit, Schiff gives off a strong whiff of being done with the place. The House has become kind of a basket case, he told me, citing one historic grandiloquence that he was recently privy tothe episode in which Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene called her colleague Lauren Boebert a little bitch on the House floor.

And I remember thinking to myself, There used to be giants who served in this body, Schiff said. He sighed, as he does.

I met with Schiff at the Capitol in early October, amid the usual swirl of weighty events: Feinstein had died three days earlier; news that Governor Gavin Newsom would appoint the Democratic activist Laphonza Butler as her replacement came the night before. That afternoon, Republican Representative Matt Gaetz had filed his fateful motion to vacate that would result in the demise of McCarthys speakership the next day. Schiff stood just off the House floor, colleagues passing in both directions, Republicans looking especially angry, and reporters gathering around Schiff in a small scrum.

No matter what happens next November, Schiff is not running for reelection in the House. He told me he has long believed that hed be a better fit for the Senate anyway, where he has been coveting a seat for years. Schiff said he considered running in 2016, after the retirement of the incumbent Barbara Boxer (who was eventually succeeded by Kamala Harris).

A Democrat will almost certainly win the 2024 California race. Senate contests in the state follow a two-tiered system in which candidates from both parties compete in a March primary, and then the two top finishers face off in November, regardless of their affiliation. In addition to Schiff, Porter, and Lee, the former baseball star Steve Garvey, known also for his various divorce and paternity scandals, recently entered the race as a Republican. A smattering of long shots are also running, including the requisite former L.A. news anchor and requisite former Silicon Valley executive. Butler announced on October 19 that she would not seek the permanent job.

To varying degrees, all of the three leading Democratic candidates have national profiles. Lee, who has represented her Oakland-area district for nearly 25 years, previously chaired both the Congressional Progressive and Black Caucuses. Porter was elected to Congress in 2018 and has gained a quasi-cult following as a progressive gadfly who has a knack for conducting pointed interrogations of executives and public officials that go rapidly viral. A few of her fans were so excited to meet Porter at the Stockton barbecue that three actually spilled drinks on herthis according to the congresswoman, speaking at an event a few days later.

Ronald Brownstein: Who will replace Dianne Feinstein?

Schiff, Porter, and Lee all identify as progressive Democrats on most issues, though Schiff tends to be more hawkish on national security. He voted to authorize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and supported the 2011 U.S. missile strikes against Libya. Lee, who opposed all three, recently criticized Schiffs foreign-policy views as part of the status quo thinking in Washington. (Porter was not in office then.) Schiff expressed unequivocal support for the security and the right of Israel to defend itself after last months attacks by Hamas. Lee has been more critical of the Israeli government, and called for a cease-fire immediately after the Hamas attacks. As for Porter, she has been a rare progressive to focus her response on Americas Iran policy, which she called lacking and partly to blame for the attacks.

Although Schiff is best known for his work as a Trump antagonistand happily dines out on thathe is also wary of letting the former president define him entirely. This is bigger than Trump, he reminds people whenever the conversation veers too far in Trumps inevitable direction. Schiff dutifully pivots to more standard campaign themes, namely the two hugely disruptive forces he says have shaped American life: the changes in our economy and the changes in how we get our information. He reels off the number of cities in California that hes visited, events hes done, and endorsements hes received as proof that he is a workmanlike candidate, not just a citizen of the greenroom.A group of hecklers in a boat floats by near the barbecue. (Photographs by AustinLeong for The Atlantic)

Recently, he lamented that many of his Republican colleagues are now driven by a perverse celebrity that he believes the likes of Greene and Boebert have acquired through their Trump-style antics and ties to the former president. I pointed out to Schiff that he, too, has received a lot of Trump-driven recognition. Doesnt being affiliated with Trump, whether as an ally or an adversary, have benefits for both sides?

Well, I dont view it that way at all, Schiff said. I dont view it as having any kind of equivalence. On one hand, were trying to defend our democracy. And on the other hand, we have these aiders and abettors of Trump by these vile performance artists. Its quite different.

Schiffs biggest supporter has been Pelosi, who endorsed him over two other members of her own caucus and delegation. This included Lee, whom Pelosi described to me as like a political sister. I spoke by phone recently with the former speaker, who was effusive about Schiff and scoffed at any suggestion that he benefited from his resistance to Trump and the counter-backlash that ensued. If whats-his-name never existed, Adam Schiff would still be the right person for California, Pelosi said. It was one of two occasions in our interview in which she refused to utter the word Trump.

