The Business Of Broken Self-Worth In The Digital Age

Authored by Kay Rubacek via The Epoch Times,

A new study from JAMA Pediatrics should stop us in our tracks: early adolescents who report addictive use of screens—not just frequent use—are more than twice as likely to consider suicide within two years.

Not because they’re online too much, but because they can’t stop.

At the same time, a young woman named Caroline Koziol, once a top athlete and student, is suing TikTok and Instagram after their algorithms flooded her feed with eating disorder content. What began as a search for fitness tips spiraled into full-blown anorexia. Hers is just one of over 1,800 similar cases being filed.

This isn’t a glitch in the system. It is the system.

Social media platforms aren’t just reflecting our insecurities—they’re cultivating them. Why? Because insecurity is profitable. When a teen feels like they’re not enough—too fat, too plain, too quiet—they stay online longer. They scroll, they compare, they engage. And every second they spend chasing validation, someone else cashes in.

What we’re seeing is the weaponization of low self-worth, scaled by algorithm and monetized by design.

That may sound harsh. But let’s be honest: this is not new. For decades, the beauty industry, fashion, even wellness trends have profited from telling people—especially women and girls—that they’re not quite good enough as they are. Social media just industrialized the tactic.

Now, platforms optimize for compulsive behavior, not joy or creativity. Addictive engagement is rewarded; mental health is collateral damage.

The truth is, many industries benefit when people doubt themselves: advertisers profit from the fear of not measuring up, influencers and online gurus sell the illusion of “fixing” your flaws, and even parts of the pharmaceutical and therapy world expand when anxiety and depression rise.

And those are just the commercial beneficiaries. Politically, a public that lacks confidence is easier to sway. Easier to divide. Easier to control.

The erosion of self-worth isn’t just a personal struggle—it’s a public vulnerability. And in the digital age, it’s becoming systemic.

We need to call this what it is: a cultural emergency. The lawsuits against Meta and other platforms are a start, but they won’t be enough on their own. If we want meaningful change, we need three things:

• First, legal and design accountability. Platforms must be held responsible for the psychological effects of the algorithms they deploy. That means transparency in how recommendation systems work and consequences when they clearly lead to harm.

• Second, parental and educational empowerment. We must teach young people not only how to use tech—but how to resist it. To spot manipulation. To value themselves beyond a like count.

• And third, we need a cultural shift. Self-worth cannot be treated as a niche concern or a private battle. It’s a foundation for freedom, resilience, and public health. When people believe they matter, they’re less likely to be controlled—and more likely to create.

Because the real danger isn’t just that tech platforms make people feel worthless.
 It’s that people don’t even realize it’s happening.

And when you don’t believe in your own worth, you’re willing to trade it—for anything that promises to give it back.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 22:10

Russian Military Instructs China How To Beat US & NATO Weapons

One key trend to have emerged over the course of the Russia-Ukraine war is that China, Iran, and Russia are increasingly and very openly cooperating militarily and technologically, including Moscow sharing experience gained in the course of its Ukraine ground operations.

Newsweek reports that "Russia plans to train hundreds of Chinese military personnel this year on lessons learned from its ongoing invasion of Ukraine," based on regional sources. Some of what has been 'learned' is how to defend against US-made and NATO-supplied weaponry - something which Beijing is surely interested in amid the long-running Taiwan standoff with Washington.

Kremlin file image

"Instructors will cover methods for countering weapons systems used by Ukrainian forces that were produced by the United States and its NATO allies, a source in Ukraine's top intelligence agency told the outlet," the Newsweek report continues.

Specifically 'lessons for a Taiwan conflict' would be gleaned:

This training would further strengthen security ties between Russia and its "no limits" ally China, which in recent years has stepped up joint military exercises. Battlefield insights into U.S. weaponry could offer an advantage as China seeks to surpass the U.S. as the leading military power in the Indo-Pacific.

And Ukraine's Defense Intelligence Directorate has told local media, the Kyiv Post, that "The Kremlin has decided to allow Chinese military personnel to study and adopt the combat experience Russia has gained in its war against Ukraine."

Not only have Russian forces destroyed and disabled possibly dozens of Western-supplied main battle tanks, including M1 Abrams, UK Challengers, and French Leopard 2's - but F16s have also been shot down.

American troop carriers have additionally been destroyed, and in some places Western armored vehicles have been put on display in the capital of Moscow, as trophies recovered from the battlefield.

Meanwhile, China this week hosted defense ministers from Iran and Russia for a meeting in its eastern seaside city of Qingdao.

The meeting happened Thursday, and importantly Qingdao is home to a major Chinese naval base, with the country's defense minister Dong Jun calling the PLA Navy and its bases a counterweight to a world in "chaos and instability."

"As momentous changes of the century accelerate, unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise," Dong said. Alongside defense chiefs from Russia and Iran, the military leaders of Pakistan and Belarus were also present.

He was further quoted in news agency Xinhua as decrying "Hegemonic, domineering and bullying acts" which "severely undermine the international order." The comments were clearly aimed at the Western alliance, and Washington in particular.

