“Venezuela sends its first shipment of crude oil to Israel in years after Maduro’s capture ,” highlights the headline of the Bloomberg news agency , also noting that, supposedly, "the shipment will be processed by the Bazan Group refinery . "

Following the dissemination of this news story, which lacks official sources and evidence, Venezuela’s Minister of Communication refuted the information with a screenshot of the article marked with a red “FAKE” label . In this context, Venezuela is seeking to curb the spread of unsubstantiated news that compromises the stability, sovereignty, and peace of the South American nation.

During a press conference held by the ruling party on Monday, Cabello reported that over 90% of the communal projects have been uploaded to the official platform, totaling more than 32,000 proposals originating directly from the grassroots.

The National Popular Consultations in Venezuela are a series of nationwide voting exercises that allow citizens to directly select local development projects for central government funding. Launched by President Nicolás Maduro on April 21, 2024, the initiative empowers organized communities to propose and manage their own local infrastructure and public service solutions.

He also highlighted that this process follows the instructions of the acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, who maintains an active territorial supervision agenda to ensure compliance with the goals of communal self-government set for this first quarter of the year.

The People’s Power mobilized in assemblies Furthermore, he emphasized that the number of projects is the result of a massive nationwide effort, where the people have held assemblies to define their priorities. This exercise in participatory democracy aims to allow communities to choose, through direct voting, the projects that will be financed by the State.

According to Cabello, the popular organization has once again demonstrated its management capacity by meeting the technical deadlines for submitting solutions in the areas of public services, health, and education within their respective territories.

“The people have done what they always do: carrying out the projects, holding the assemblies… there are already more than 32,000 heading towards the Popular Consultation,” he emphasized.

Sanctions are having less and less impact on the country’s economic performance, FM Lavrov says. On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said his country will not allow any further resolutions containing sanctions against North Korea in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The Russian top diplomat also mentioned that it is unrealistic to expect the adoption of a resolution lifting sanctions already imposed. “Expecting that we would introduce a resolution to lift the sanctions and that it would be adopted is simply not serious,” Lavrov said. According to the Russian foreign affairs minister, sanctions against North Korea are having less and less impact on the country’s economic performance.

“Pyongyang, in the past three or four years that I have been going there, has been improving. New neighborhoods are being built, everything is clean and beautiful,” Lavrov said, praising North Korea’s new Wonsan beach resort.

Earlier, authorities in the Asian country said Russian tourists would receive “maximum priority at that wonderful complex.”

The Moscow-Pyongyang alliance has strengthened significantly since the signing of a military cooperation treaty between the two countries in June 2024, which provides for bilateral military support in the event of external aggression, as well as after the participation of North Korean troops in the liberation of the Kursk region from Ukrainian forces.

Some Army civilian employees who were supposed to be furloughed during the recent shutdown went to work anyway, then were instructed to fill out time cards stating that they had not. Now the workers fear that this violated standard procedures and forced them to break the law. When a shutdown looms, government agencies typically tell each employee whether they are “excepted/exempted”—that is, allowed to work during the lapse in annual appropriations—or “non-excepted,” and therefore barred from working. In an email to staff on Monday, Feb. 2—the first weekday of the four-day shutdown—the Army’s Installation Management Command told its employees via email to proceed with “normal operations,” adding that “all command battle rhythm events will occur as scheduled.” The email said that Army headquarters had issued no formal guidance for the shutdown, and therefore employees should continue conducting their normal work. That struck at least some staff as a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, the law that restricts federal spending to only what Congress appropriates. “I don’t know how anyone in the Army can have non-excepted employees currently work with no appropriation,” said one IMCOM employee who was slated to be furloughed but who was told to work anyway. “Someone needs to be held accountable.”

Later on the evening of Feb. 2, IMCOM officials again emailed the command's civilians, instructing them to report to work on Tuesday, Feb. 3. They did. But late on the morning of Feb. 3, workers deemed non-exempted received furlough notices, and consequently stopped working. Later that day, command leaders sent an email instructing non-exempt workers to code their timesheets as having been on furlough all day on Feb. 2 and Feb. 3. Government Executive and Defense One reviewed copies of the emails. The IMCOM employee noted that federal workers must certify their timesheets are true and accurate before submitting them. “This is neither true or accurate,” the employee said of the timesheet they were told to submit. They suggested the directive was a “CYA,” or cover your ass, move by the command’s leaders after having employees work who were not supposed to do so. Nicole Wieman, an IMCOM spokesperson, declined to comment and directed questions to the Army. Asked about the matter, Army spokesperson Christopher Surridge sent this statement: “The U.S. Army shutdown [sic] when directed by the Department of War.” Spokespeople for the Defense Department declined to comment.