I just dont want to say his name, she explained. Because I worry that hes going to corrode my phone or something.

In one of my conversations with Schiff, I asked him this multiple-choice question: Who had raised the most money for himAdam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, or Donald Trump? My goal was to get Schiff to acknowledge that, without Trump, he would be nowhere near as well known, well financed, or well positioned to potentially represent the countrys most populous state in the Senate.

Im not sure how to answer that, he said. After a pause, he picked himself. I am my own biggest fundraiser, he declared. Okay, I said, but wasnt Trump the single biggest motivator for anyone to donate?

Its the whole package, Schiff maintained, ceding nothing. He then made sure to mention the person whos been most formative in helping shape my career and phenomenally helpful in my campaignNancy Pelosi. He was in no rush to give whats-his-name any credit.

Politics

Everything we know about China’s new ‘super embassy’

Published

2 hours ago

November 21, 2025

admin

Everything we know about China's new 'super embassy'

The prime minister is expected to approve plans for a new Chinese ‘super embassy’ in London, Sky News understands, after the government delayed the application numerous times.

Despite the controversy, both the UK’s domestic and foreign security services are said to have given their blessing to the decision, which is expected to be formally announced on 10 December.

The Home Office and Foreign Office will also not raise any formal objections to the plan, as long as “mitigations” are put in place to protect national security, The Times, which first reported the development, said.

Politics latest: Follow live updates

News of the decision comes at a time when the UK’s relationship with Beijing is under major scrutiny after recent allegations of spying in parliament.

A security alert to MPs was issued by MI5 on 19 November, warning of new attempts to spy on them by Chinese security services, and there was outrage at the collapse of the trial of two alleged spies in September – claims the pair deny.

It also comes as Sky News reported that Sir Keir Starmer is preparing for a likely visit to China in the new year, potentially at the end of January.

Here is everything we know about the ‘super embassy’ so far.

Where is it – and when was it proposed?

China bought Royal Mint Court for £255m in 2018. It was built over 200 years ago to produce new British coins, but has remained empty since the last gold sovereign was struck there in 1975.

Previously, it had been earmarked for redevelopment as a leisure complex and was home to the Royal Mint between 1809 and 1967.

A planning application to move China’s current embassy near Regent’s Park to the new site, which sits between the financial districts of the City of London and Canary Wharf, was rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022.

It was resubmitted in July 2024, two weeks after Labour won the general election, with Chinese President Xi Jinping asking Sir Keir to intervene personally.

In August that year, the application was “called in” by then housing secretary Angela Rayner, meaning central government took oversight of it from the local council. Building plans were also submitted.

Ms Rayner announced in August that she was delaying approval of the application over part of the building plans being redacted – something anti-China activists suggest could be a tactic to hide facilities for detaining opponents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China claims it has “followed the customary diplomatic practices, as well as necessary protocol and procedures” and that the new embassy is being proposed in the spirit of “promoting understanding and friendship”.

New Housing Secretary Steve Reed then extended the deadline once more, announcing on 21 October that ministers needed more time to discuss the matter.

Greyed-out areas with no clear use

There have been large-scale protests against the embassy and outrage when China refused to explain why large parts of the plans were greyed out.

A public inquiry was held in front of the government’s Planning Inspectorate in February and the findings were presented to Ms Rayner to make a final decision.

She demanded an explanation about rooms in the basement of the building that were “greyed out” in the application.

Hong Kongers exiled in the UK over Chinese allegations of national security crimes have expressed fears that such rooms might be used to detain dissidents.

One, Carmen Lau, told Sky’s Henry Vaughan she believes the embassy would become a “hub of transnational repression” and said she is scared of being held there after a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester was forcibly taken inside the Chinese consulate in Manchester in 2022.

In a letter sent to Ms Lau’s neighbours, Hong Kong Police said a HK$1m bounty was on offer to anyone who could provide information or “take her to Chinese embassy”.

In evidence to the Planning Inspectorate inquiry, Simon Cheng, founder of Hongkongers in Britain, said: “China has been accused of operating illegal ‘overseas police stations’ to silence political opponents and even force them back to China.”

He claimed that “approving this embassy risks legitimising and enabling such activities on British soil”.