'The US will very likely fight a 3-front war against Russia, China and Iran, Palantir’s Alex Karp says'

CIA funded data mining company Palantir is supplying Israel's military & intel agencies with AI systems which generate targets at an unprecedented rate https://t.co/NNCa2Wj6kI pic.twitter.com/0faINK9HOu

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 19, 2024

China over the course of this month's Israeli and US bombings of Iran has condemned what it sees as blatant aggression against a non-nuclear power which was engaged in good faith negotiations. Beijing has also in the past issued statements calling out NATO for its constant expansion, and activity which has even been lately introduced in the Pacific region, and growing ties to Japan.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 21:35

Follow The Money: Where Buffett's $6 Billion Donation Could Really End Up

Bloomberg reports Warren Buffett has donated roughly $6 billion in Berkshire Hathaway shares to five foundations, continuing his long-standing philanthropic commitment. However, the financial outlet conveniently overlooks any scrutiny of where that money may ultimately be going. A closer examination of these nonprofits reveals some highly questionable connections.

A Berkshire Hathaway press release stated that Buffett converted 8,239 Class A shares into 12,358,500 Class B shares in order to donate those B shares to five foundations:

1. 9,433,839 to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust,

2. 943,384 shares to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation

3. and 660,366 shares to each of the Sherwood Foundation, Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and NoVo Foundation.

"The mathematics of the lifetime commitments to the five foundations are interesting," Buffett wrote in a statement, adding, "99½% of my estate is destined for philanthropic usage."

The bulk of the shares—9,433,839 in total—are headed to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, a cornerstone funder of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which leads global vaccination efforts. Over the years, Gavi has received at least $1 billion from USAID, amplifying Gates' private contributions (and others) through public funding. Gates was angered when the Trump administration dismantled USAID, in which the billionaire went on a legacy media outlet to bash Elon Musk's DOGE. 

Bill Gates says Donald Trump & Elon Musk spending USAID could lead to millions of deaths pic.twitter.com/SaAW6SN8js

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) February 5, 2025

The remaining 2.92 million shares will be donated to his children's foundations — Sherwood Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation and NoVo Foundation — as well as the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named after the billionaire's late wife. 

Using publicly available data, we mapped the leadership and affiliations of each of these nonprofits to gain a better understanding of where these funds could potentially flow through the complex web of nonprofits.

Sherwood Foundation

Howard G. Buffett Foundation

NoVo Foundation

Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation

One notable connection we uncovered involving the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation is its link to the Sunshine Lady Foundation, which is further connected to the Here to Help Foundation—an organization tied to United Way, a group that has faced allegations of using federal grant money to provide free services to undocumented immigrants.

Mapping out the connections, the Here to Help Foundation is also linked to the McGregor Fund...

Let's say the McGregor Fund President Kate Levin Markel is no fan of 'Make America Great Again'... 

Markel praised New York Federal Reserve Visiting Scholar Clara Miller, who recently opined:

This is a moment for all such institutions, including foundations, to stand up and be counted together. Whatever our personal views, we must call out and resist this unprecedented and intolerable intrusion by the government into our fundamental rights as Americans. Trump's deep state intruders will simply be emboldened unchecked if we take no action and insist on silence.

Miller's current and past experiences, as listed on her LinkedIn account...

While there are more questions than answers, one thing is clear: Buffett's $6 billion donation in Berkshire shares is set to flow into a network of nonprofits that appear aligned with left-leaning causes, some of which have been tied to very questionable progressive agendas.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 19:50

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated the effects of the amendment relative to the baseline used for budget enforcement for consideration in the Senate.

Lessons Unlearned From Israel's Bombing Of Iraq's Osirak Reactor

Authored by Jeremy R. Hammond via The Libertarian Institute,

In a recent New York Times opinion article, Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israel’s military intelligence, attempted to defend Israel’s recent decision to start a war with Iran, in which Israel was briefly joined by the U.S. government under the administration of President Donald Trump.

Under the headline “Why Israel Had to Act,” Yadlin’s opening sentence states, “Forty-four years ago this June, I sat in the cockpit on the Israeli air force mission that destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. In one daring operation, we eliminated Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions.”

Via Unpacked Media

The parallels between that event and the current war on Iran are indeed remarkable—but the real lesson to be learned from it is precisely the opposite of the one Yadlin draws.

In addition to constituting aggression under international law, “the supreme international crime” as defined at Nuremberg, the American and Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities proves how policymakers in both countries refuse to learn from the lessons of history.

The claim that Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 halted or set back Saddam Hussein’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability is a popular myth.

In fact, Iraq had been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) since it came into force in 1970, and its nuclear program was under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which had reported that the program was in compliance with Iraq’s legal obligations under the treaty.

Israel, by contrast, is known to possess nuclear weapons and “has not adhered to” the NPT, as the United Nations Security Council observed in Resolution 487. Unanimously adopted on June 19, 1981, that resolution strongly condemned Israel’s act of aggression.