Something similar happened at a different Army office. An email sent on the morning of Feb. 3 advised civilian employees to “ensure their time and attendance is recorded for Feb. 3-6, 2026, with furlough time” even if they worked when they weren’t supposed to be. An Army civilian who received that email said no shutdown guidance was provided to the office during regular work hours on Feb. 2. “It’s very frustrating,” the civilian said. “We’re all just sitting on the edge of our seats, waiting. Are we going to get sent home? Are we not going to be sent home?” The shutdown ended on the evening of Feb. 3, when President Trump signed a spending bill. The following day, employees were back to their normal duties. Just before the shutdown began, Defense Department officials released guidance that around 55 percent of its 740,000-plus civilian employees would work through the funding lapses, while the rest would be placed on furlough. The guidance made clear that federal employees were not permitted to work once they completed their “orderly shutdown activities,” which, per the Office of Personnel Management, can take “up to four hours.” “Federal agencies generally may not accept services from employees, whose salaries are set by law, without the obligation of appropriations for their compensation, except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,” the guidance stated.

The furloughed employees were, by definition, not excepted for the protection of life or property and were therefore ineligible to continuing working all day on Feb. 2 and into Feb. 3. The Anti-Deficiency Act is enforced by the Government Accountability Office, which noted violations during the first Trump administration. On Thursday, GAO spokesperson Jessica Baxer said that the law prohibits agencies from accepting “voluntary services” from its employees. “As such, when a shutdown occurs, the act requires agencies to generally stop their operations,” Baxter said. “While there are exceptions, we have noted that the ongoing, regular functions of government may not continue during a lapse in appropriation.”

In its policy paper, “Strategic Attack: Maintaining the Air Force’s Capacity to Deny Enemy Sanctuaries,” experts from the Mitchell Institute argue that the Air Force needs at least 300 next-generation F-47 fighters and at least 200 B-21 Raider stealth bombers to counter China. The Air Force has previously signaled it plans to buy at least 185 F-47s from Boeing and at least 100 Northrop Grumman-made B-21s. In an online discussion about the paper, former F-16 pilot and Mitchell Institute director of research Heather Penney warned that past U.S. wars such as Korea and Vietnam, and Ukraine’s current war against Russia’s invasion, have showed that militaries who can’t or won’t hit enemy bases and other sanctuaries from the air risk falling into grueling wars of attrition, akin to trench warfare. And without a significantly boosted combat fleet able to project long-range air power in force, Penney said, the United States could find itself in a similar danger against China. “China is deliberately building the capabilities and the posture to effectively make the entire western Pacific their sanctuary,” Penney said. “But we know from history that allowing an adversary that kind of sanctuary allows them to win, and it’s a recipe for our own defeat.”

The Air Force has carried out recent strike operations such as Midnight Hammer, which bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, exceptionally well. But Midnight Hammer employed the service’s entire fleet of available B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, Penney said, some in the strike portion of the operation and some as decoys. And if Iran shot down any of those B-2s, Penney said, the Air Force couldn’t replace them — nor could the Air Force carry out a similar mission the next day if a second strike was needed. And if the U.S. found itself in a conflict with China or other major regional power, Penney said, the Air Force would have to deal with a threat far more dangerous than Iran, with significantly better air defenses. Without a great enough combat aircraft reserve, Penney said, the Air Force might have to stay outside China’s air defenses and refrain from more daring strikes to avoid losing irreplaceable planes — but a conservative strategy like that might not be enough to win, or deter China from a first strike against Taiwan. “The inability to hold [Chinese] targets at risk really provides a singular reward to a first mover, to an aggressor,” Penney said. “So if China doesn’t see any risk to their homeland, to their population, to their infrastructure, they can afford to lose some of those assets on the edge, because they know that they can hold us at bay. So it really erodes our ability to keep them from taking that kind of aggressive action.”