And during a debate on the plans in parliament, Liberal Democrat MP Ben Maguire claimed the embassy plans could “seriously increase China’s capacity for surveillance, intimidation and transnational repression against Hong Kong activists here in London”.

The Chinese embassy in London responded to Ms Rayner’s letter in August, expressing “serious concern” over the delay in approving its plans and saying foreign countries have an “international obligation” to support the construction of diplomatic premises.

Beijing officials also claimed that the “internal functional layout for embassy projects is different” from other projects, pointing out that plans for the new US-UK embassy at Nine Elms did not include internal layouts.

DP9, the planning consultancy commissioned by the Chinese government, said it would be “inappropriate” to submit complete floor plans.

Other security concerns

Royal Mint Court used to have a trading floor, which was wired to other financial institutions, and is situated near the City of London’s telephone exchange.

China-critic Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith has said such infrastructure could easily be used for Chinese espionage.

According to a report in The Sunday Times, the White House has warned the UK government against approving the embassy on similar grounds.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp echoed America’s concerns in June, telling Sky News: “I agree with the United States. We should not be allowing the Chinese to build the super embassy. It is likely to become a base for their pan-European espionage activities.”

The government previously expressed concerns about another part of the embassy site China proposes to keep open – for the public to visit the ruins of a Cistercian abbey and a Chinese cultural centre.

The Home and Foreign Offices said the area poses a “specific public order and national security risks” because, although members of the public would be allowed in, police and the emergency services would not be due to its “diplomatic inviolability”.

China claimed it would allow first responders onto the site if anyone got into difficulty, as a planning condition, but critics remain sceptical.

Residents of flats located within Royal Mint Court are also against the plans as they have concerns that their new landlords will eventually force them out of their homes.

Other people living nearby fear the security risk of regular anti-China protests at the site, with two taking place earlier this year.

What has China said?

China maintains the new embassy is being built to “promote understanding and friendship” with the UK and “develop mutually beneficial cooperation”.

In September, a Chinese embassy spokesperson told Sky News that claims the new embassy poses a potential security risk to the UK are “completely groundless and malicious slander, and we firmly oppose it”.

They added: “Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government’s consideration over this planning application. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.”

The Chinese embassy in London said in its August statement that planning applications and all necessary protocol have been followed.

The statement said: “The Chinese side urges the UK side to fulfil its obligation and approve the planning application without delay.

“The planning and design of the new Chinese Embassy project is of high quality, which has been well recognised by various professional bodies.

“The planning application has followed the customary diplomatic practices, as well as necessary protocol and procedures.

“In our reply to [the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government], we have provided a comprehensive response to the questions concerning the planning application.

“It is an international obligation of the host country to provide support and facilitation for the construction of diplomatic premises. Both China and the UK plan to build new embassies in each other’s capitals.”

China has so far refused permission for a new UK embassy in Beijing.

World

Trump’s 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full

Published

2 hours ago

November 21, 2025

admin

Trump's 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full

Donald Trump’s plan for ending the war in Ukraine would hand swathes of land to Russia and limit the size of Kyiv’s military, a draft has revealed.

The copy of the proposal that originates from negotiations between Washington and Moscow was obtained by the Associated Press and appears emphatically favourable to Russia.

It closely resembles the list of demands repeatedly stated by the Kremlin since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago.

Points included in the plan are widely seen as untenable for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has rejected Mr Trump‘s previous calls for territorial concessions.

Ukraine war latest – Zelenskyy responds to Trump peace plan

The draft was reportedly devised by Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev.

It says there would be a “decisive coordinated military response” in the event of further Russian incursions onto Ukrainian territory, but does not say what role the United States would play in that response.

A side agreement aims to satisfy Ukrainian security concerns by saying a future “significant, deliberate and sustained armed attack” by Russia would be viewed as “threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community”.

The agreement – detailed to the AP by an unnamed senior US official – does not obligate the US or European allies to intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, although it says they would “determine the measures necessary to restore security”.

The 28-point plan states Ukraine must cede the entirety of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk to Russia – despite Ukraine still controlling a third of the latter. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be frozen along the existing lines of conflict.

Ukraine’s army, currently at roughly 880,000 troops, would be reduced to 600,000.

Some frozen Russian assets would go toward rebuilding Ukraine, while sanctions on Russia would be lifted and Moscow and Washington would enter in a series of “long-term” economic arrangements.

The document says Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, but would be eligible to join the European Union.

It also says elections must be held in Ukraine in 100 days.