The Security Council recognized:

“…the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation…”

The Council described Israel’s attack as “a serious threat to the entire safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency” and called on Israel “urgently to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards” of the IAEA.

It warrants emphasis that the US government neither abstained from the vote nor used its veto power to block that resolution. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that there was no evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, and Israel’s bombing was instead likely to push Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in that direction and otherwise undermine the goal of nuclear non-proliferation.

In an interagency intelligence assessment titled “Implications of Israeli Attack on Iraq,” dated July 1, 1981, the U.S. intelligence community provided its assessment, stating that

“The US-Israeli relationship once more is a central issue in regional politics, and new strains have been added to US-Arab relations. Washington’s ability to promote Arab cooperation against a Soviet threat or to bring the Arabs and Israelis to the bargaining table has been struck a hard blow. Arab leaders far from the frontlines in the Levant have been shown that their military and economic facilities are not beyond the reach of Israel’s striking power. Rather than drawing them into a negotiating process, Israel’s demonstrated prowess will only speed the arms race.”

Further, Saddam Hussein responded to the attack “by suggesting that world governments provide the Arabs with a nuclear deterrent to Israel’s formidable nuclear capabilities. His message to other Arabs is that they can have no security as long as Israel alone commands the nuclear threat.”

The attack also caused “damage to the Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT) and to the IAEA safeguards system,” with Israel having justified its attack “on the grounds that the IAEA safeguards system is a sham.” The assessment was that this “probably will have a detrimental impact.”

Iraq had received “the support of most IAEA members because of general acceptance that international and bilateral safeguards over Iraq’s program were sufficient to guard against the diversion of fissile material for a nuclear device.”

via Flickr

In sum, the attack did not halt an Iraqi nuclear weapons program but was the impetus that drove Saddam Hussein to subsequently attempt to acquire a nuclear deterrent to Israel’s aggression. Beyond that, the destruction of the Osirak reactor threatened to undermine the IAEA safeguards framework, thus heightening rather than mitigating the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation.

In 2003, the United States waged an illegal war of aggression against Iraq on a pretext of lies to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein—who had waged war against Iran throughout most of the 1980s with American support.

In 2007, the U.S. intelligence community produced a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about Iran’s nuclear program, which has been similarly operating under the IAEA safeguards regime. The assessment was that Iran had been working toward a weapons capability until the United States took out Iran’s enemy Saddam Hussein in 2003, at which time the program was halted and never resumed.

That remained the US intelligence community’s assessment with another NIE issued in 2011. That same year, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said, “An aerial attack against Iran’s nuclear reactors would be foolish.” He warned that it could start a regional war with unforeseeable consequences.

Notwithstanding the fearmongering proclamations from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran was working to build nukes, documents leaked to Al Jazeera in 2015 revealed that the assessment of Israel’s infamous intelligence organization the Mossad was that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

In January of this year, the outgoing director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), William Burns, reiterated the US intelligence community’s longstanding assessment in an interview with NPR, saying that there was no sign that Iran had decided to move forward with nuclear weapons development.

On March 25, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Tulsi Gabbard, testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

The decision by the American and Israeli governments to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities illustrates how the lessons of the past remain unlearned. Rather than preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, this action will only cause Iran to reconsider the need for a nuclear deterrent against American and Israeli aggression and otherwise undermine the international nuclear non-proliferation safeguards framework.

Osirak, the Franco-Iraqi nuclear power research station. Getty Images

As observed by the Libertarian Institute’s Bill Buppert, host of Chasing Ghosts: An Irregular Warfare Podcast, one option for Iran is to withdraw from the NPT—their parliament has just voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA—and state that it will rejoin the treaty and accept the IAEA safeguards framework once Israel does the same.

Iran would also be acting within reason to insist that the United States formally acknowledge its right to enrich uranium for nuclear energy as a condition for rejoining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, especially since the whole current disaster is a consequence of the US government persistent rejection of Iran’s recognized rights under the NPT.

If Washington would like to deter threats to peace by getting other countries to comply with international law, it should start by ending its own criminal violence—including the Trump administration’s continued support for Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 19:15

Iran Holds Huge Public Funeral For Slain Military Commanders & Scientists

Hundreds of thousands of people are in the streets of Tehran on Saturday for a funeral procession honoring military commanders, nuclear scientists, as well as civilians killed in Israeli strikes earlier this month.

State television broadcast scenes of mourners dressed in black, waving Iranian flags, and holding photos of the deceased during the ceremony. It further involved Iranian flag-draped coffins and large displays of portraits depicting slain uniformed commanders in central Tehran.

Both the Israeli and Iranian sides have been declaring 'victory' following the 12-days of airstrikes and also ballistic and hypersonic missile fire on Israel.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has charged that President Trump is "grossly exaggerating" when he says that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated - though Iranian officials have publicly conceded that there was serious damage at key facilities.

Among the prominent figures mourned in the events were General Hossein Salami, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Guard’s ballistic missile program.

Both were said to be killed on the opening day of the surprise attack. Also honored was the slain Major General Mohammad Bagheri of the Revolutionary Guard, and the leading nuclear scientist Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi.