Penney and the Mitchell Institute argued that the Air Force also must take interim steps to maintain its combat airpower until the B-21 and F-47 come online in significant numbers. That means refraining from retiring any legacy B-1 Lancer or B-2 bombers until the Air Force has at least 100 B-21s on hand, the Mitchell Institute report said. And the institute called for Congress and the Pentagon to provide the Air Force enough funding to speed up the acquisition of the B-21. And the Air Force needs to boost its procurement of the fifth-generation F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, the F-15EX Eagle II and autonomous drone wingmen the service calls collaborative combat aircraft, Penney said. This means buying 74 F-35As and 24 F-15EXs each year to start to turn around decades of cuts to the force, she said. “The Air Force must reverse its fighter crisis and procure F-35s and F-15EXs at maximum rates: No more ‘divest to invest,’” Penney said, referring to an Air Force strategy of retiring older air frames to free up funds to develop new aircraft. “The Air Force must recapitalize its fighters with at least a one-for-one rate [replacing each retired jet with a newly procured tail], while also augmenting its force with collaborative combat aircraft.” The Mitchell Institute also argues that the Air Force should have a bomber force of at least 300 aircraft. With 76 Cold War-era B-52 Stratofortresses in the Air Force’s fleet and slated for massive upgrades, that would mean the Air Force would have to buy at least 224 B-21s to meet Mitchell’s goal. The Air Force is planning to retire all B-1s and B-2s in the next decade and fly a two-bomber fleet.

That fear is breathing new life into the market for credit derivatives, where banks, investors and others can protect themselves against borrowers larding on too much debt and becoming less able to pay their obligations. Credit derivatives tied to single companies didn’t exist on many high-grade Big Tech issuers a year ago, and are now some of the most actively traded US contracts in the market outside of the financial sector, according to Depository Trust & Clearing Corp.

While contracts on Oracle Corp. have been active for months, in recent weeks, trading on Meta Platforms Inc., the parent of Facebook, and Alphabet Inc. has become much more active, the data shows. Contracts tied to about $895 million of Alphabet debt are outstanding, after netting out opposite trades, while around $687 million is tied to Meta debt.

With artificial intelligence investments expected to cost more than $3 trillion, much of which will be funded with debt, hedging demand can only grow, according to investors. Some of the richest tech companies in the world are rapidly turning into some of the most indebted.

“This hyperscaler thing is just so ginormous and there’s so much more to come that it really begs the question of ‘do you want to really be nakedly exposed here?’,” said Gregory Peters, co-chief investment officer at PGIM Fixed Income. Credit derivatives indexes, which offer broad default protection against a group of index members, aren’t enough, he said.

Six dealers quoted Alphabet CDS at the end of 2025 compared with one last July, while the number of Amazon.com Inc. CDS dealers rose to five, from three, DTCC data show. Some providers even offer baskets of hyperscalers’ CDS, mirroring baskets of cash bonds that are rapidly being developed.

Activity among hyperscalers really picked up in the fall when news around the debt requirements of these companies became front and center. A Wall Street dealer said his trading desk is able to regularly quote markets of $20 million to $50 million for a lot of these names, which didn’t even trade a year ago.

For now, hyperscalers are having little trouble financing their plans in the debt market. Alphabet’s $32 billion debt sale in three currencies this week drew orders for many times more that amount within 24 hours. The technology company successfully sold 100-year bonds, an astonishing move in an industry where businesses can rapidly become obsolete.

Morgan Stanley expects borrowing by the massive tech companies known as hyperscalers to reach $400 billion this year, up from $165 billion in 2025. Alphabet said its capital expenditures will reach as much as $185 billion this year to finance its AI build-out.

That kind of exuberance is what has some investors worried. London hedge fund Altana Wealth last year bought protection against Oracle defaulting on its debt. The cost was about 50 basis points a year for five years, or $5000 a year to protect $1 million of exposure. The cost has since risen to around 160 basis points. Bank Users

Banks that underwrite hyperscaler debt have been significant buyers of single-name CDS lately. Deals to develop data centers or other projects are so big and happening so fast underwriters are often looking to hedge their own balance sheets until they can distribute all of the loans tied to them.