Here is the 28-point draft agreement in full:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

10. The US guarantee:

– The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;

– If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;

– If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;

Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump’s plan – they will play for time

Dominic Waghorn

International affairs editor

@DominicWaghorn

“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.

The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.

It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.

Its proposals are non-starters for Ukrainians.

It would hand over the rest of Donbas, territory they have spent almost four years and lost tens of thousands of men defending.

Analysts estimate at the current rate of advance, it would take Russia four more years to take the land it is proposing simply to give them instead.

It proposes more than halving the size of the Ukrainian military and depriving them of some of their most effective long-range weapons.

And it would bar any foreign forces acting as peacekeepers in Ukraine after any peace deal is done.

The plan comes at an excruciating time for the Ukrainians.

They are being pounded with devastating drone attacks, killing dozens in the last few nights alone.

They are on the verge of losing a key stronghold city, Pokrovsk.

And Volodymyr Zelenskyy is embroiled in the gravest political crisis since the war began, with key officials facing damaging corruption allegations.

The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.

Perversely, though, it may help him.

There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.

The genesis of this plan is unclear.

Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.

The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.

Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.

If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.

Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.

They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.

– If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

– The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centres, and artificial intelligence.

– The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernise, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.

– Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernisation of cities and residential areas.

– Infrastructure development.

– Extraction of minerals and natural resources.

– The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

– The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.

– The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.

– Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

– $100bn (£76bn) in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;

– The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn (£76bn) to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine – 50:50.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

– Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.

– Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.

– All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:

– Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States.

– Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.

– Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.

– Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper [Dnipro] River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

– All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis.

– All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.

– A family reunification program will be implemented.

– Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.

Environment

Electricity is about to become the new base currency and China figured it out

Published

2 hours ago

November 21, 2025

admin

Electricity is about to become the new base currency and China figured it out

For most of human history, currency was a direct claim on tangible, productive output. Before the abstraction of government fiat or cryptocurrency, value was stored in things that required real work and resources, bushels of grain, livestock, gold, assets with their own direct productive output: horses, and tragically, slaves.

These were the foundational assets of economies, representing a direct link between labor, resources, and stored value.

As we accelerate into an all-electric, all-digital age, this fundamental link is re-emerging, but with a new unit of account. The 21st-century economy, defined by automated industry, robotic, electric transport, and now power-hungry artificial intelligence, runs on a single, non-negotiable input: electricity. In this new paradigm, the real base currency, the ultimate representation of productive capacity, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh).

The kWh is the new economic base layer.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Last week, I was in Bijiashan Park at night overlooking Shenzhen, arguably the most technologically advanced city on earth, built over the previous few decades, partly on cheap electricity, cheap labor, and manufacturing innovations.

I could see the giant high-voltage power lines coming over Yinhu Mountain to power the constant light show that is Shenzhen at night. I couldn’t help but think about how cheap electricity and a strong grid have been critical to China’s exceptional economic rise.

As you stroll around the city, you see power everywhere. There are charging stations at every corner, including insane 1 MW charging posts, electric cars and trucks, trucks that carry batteries to electric scooter shops, which are also literally everywhere.

Everything moves on electric power. Industries are powered by electricity, and now, with the advent of AI, virtually everything is increasingly processed by LLMs, which are ultimately powered by electricity through power-hungry data centers.

In a world where everything runs on electricity, electricity itself becomes the currency of civilization.

It is measurable, divisible, storable, and universal – all qualities that a currency needs, but unlike fiat and crypto, it’s actually directly linked to productive output. No politics. No inflation. Just physics.

This concept is not merely academic; it appears to be the quiet, guiding principle in China. While others debate the merits of decentralized digital tokens, China is executing a multi-pronged strategy that treats electricity as the foundational strategic asset it has become.

First, China is building the “mint” for this new currency at an incredible, world-changing scale, and it has retained absolute state control over its distribution. Its deployment of new electricity generation, particularly from renewables, is staggering. The country met its 2030 target of 1,200 gigawatts of renewable capacity five years early, in 2025.

In 2024 alone, renewable energy accounted for a record 56% of the nation’s total installed capacity, with clean generation meeting 84% of all new demand.

Here’s a comparison of electricity generation between China and the US:

If this chart doesn’t scare the West. I don’t know what will. The trend is not reversing any time soon. In fact, it appears to be accelerating as China is doubling down on solar and nuclear.