There are reports that car bombs and drones guided from within the country (via Israeli spy assets on the ground) also assisted in targeted assassinations.

Thousands of mourners lined the streets of Tehran for the state funeral service for around 60 Iranians, including military commanders, killed during the recent Israel-Iran war. Of the 60 people who are to be laid to rest after the ceremony, four are children and four are women. pic.twitter.com/9lyAYTjCRQ

— DW News (@dwnews) June 28, 2025

Heard from the large funeral processions were at times chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" as their coffins were driven along Azadi Street.

At least 60 burials for civilians, including four women and four children, also took place according to state media. According to details from CNN:

Hundreds of thousands filled the streets of Tehran on Saturday to commemorate the senior military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians killed during Iran’s 12-day conflict with Israel.

As mourners clad in all black chanted death to Israel and America, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged the loss of lives was “hard and painful” but pledged the nation would return to “new glory.”

Plenty of banners were seen in the processions proclaimed 'victory' for Iran...

Banners reading “Boom Boom Tel Aviv” are carried at the funeral procession for the “Martyrs of Might" in Tehran.

“Boom Boom Tel Aviv” is a song by American artist Lukas Gage in support of Iran’s Armed Forces. It trended on YouTube with 577 million views in less than 24 hours. pic.twitter.com/Tqc1XjudnJ

— IRNA News Agency (@IrnaEnglish) June 28, 2025

Iran's state-run Press TV has called the event the "funeral procession of the Martyrs of Power" and in total involved the burial and memorials for at least 16 scientists and ten senior commanders.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 18:05

Trump Says He Will Only Appoint Fed Chair Who Wants To Cut Interest Rates

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on Friday that he may appoint someone who is more inclined to lower interest rates to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

“If I think somebody’s going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I’m not going to put them in. I’m going to put somebody that wants to cut rates,” Trump told reporters at the Oval Office.

Trump criticized Powell for not lowering interest rates and said that he would “love” the head of the U.S. Federal Reserve to step down if Powell chooses to do so.

The president suggested lowering rates to 1 percent, although he believes cutting interest rates by two percentage points would save the country “more than $600 billion” annually.

“I think we should be paying 1 percent right now,” he said.

The Fed decided last week to keep its benchmark policy rate unchanged at 4.25 to 4.50 percent.

Powell, whose term is set to expire in May next year, has held off on cutting interest rates, citing the need for more clarity on the possible course of the economy following the administration’s policy changes.

During his semi-annual monetary policy report to Congress on June 24, he told lawmakers that the central bank is waiting to determine if Trump’s global tariffs will result in consumer inflation.

While data over the last three months indicate that price pressures have yet to materialize, Powell said that any tariff-related inflation could appear in the June or July data.

“As we go through the summer, we should start seeing this,” he said. “If we don’t, I think we’re perfectly open to the idea that the pass-through will be less than we think.”

Powell stated that the central bank may begin cutting interest rates if it observes that inflation pressures remain contained.

Trump said on Friday that lowering interest rates now could save the country “hundreds of billions of dollars.” He suggested that the Fed could raise rates later if inflation begins to increase.

“If you were there, you’d say ... the United States is doing well, there is no inflation. And if they do get inflation in a year or two, we’ll start raising the rates,” he stated.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One earlier this month that he would decide on Powell’s successor “very soon.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a CNBC interview on June 27 that there is a possibility that someone could be nominated to succeed Powell between October and November.

When asked if he might become the next Fed chair, Bessent said he “will do what the president wants,” but indicated that he would prefer to stay in his current role.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 17:30

Trump Blasts CNN 'Hoax, Fake News' Report That US Looking At $30BN Deal With Iran

President Donald Trump has once again blasted CNN and the "hoax" media reports saying his administration was considering a $30 billion deal to assist Iran in developing civilian nuclear facilities, as one option for future deal-making in the wake of the 12-day Israel-Iran war.

NBC also featured reporting that the White House is mulling major economic incentives for the Islamic Republic to halt its uranium enrichment; however Trump's position still seems to be that there's no more enrichment capability and that core nuclear program components were utterly destroyed in the major US bombing raids of a week ago.

Open source satellite imagery showing a damaged nuclear facility.

The reports claimed that Washington could release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets in order to ensure Iran could still have civilian nuclear program, as part of a potential "$30 billion" deal - but importantly with no ability of the Islamic Republic to enrich domestically.

“Who in the Fake News Media is the SleazeBag saying that ‘President Trump wants to give Iran $30 Billion to build non-military Nuclear facilities.’ Never heard of this ridiculous idea,” the president wrote late Friday on social media.

"It’s just another HOAX put out by the Fake News in order to demean. These people are SICK!!!" the Truth Social post added.

The original and 'exclusive' Thursday CNN report claimed that "The Trump administration has discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds – all part of an intensifying attempt to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table, four sources familiar with the matter said."

"Key players from the US and the Middle East have talked with the Iranians behind the scenes even amid the flurry of military strikes in Iran and Israel over the past two weeks, the sources said," the report continued. "Those discussions have continued this week after a ceasefire deal was struck, the sources said."