“Expected distribution periods of three months could grow to nine to 12 months,” said Matt McQueen, head of credit, securitized products and muni banking at Bank of America Corp., referring to loans on projects. “As a result, you’re likely to see banks hedge some of that distribution risk in the CDS market.”

Wall Street dealers are rushing to meet the demand for protection.

“Appetite for newer basket hedges can be expected to grow,” said Paul Mutter, formerly the head of US fixed income and global head of fixed income sales at Toronto-Dominion Bank. “More active trading of private credit will create additional demand for targeted hedges.”

Some hedge funds see banks’ and investors’ demand for protection as an opportunity to profit. Andrew Weinberg, a portfolio manager at Saba Capital Management, described many CDS buyers as “captive flow” clients — bank lending desks or credit valuation adjustments teams for example.

Leverage remains low at most of the big tech companies, while bond spreads are only slightly tighter than the corporate index average, which is why so many hedge funds, including his, are willing to sell protection, according to Weinberg.

“If there’s a tail risk scenario, where will these credits go? In a lot of scenarios, the big companies with strong balance sheets and trillion dollar market caps will outperform the general credit backdrop,” he said.

But for some traders, the frenzy of bond selling has all the hallmarks of complacency and mispriced risk.

“The sheer amount of potential debt suggests that these companies’ credit risk profiles could come under some pressure,” said Rory Sandilands, a portfolio manager at Aegon Ltd., who says he has more CDS trades on his book than a year ago.

Donald Trump is planning to scale back some tariffs on steel and aluminium goods as he battles an affordability crisis that has sapped his approval ratings ahead of November’s midterm elections. The US president hit steel and aluminium imports with tariffs of up to 50 per cent last summer, and has expanded the taxes to a range of goods made from those metals including washing machines and ovens. But his administration is now reviewing the list of products affected by the levies and plans to exempt some items, halt the expansion of the lists and instead launch more targeted national security probes into specific goods, according to three people familiar with the matter. The people said trade officials in the commerce department and US trade representative’s office believed the tariffs were hurting consumers by raising prices for goods such as pie tins and food and drink cans. Trump’s tariff blitz has pushed US duties to their highest level since before the second world war. But the president has repeatedly walked back some of his stiffest levies amid voter anger at the US’s affordability crisis. More than 70 per cent of US adults rate economic conditions as fair or poor, according to a Pew Research Center poll published this month. About 52 per cent of Americans think Trump’s economic policies have made conditions worse.

The administration has already provided carve-outs for popular food products in a bid to tame grocery price inflation for ordinary Americans. It also called a truce in its trade war with China after Beijing retaliated with its own tariffs. The move to soften the steel and aluminium tariffs, which were among the earliest introduced in Trump’s second term, comes as economists say that Americans are paying for the levies, undercutting the president’s claim that foreign companies would bear the burden. Trump’s trade war has also brought political backlash, even from some allies. On Wednesday, members of Trump’s own Republican Party joined Democrats as the US House of Representatives voted to overturn Trump’s tariffs on Canada — delivering a major rebuke of his trade war on the US’s second-biggest trading partner. Trump is expected to veto the bill, leaving the levies in place. Several Republican lawmakers face tough election battles in their home states in November’s midterm elections amid voter anxiety about the impact of tariffs on small businesses and consumers. The latest move on the metals tariffs is also designed to bring clarity to an increasingly complicated lobbying process in Washington that has emerged since Trump imposed the levies. The administration has so far largely allowed US businesses to lobby for products made of steel and aluminium made by rival foreign producers to be hit with tariffs, in a so-called inclusion process. The process has been run by the commerce department, which has mostly approved the requests from domestic companies, which have cited the “national security” risks associated with goods including bicycle parts. But the mechanism has led to a sprawling list of household goods subjected to tariffs of up to 50 per cent on their metal content. Officials felt the tariff regime was “too complicated to enforce”, one person said, and needed to be simplified.