State-owned monoliths manage this entire system, primarily the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the world’s largest utility. For better or worse, this centralized control allows the state to execute massive national strategies impossible in a liberalized market, such as building an Ultra-High-Voltage (UHV) grid to transmit power from remote solar and wind farms in the west to the power-hungry industrial hubs on its coast.

Second, China wields its control over the grid as a precision tool of industrial policy. China’s average electricity rate of $0.084/kWh is cheaper than most of the rest of the world, but its power lies not in the base price but in its strategic application. The government deploys a “Differential Electricity Pricing” policy: a “stick” that penalizes low-tech, high-consumption industries with higher rates, and a “carrot” that provides preferential pricing to incentivize strategic sectors.

The most potent example is in the AI sector. China is now offering massive electricity subsidies, cutting power bills by up to half, for data centers run by giants like Alibaba and Tencent. The condition for this cheap power is that these companies must use locally-made, Chinese AI chips, such as those from Huawei.

China is spending its “electricity currency” to directly fund the growth of its domestic AI chip industry and sever its dependence on foreign technology. This same logic applies to its global dominance in green tech, where state-subsidized firms like BYD benefit from a state-controlled industrial ecosystem built on reliable, managed power.

Third, and possibly the most explicit exemplification of China viewing electricity as the base currency is its moves against cryptocurrency.

In 2021, the government banned all cryptocurrency transactions and mining. While the official reasons cited financial stability, the move might have had a deeper, strategic intention.

From the state’s perspective, it was a tool for capital flight, allowing wealth to bypass government controls. But in a world where electricity rules, cryptocurrencies are, in effect, a competing “currency” that burns the foundational asset (electricity) to create a decentralized store of value.

By banning crypto, China simultaneously reclaimed its monopoly on economic control and shut down a massive, “wasteful” leak of its most precious resource. It freed up that generating capacity to be strategically allocated to its preferred industries, like AI and manufacturing.

China’s actions, viewed together, are a clear and coherent strategy. By massively investing in and securing total state control over its domestic electricity supply (the “mint”), using its price as a tool to fuel strategic industries, and banning decentralized competitors that consume the same resource, China is making a clear bet. It has been recognized that in an age where all productivity is powered by the grid, the ultimate source of national power is not gold, fiat, or crypto, but the state-controlled kilowatt-hour.

The Blockchain and Crypto: Ledger vs. Furnace

This perspective brings a critical nuance to the role of blockchain technology. In an economy where electricity is the base currency, the blockchain makes perfect sense, but only as a ledger, not as a store of value.

A distributed ledger is the ideal technological layer to act as the accounting system for this new economy. It can track the generation, transmission, and consumption of every kilowatt-hour with perfect transparency. It can automate complex industrial contracts and manage the grid’s load balancing without a central intermediary. In this sense, blockchain is the “banking software” for the electricity standard.

However, “Proof of Work” cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin face a fatal contradiction within this paradigm. They aim to serve as a store of value by burning the base currency (electricity) to secure the network. If the kilowatt-hour is the 21st-century equivalent of gold, then Bitcoin mining is akin to melting down gold bars to print a paper receipt. It destroys the productive asset to create a derivative token.

Bitcoin is quickly losing credibility as a classical safe store of value. It trades like a security, at least over the last year, and its value is only whatever the next moron is willing to pay, with no valuable asset behind it.

China’s strategy reflects this precise understanding. While they ruthlessly banned Bitcoin mining (the “furnace” that wastes the asset), they have simultaneously championed the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and the Digital Yuan. They have embraced the ledger to track and control their energy economy, while rejecting the supposed asset that destroys it.

This is a trap that crypto fans often fall into. They recognize the value of the blockchain, which is real, but they mistakenly broadly assign the same value to cryptocurrency, which is simply an application of the blockchain.

Electrek’s Take

What I’m trying to explore in this op-ed is the idea that if the present is electric and the future is even more electric, then it makes sense for electricity to be the foundation of the economy.

If electricity is the backbone of global trade and the metric of productivity, the kWh ultimately becomes the real currency of a truly electrified world.

And I think China has figured this out, as evidenced by its new electricity generation surpassing the rest of the world combined and by its ban on cryptocurrency.

They are going to let the rest of the world hold the crypto bag while they have more electricity generation than anyone to power their industries, which are already taking over the world.

I think the rest of the world should learn from this. Instead of pouring capital into meme coins and made-up stores of value, we should invest in electricity generation and storage.