The report alleged that multiple early-stage proposals have been under discussion, but all based on a key non-negotiable: that Iran must halt all uranium enrichment. However, this is one red line that Tehran has been insistent it won't give in to, as a matter of national sovereignty. 

Trump has also been going after Iranian leadership in his Truth Social posts, for example writing the following of Ayatollah Khamenei:

“His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,” he wrote. “I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, ‘THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!’”

"Who in the Fake News Media is the SleazeBag saying that “President Trump wants to give Iran $30 Billion to build non-military Nuclear facilities,'" Trump said in a Truth social post in reference to a CNN report.

"Never heard of this ridiculous idea. It’s just another HOAX put… pic.twitter.com/IxbA8DzpBi

— Iran International English (@IranIntl_En) June 28, 2025

The US President has also said he's willing to strike Iran again if need be, but for now at least the ceasefire is still holding, and does appear to be permanent - as both sides assess to the depth of damage and make efforts to rebuild destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 16:55

Who Has The Moral High Ground On Money?

Authored by Jay Davidson via AmericanThinker.com,

Economic theory, and the profound impact it has on our lives, is much simpler than trained economists (apologies to my economist friends) would have you believe. 

To understand the politics of economic theory, one need only to consider two opposing ideas.

One group believes that fiscal and monetary policy should entail more federal government intervention in the private economy.  From some incomprehensible and irrational thought process, these believers try to take the moral high ground.  Yet their way leads to loss of individual freedom, to serfdom.  

Members of both political parties fall prey to this falsehood, some more than others.  When politicians say they are going to Washington to solve your problems, be forewarned: What happens is more rules and regulations controlling your life and costing the taxpayer more of his hard earned income.  The fact is, we don’t need, or want, our government’s help.  Private industry is far more capable of creating profit through free choice than any bureaucrat. 

The illusion of safety is a poor substitute for freedom, self-determination, and individuality.

The other, more enlightened group contends that more economic freedom is necessary for individual and national success.  

Further, that individual freedom stems exclusively from our Creator and demands limited government intervention in our lives.  This is the mentality that forged our nation, that created our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Individual self-determination is in fact the moral high ground.

In other words, big government versus limited government.

There can be no freedom without economic freedom, and that hinges on the inalienable right to ownership of property.  We are not guilty of greed when we work hard for our money.  They are greedy for stealing our earnings through excessive taxation and crushing free enterprise with regulation.

When one works at earning his money, to whom does that money, that property, belong?  When any government can tax, impose fees, and put us in debt, on a whim, we don’t own our property; the government does.  Granted, we all need to pay our fair share for the structure a government affords us, but when we have to work half the year to pay all our taxes, the price is too high.  

Our money goes to supporting a massive government that enslaves us with regulation and unconstitutional laws.  Then that same government puts all of us into debt to fund even more of its unnecessary spending.  Our grandchildren will owe this debt, it has become so enormous.  We have an obligation to stop the spending and reduce the deficit before we leave our progeny in crippling debt.  That is the moral high ground.  

This is why I object to imposition of tariffs.  They are a tax on the consumer.  It would be far more effective if we severely limited government regulation and taxation so that private enterprise could once again thrive in a free economy unimpeded by massive federal intervention.  This is the message of the second group, who believe in individual freedom and ownership of property.  

Our president did two tremendous things for us.  

He started DOGE to eliminate excess and wasteful spending by the Deep State bureaucrats, and he nominated three Supreme Court justices who overthrew the Chevron Doctrine, which severely limits the ability of the administrative (deep) state to impose fines and regulations.  

These two actions will do more to limit government and bring it into compliance with the Constitution than anything any other president has done in our lifetime.

We can change the direction of our beloved nation by supporting candidates who will limit government strictly to those rules of law articulated in the Constitution.  

When given a choice, always choose individual freedom — never more government control.  

The principle must always be the sanctity of individual freedom to choose.  

This is the moral high ground.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 16:20

Joyce Vance discussing Tr__p’s calling up the National Guard in California. While the Nineth COA did allow Tr__p to call up California’s National Guard, it was for other reasons it was allowed. “We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 […]

The post Calling Out the the National Guard for California appeared first on Angry Bear.

Netanyahu Wants To Visit White House To 'Celebrate' Iran Strikes With Trump

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to meet with President Trump at the White House in the coming weeks after the 12-day US-Israeli war on Iran, Axios has reported.

Israeli officials said that Netanyahu wants to "celebrate" the joint bombing campaign with Trump, as the Israeli leader is declaring the war a victory, although Israel got hit hard by Iranian missiles right up until the ceasefire took effect, something President Trump has acknowledged.

"Israel got hit really hard. Those ballistic missiles, boy, they took out a lot of buildings," Trump told reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday.

Via AFP

Netanyahu may be seeking additional military aid from the US to replenish Israel’s interceptors and bombs in the ongoing conflict. The Axios report said that Trump and Netanyahu are "closer than ever" and that US and Israeli officials have discussed the possibility of Netanyahu’s third White House visit this year, but so far, a date hasn’t been set.