Countries including the UK, Mexico and Canada as well as EU members could stand to benefit from any easing of the US’s tariffs on goods made of steel and aluminium. One European business leader, who declined to be named, said they knew of a company that had sent four identical containers of machinery to the US and was charged different rates for each one. The commerce department last offered US companies an opportunity to nominate foreign suppliers to be hit with tariffs in October, but blew past its own 60-day deadline to greenlight new levies. As part of that round, American manufacturers of mattresses, cake tins and bicycles all lobbied for extra duties on foreign businesses. “Steel is not just a commodity, it is a national security asset,” said Kevin Dempsey, president and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute. “It is critical that the US government maintain the Section 232 national security steel tariffs, said Dempsey, who added they “are essential to prevent this overcapacity from fuelling new surges of harmful imports into the US market, which would cause a profound threat to American national security and undermine the health of the American steel industry”. The close to 100 filings underscore the broad range of items that companies are now arguing pose a national security risk to the US. One company argues in its filing that “without bread, buns, baguettes, crusty rolls, cakes, muffins and the like”, soldiers in the US military “will not be able to maintain a healthy diet”. The commerce department, the US trade representative’s office and the White House all declined to comment.

Buenos Aires, Feb 11 (EFE) - The protest against the labor reform being debated this Wednesday in the Argentine Senate began with protesters throwing stones and police using tear gas, causing great tension in the Plaza del Congreso in Buenos Aires

The unions have called for a protest against the labor reform project proposed by the government of President Javier Milei, and by early afternoon hundreds of people were already gathering in the center of the capital.

Meanwhile, senators are debating a law within the legislature that will radically change working conditions in Argentina. EFE

Beijing backs Havana against U.S. blockade, pledging aid within its capacities. On Wednesday, China reiterated its political support for Cuba amid widespread power outages on the island and ongoing U.S. oil blockade.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said Beijing “firmly supports Cuba in safeguarding its national sovereignty and security” and “resolutely opposes inhumane actions and behaviors that deprive the Cuban people of their right to subsistence and development.” Lin added that China “will provide support and assistance to Cuba within its capacities.”

When asked about possible concrete aid, including fuel supplies or financial support, Lin avoided detailing specific measures, noting that the content of any cooperation must be discussed with “the competent authorities” and handled “through bilateral channels.”

The remarks come as Cuba experiences generalized power outages linked to difficulties in its electricity system, and as Beijing renews calls for Washington to lift its 60-year blockade.

China has publicly urged the United States to “immediately end the blockade, sanctions and any form of coercive measures against Cuba.”

In recent weeks, the Chinese government announced shipments of food assistance, including a cargo of 90,000 tons of rice, along with an “emergency financial assistance” line worth US$80 million. In 2024, Beijing had already granted Cuba an additional US$100 million in aid.

Support was also reiterated at the diplomatic level during recent high-level meetings. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi voiced opposition to the “interference of external forces” during talks in Beijing with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez.

Rodriguez’s visit to the Chinese capital formed part of a broader tour aimed at securing backing from Havana’s traditional allies, as Cuba confronts economic and energy challenges intensified by the U.S. blockade.

People in Europe have largely been happy to see Berlin rebuild its military to defend against Russia. But they should be careful what they wish for. Today’s Germany has pledged to use its outsize armed power to help all of Europe. But left unchecked, German military dominance might eventually foster divisions within the continent. France remains uneasy about the fact that its neighbor is becoming a major military power—as are many people in Poland, despite Sikorski’s sentiments. As Berlin ascends, suspicion and mistrust could grow. In the worst-case scenario, competition might return. France, Poland, and other states could attempt to counterbalance Germany, which would divert attention away from Russia and leave Europe divided and vulnerable. France, in particular, may seek to reassert itself as the continent’s leading military power and “grande nation.” This could prompt outright rivalry with Berlin and place Europe at odds with itself.

Such nightmarish outcomes are especially likely if Germany ends up being governed by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which is rising in the polls. The intensely nationalistic party has long been critical of the European Union and NATO, and some of its members have made revanchist claims about the territory of neighboring countries. An AfD-controlled Germany might use its power to bully or coerce other countries, leading to tensions and conflict.

Berlin does need to build up its military. The continent is in danger, and no other European government has the fiscal capacity that Germany can bring to bear. But Berlin must recognize the risks that accompany its strengths and restrain German power by embedding its defensive might in more deeply integrated European military structures. Germany’s European neighbors, for their part, should make clear what kind of defense integration they would like to see. Otherwise, German rearmament could very well yield a Europe that is more divided, mistrustful, and weaker—exactly the opposite of what Berlin now hopes to achieve.