The report comes after Trump called for the corruption charges against Netanyahu to be dropped, which an Israeli official claimed is part of a strategy to 'bring an end to the war in Gaza, the release of all the hostages, an end to Netanyahu’s trial, and a serious regional move."

According to a report from Israel Hayom, Trump and Netanyahu have reached an understanding on terms for a potential deal that would end Israel’s genocidal onslaught in Gaza and involve other moves in the region, but many of the terms are likely unacceptable to Hamas and Palestinians in general.

According to the report, the terms include:

1. Gaza hostilities will conclude within two weeks, ending conditions will encompass four Arab nations (including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) to administer the Gaza Strip, replacing Hamas. The remaining Hamas leadership will face exile to other countries, while the hostages gain freedom
2. Multiple nations globally will accept numerous Gaza inhabitants seeking emigration
3. Abraham Accords expansion will bring Syria, Saudi Arabia, and additional Arab and Muslim countries to recognize Israel and establish official relationships.
4. Israel will declare its willingness for future Palestinian conflict resolution under the “two states” concept, contingent upon the Palestinian Authority reforms.
5. The United States will acknowledge a limited Israeli annexation in the West Bank

President Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, said in an interview on Wednesday that the US may soon announce Arab countries that are willing to join the Abraham Accords, referring to the normalization deals Israel signed with the UAE and Bahrain during the first Trump administration.

Syria, which is now led by a former al-Qaeda leader, has been engaged in normalization talks with Israel, but Saudi Arabia has maintained that it won’t normalize with Israel without a Palestinian state.

For now, there does not appear to be any US pressure on Israel to stop the alleged genocide in Gaza, and Palestinians continue to be slaughtered by Israeli forces every day.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 15:10

The vulgar side of Robert Reich. “Office Hours: WTF do they tell themselves?” As Trump siphons away their power, how do congressional Republicans justify to themselves their total abdication of responsibility? Trump’s decision to strike Iran without congressional authorization has renewed debate over Congress’s constitutional role in the use of American forces. At almost every […]

The post how do congressional Republicans justify to themselves their total abdication of responsibility appeared first on Angry Bear.

At the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter this week:

Click on graph for larger image.

• New Home Sales Decrease to 623,000 Annual Rate in May

• NAR: Existing-Home Sales Increased to 4.03 million SAAR in May; Down 0.7% YoY

• Case-Shiller: National House Price Index Up 2.7% year-over-year in April

• Inflation Adjusted House Prices 1.7% Below 2022 Peak

• Final Look at Local Housing Markets in May and a Look Ahead to June Sales

This is usually published 4 to 6 times a week and provides more in-depth analysis of the housing market.

Turley: The Chilling Jurisprudence Of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For most citizens, the release of Supreme Court opinions is about as exciting as watching paint dry, particularly in a case dealing with the limits of district courts in issuing universal injunctions.

Yet Friday’s Trump v. CASA case included a virtual slugfest between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The decision was one of the biggest of the term. The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration.

However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention.

The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues.

It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.

The Court often deals with issues that deeply divide the nation.

Yet it tends to calm the waters by engaging in measured, reasoned analysis — showing the nation that these are matters upon which people can have good-faith disagreements.

But that culture of civility and mutual respect has been under attack in recent years.

Not long ago, the Court was rocked by the leaking of the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That was followed by furious protests against conservative justices at their homes and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices.

Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?”

This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny.

It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric.

While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court.

Some of us have argued that our system is working just as designed, particularly as these issues work through the courts. The courts have ruled for and against this Administration as they struggle with the difficult lines of authority between the branches.

Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.

It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”

She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.

Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws.  (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines — or shall we say the “minutiae” — of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.'” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III.

Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution.

For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 12:50

Deadly Russian Drone Strikes Have Increased On Ukraine's Odesa 

Russian drones slammed into the southern Ukrainian port city of Odesa overnight, killing two people and injuring at least 17 others, Ukrainian officials announced Saturday.

Emergency services said a drone struck a residential high-rise, damaging three floors and trapping residents inside, with the regional governor identifying that the victims were a married couple, with three children among the wounded.

Via Reuters

"Rescuers pulled the bodies of two people from the rubble who died as a result of a hostile drone strike on a residential building," Odesa Governor Oleh Kiper said on Telegram.

Russia’s Defense Ministry was silent on the attack, on saying that it had intercepted more than 40 Ukrainian drones overnight sent over Russian territory, as well as in Crimea.

This comes as both sides increasingly rely heavily on smaller, short-range drones for battlefield operations and missions along their roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line - but the key port city of Odesa has been coming under more regular attacks, something which wasn't a feature of the opening years of the war.

Also Saturday Kherson Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said that "Russian troops targeted critical and social infrastructure and residential areas in the region."

In Donetsk, Russian troops have reportedly captured another village, as the slow grinding effort to solidify hold over the whole region continues, with no peace negotiations on the horizon.

A new plan of expanding west of Donetsk appears part of establishing Putin's big security 'buffer zone'. At this point it's clear that Kiev's backers in NATO can do nothing about this, except throw more money and weapons at the conflict.

Presidents Trump and Zelensky this week at the NATO summit reportedly discussed Ukraine procuring more US anti-air defense systems, which ironically enough will likely be purchased with US taxpayer funds already poured into Kiev's coffers.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 12:15

Watch Tonight: Mike Benz vs. Cenk Uygur Debate US Foreign Aid As 'Redheaded Libertarian' Moderates

LIVE NOW

https://t.co/A2uwg4HOYH

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 28, 2025

****

As the great Ron Paul said…

Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. #CNNDebate #tcot #RonPaul

— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) October 19, 2011

But is it worse than that? Not simply a wealth transfer but a lever of control, wielded by the U.S. government to make weaker nations fall in line. Soft power as they call it.

Few understand it better than Mike Benz, formerly the “Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Policy” at the State Department. Benz believes soft power and foreign aid, managed effectively, have their place in the U.S. empire. Tonight we are bringing the reformist Benz together with foreign aid proponent Cenk Uygur and abolitionist Keith Knight (editor of Scott Horton’s Libertarian Institute) to answer the question: “should we abolish foreign aid?” Hosted by Josie the “Redheaded Libertarian”.

Tune in to the top of the ZH homepage or X page at 7pm ET tonight to watch the debate live.

Subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, and Rumble to be notified of new debates.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 11:05

The Economy - And Its Future - In Four Charts

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Substituting debt for earnings while enriching the rich will bear bitter fruit.

Climbing above the craziness of the Normalized Now news flow to view the economy from a quiet, windswept peak helps clear the mind of clutter. The entire economy--and its future--can be distilled down to four charts that tell the underlying story of the U.S. economy over the past 55 years.

Many of the thousands of charts floating around illuminate some aspect of the economy, but these four tell the primary story:

1. The gains from rising productivity--the only durable source of prosperity--were shifted from wages to owners of capital.

2. As wages lost ground, the central bank (Federal Reserve) replaced cash earnings with debt, by a) lowering interest rates for 40 years, b) increasing the money supply and c) opening the flood gates of credit.

3. Wage earners used credit to pay expenses, the wealthy used credit to buy income-producing assets.

4. As a result, assets such as houses are now unaffordable to all but the wealthy.

The net result of these dynamics is the rich got much, much richer, and wage earners became debt-serfs paying interest to the wealthy owners of their debts. Let's start by noting the difference between an owner-occupied house and an asset (for example a rental property) that generates income.

The owner-occupied house may appreciate in value over time, but this increase isn't income or a capital gain until the house is sold. Until that point of sale, the house is merely an expense.

Student loans, auto loans, credit cards, etc. are also expenses. Wage earners' debts are expenses that aren't offset by income generated by the "asset" purchased with credit.

The quibble here is a $100,000 student loan will "pay off" by increasing the earnings of the student debtor, but this is not the equivalent of buying a bond that pays guaranteed interest. The university diploma may or may not pay off, or it may pay off for a few years and then become a net liability. It's more a wager than an investment, regardless of what the Higher Education / Student Loan industry claim.

The wealthy who already own assets have a much deeper pool of credit to tap, and the cost of borrowing money is lower for them, too. So the wealthy tapped the expanding pool of "money" and credit to buy income-producing assets: stocks, real estate, enterprises, etc.

Given the limited quantity of real-world assets that generate income, this relentless credit-fueled demand from the wealthy pushed the valuations of assets higher, rendering them less affordable to wage earners.

This massive, sustained transfer of wealth via credit expansion has been going on so long that it's now normalized: very few people can recall an economy that shared the gains with wage earners rather than diverting most of the nation's wealth to the already-wealthy.

This chart of wages' share of the nation's income is the key snapshot of the economy's core dynamic. No, it's not tech, or the stock market, it's this systemic shift of income from wage earners to owners of capital.

Over the past 50 years, this transfer amounts to a staggering $150 trillion: (same chart, but with the FRED database link)

Here is the chart of total credit expansion, which has outpaced not just wages but GDP (gross domestic product):

This chart of the top 9% (the top 1% have their own chart) shows how the rich have become much richer. The top 10% (top 9% plus the top 1%) have a net worth of $108 trillion, double that of the bottom 90% ($52 trillion), and 27X the net worth of the bottom 50% of the populace ($4 trillion).

The net result is housing has shifted from being affordable to wage earners seeking a place to live to an asset snapped up by the wealthy, private equity and corporations: since wage earners have lost ground, they cannot possibly compete with the wealthy in a bidding war funded by bottomless credit lines. Housing is now unaffordable except to the wealthy.

As a lagniappe, here is a chart of the wealth held by the top 0.01%, which illustrated how the wealth piling up in the top 10% has aggregated in the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%.

What future do these charts forecast? Instability on a scale few believe possible in the Normalized Now of $100 million homes, $600 million yachts and the speculative frenzy arising as those left behind seek some long-shot wager to gain a bit of the ground that has been lost over 2+ generations.