And yet, as some realist scholars have argued, rivalry among Europe’s countries never really disappeared, and certainly not through the EU alone. It was merely subdued, and largely by NATO and American hegemony. The EU was, and is, primarily an economic organization. Security and defense in Europe were mostly in the hands of NATO and the U.S. military. It was an overbearing U.S. presence, in other words, that ameliorated the European security dilemma that Germany’s size and position have traditionally posed—not just the political and economic integration fostered by the EU.

Analysts who want to understand why Europeans fear German hegemony do not need to look back a century; a decade would suffice. During Europe’s 2010s fiscal crisis, several EU countries were drowning in debt and in need of bailouts from the EU. That meant, in practice, getting approval for bailouts from Germany, the biggest and wealthiest eurozone economy. But rather than showing solidarity and using its enormous wealth to generously help these states, Berlin was concerned about fiscal responsibility and imposed harsh austerity measures as part of bailout packages, resulting in double-digit unemployment and protracted misery for debtor countries.

If Germany does not take steps to mitigate mistrust and discomfort, competition really could return to Europe. To counterbalance Berlin’s military might, Poland, for example, might look to ally itself more closely with the Baltic and Nordic countries and the United Kingdom in the Joint Expeditionary Force. It might also look to join the Nordic-Baltic Eight, a regional cooperation framework among Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden. Either way, the result could be the fragmentation of common European defense efforts. Paris, for its part, might be tempted to reassert itself by significantly increasing its defense spending as a way of catching up with, and containing, Germany, despite France’s domestic fiscal troubles. Paris might also seek closer cooperation with London to counterbalance Berlin.

A militarily dominant Germany could prove particularly dangerous if its centrist domestic leadership starts to lose power—as it just well might. The country is not due to hold national elections for three more years, but the extremist AfD now polls in first place at the national level.

It subscribes to a far-right, illiberal, and Euroskeptic ideology. It is Russia-friendly, opposed to supporting Ukraine, and wants to reverse Germany’s post-1945 economic and military integration into the EU and NATO, at least in their current form. It sees military power as a tool of national aggrandizement that should be used exclusively to benefit Berlin. It hopes to develop a German defense industry that’s entirely autonomous from those of Berlin’s traditional allies. If it wins federal power, the AfD will use the German military exactly as Thatcher feared: to project power against Germany’s neighbors. In the same way that Washington has made once inconceivable claims on Canada and Greenland, an AfD-led Germany might eventually make claims on French or Polish territory.

There is a way for Berlin to expand its military power without sending Europe back to an era of competition and rivalry—perhaps even if Germany is eventually governed by the AfD. The solution is for the country to accept what the historian Timothy Garton Ash, writing in these pages three decades ago, called “golden handcuffs”: restrictions on its sovereignty through greater integration with its European neighbors.

Germany should also push for the stronger integration of Europe’s national defense industries, including by seeking more collaboration on its own projects rather than spending largely on domestic firms. Likewise, Germany should embrace true European defense companies akin to Airbus, which was created as a European aviation consortium to provide an alternative to American manufacturers. All these measures would not only avert fears of a dominant Germany by ensuring that Berlin’s defense base relied on others. It would also provide greater scale and effectiveness in Europe’s overall military buildup.

The Army will open a new dining hall at one of its largest bases later this month, which the service has closely modeled off cafeterias on college campuses. Soldiers will be given $39 worth of what the Army is calling “freedom dollars.” Freedom dollars is the term the Army is using to refer to the funds that are taken out of soldiers’ paychecks to go toward meals at dining facilities. Typically, soldiers can only get a set number of food items per meal card swipe. Now, individual items are assigned a value, and soldiers can spend up to their allotted daily amount. This system will be implemented at the new dining halls, which the Army has taken to calling campus-style dining venues. “The ability to go get three meals that are high-quality breakfast, lunch, and dinner is baked into that monetary allowance,” Lt. Gen. Chris Mohan, commanding general of Army Materiel Command, said Monday. Mohan spoke with reporters on a call as the service offered details for its overhaul of base dining facilities. The move is part of an ongoing plan by the Army to redesign its dining facilities so they more closely resemble those at college campuses. Army officials also gave reporters a look at a planned “campus-style dining venue” set to open Feb. 18 at Fort Hood, Texas. The dining halls are run by Compass Group USA, Inc., which the Army has contracted with to run its new facilities based on the company’s history of running airport lounges and handling the meal-planning for college sports teams, Mohan said.

infinite privatization upon the imperialist military

might as well start letting people buy their officer's commissions like the Brits back in the day. hell, let 'em raise up their own private mercenary regiments, why not

The company served a free sample lunch last Saturday to 75 enlisted soldiers and spouses at Fort Hood’s “Bistro 42,” which draws its name from the year the base was established — 1942. Bistro 42 has expanded hours and is open from 6:30 am to 8 p.m., without closing in between meal times — a move that Army officials say will accommodate soldiers with hectic schedules. Fort Hood’s facility has a mobile food truck and seven food stations with options ranging from smoothies, acai bowls, Italian food, specialty burgers and salads. In addition to eating in the dining hall, soldiers will be able to place online orders through a mobile phone app and pick up their meals at a designated drop zone or have them delivered.

uh, how does Army DoorDash even work? like, literally the ENTIRE POINT OF MILITARY BASES is to concentrate the soldiers in one location with all the surrounding infrastructure necessary for them to live being easily accessible - what next, just dissolve the bases and have the troops rent out a regular apartment?

Mohan gave an example of what an enlisted soldier’s daily meal plan for $39 could look like:

• 7:30 a.m. overnight oats ($2)
• 8:35 a.m. online app order for an omelet with veggies ($5) and fresh fruit ($2)
• 11:45 a.m. dining hall meal of grilled chicken breast sandwich, home fries, side salad, drink and dessert ($10.50)
• 3:45 p.m. food truck snack of two brisket tacos and slaw ($9)
• 6:30 p.m. 42 Bistro meal for Peri Peri chicken, balsamic bean salad, drink and dessert ($8)
• 9 p.m. snack of hummus and carrots ($2.50)

“That is a lot of food,” Mohan said, adding that soldiers might try to supersede that amount but their chain of command “has to really educate them on how this is going to work.” The Army has budgeted a certain amount for each meal, but any leftover dollars that soldiers don’t use for one meal will be rolled over to use later that day. If soldiers do want more food than the $39 will cover, they “can choose to pay out of pocket for what they go over,” Kim Hanson, an Army Materiel Command spokesperson, told Task & Purpose. The first set of campus-style dining halls are planned for Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Drum, New York; and Fort Carson, Colorado, and the Army has announced plans to expand it to nearly 10 other bases. The next campus-style dining venue is planned to open in March at Fort Carson. Each facility is run by a professional chef and a registered dietitian who can make “on the spot” changes to the menu based on ingredient availability from local vendors and “to account for fresh fruits and vegetables” that are available in a particular season, according to Mohan. As a way to convince soldiers to spend more time at the new dining halls, the Army has installed WiFi and plans to host community events like cooking classes or officer professional development courses. The Army is also leaving it up to senior base commanders to decide whether their specific dining hall will sell beer and wine. “We tell our soldiers, ‘hey, look, go carry a rifle, but on Friday night, you can’t have a beer in a restaurant,’” Mohan said. “I think that we have to take a step back and trust our soldiers.”

The “vast majority” of soldiers will probably eat breakfast at the dining hall and many will go to the food truck for lunch, but dinner is where they expect to see more variance since “soldiers tend to do other things,” Mohan said. “But we want to give them the option.” By having the dining halls stay open until 8:30 p.m. or 9 p.m., Army planners hope it will give soldiers a “long window for them to use that entitlement,” he added. The overhaul is also part of an effort to get more customers, like military families or civilians who work on post, into the Army’s dining hall by offering a la carte options that are equivalent or even more cost-effective than local restaurants. “After church on Sundays, we go to our favorite restaurant. I get a three-egg omelet, and it cost me $12. A three-egg omelet at Bistro 42 with three eggs, a protein, three vegetables, cheese or whatever is going to be $5.75 and so it’s going to be very, very competitive,” he said. “We hope that it will draw in not only the soldier population, but also families, particularly those that are younger and have less financial resources.” The Army is still trying to decide on its second set of facilities to be revamped, which will include dining halls at bases in Alaska, Hawaii and Europe. The Army is also planning upgrades to dining halls run by the Army Transformation and Training Command, where soldiers attend Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training.