Substituting debt for earnings while enriching the rich will bear bitter fruit. How it manifests is unknowable, but that it will manifest is predictable. Extremes become more extreme until they break the entire status quo into brittle shards.

My new book Ultra-Processed Life, is available at a 25% discount (ebook edition) and 19% discount (print edition) through Friday, June 27.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 10:30

Judge Blocks Treasury's Anti-Cartel Rule Targeting $200 Cash Transactions Along Border

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked a new Trump administration policy targeting small-dollar cross-border transactions aimed at curbing cartel money laundering, siding with two businesses who argued it was crippling their operations and scaring off customers.

An American and Texas flag fly in front of the skyline of El Paso and Ciudad Juarez in El Paso, Texas, on Sept. 23, 2022. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

In a June 24 ruling, U.S. District Judge Leon Schydlower granted a temporary restraining order to Valuta Corporation and Payan’s Fuel Center, two El Paso-based money services businesses, finding they were likely to succeed on their claim that the policy—requiring reports of cash transactions as low as $200—was arbitrary and capricious.

The policy, imposed by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) through a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) issued March 11, mandates that money service businesses in 30 ZIP codes across California and Texas file currency transaction reports on all cash transactions between $200 and $10,000. The reporting threshold was previously set at $10,000 under longstanding Bank Secrecy Act rules.

The new mandate, part of a broader Trump administration initiative to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations and choke off their U.S. financing, was justified by officials as necessary to stop traffickers from breaking up large sums into smaller cash transactions to avoid detection.

But the plaintiffs—who testified earlier this year in a related case—said the policy instead ensnared law-abiding businesses in high-risk neighborhoods, driving away customers, and overwhelming staff with red tape. In court filings, both described staying up late into the night to complete paperwork and turning away regular customers unwilling to provide personal details such as Social Security numbers to convert or transmit modest sums.

Ashley Light, co-owner of Valuta, said her family’s business had operated since the early 1980s and had only ever filed 123 currency transaction reports (CTR) in all of 2024. Under the new rule, she was forced to submit approximately 1,600 reports in a single month—an explosion in paperwork she said threatened the business’s viability.

“One salaried employee and I have both increased our hours by about 50 [percent]. I am working until about 1:00 in the morning, just doing CTRs,” Light wrote in a declaration. “The failure to file on time is an offense. Each late CTR could mean a fine of over $1,400 or over $70,000 if the government decides the violation is willful. If Valuta slips up at all, we now face potentially ruinous fines.”

Andres Payan Jr., who runs a gas station that also provides check-cashing services, said in filings that many of his customers felt uncomfortable by the new identification demands. Since the GTO went into effect, Payan said he’s lost about 35 percent of his check-cashing business, along with secondary revenue, such as for goods that cash-checking customers might buy.

In response, Trump administration attorneys argued that the GTO is justified because money service businesses along the southwest border are “particularly vulnerable” to money-laundering abuses by cartels, who launder illicit proceeds through the U.S. financial system. They also disputed the claimed burden of compliance with the new rule, calling it “exaggerated.” But even if the court were to grant relief sought by the plaintiffs, it should do so narrowly, tailoring the ruling so that it only applies to the businesses involved in the lawsuit, rather than vacating the GTO with respect to all businesses within covered areas in Texas or elsewhere.

The judge sided with the plaintiffs, but tailored the ruling so it only shields Valuta and Payan’s Fuel Center from further enforcement, meaning other businesses that have not joined the lawsuit are not covered.

In his ruling, Schydlower noted that the government had failed to grapple with the real-world consequences of the rule’s geographic design, which penalizes businesses based solely on ZIP code boundaries. He pointed to Yarbrough Drive, an El Paso street that separates two adjacent ZIP codes—one covered by the order and one not—and said a cartel member “could simply cross” the street to avoid the requirements.

“Innocent businesses can be profoundly disadvantaged if they are located on the ‘wrong’ side of an El Paso street,” he wrote, calling the GTO “completely toothless” from an enforcement perspective.

The case is one of several legal challenges to the GTO. Federal judges in California and Texas previously granted preliminary injunctions, but those orders only applied to a limited number of plaintiffs. Because Valuta and Payan’s Fuel Center were not covered by earlier rulings—despite having provided testimony in those lawsuits—they filed a new suit in June seeking protection.

The GTO targets ZIP codes in six counties along the U.S.–Mexico border: Imperial and San Diego in California, and Cameron, El Paso, Hidalgo, Maverick, and Webb in Texas. Officials argue these areas pose heightened risks for illicit financial activity linked to cross-border narcotics trade.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the Treasury Department with a request for comment on Schydlower’s June 24 ruling and whether the administration plans to appeal or modify the GTO in light of the court’s findings.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 09:20

 

 

After a few month run, I took a break from talking about the book. Going forward, I’ll be speaking about HNTI occasionally.

This was a fun pod worthy sharing: Peter Lazaroff hosts The Long Term Investor, and asks very thoughtful questions:

In this engaging episode, Barry Ritholtz—author of the influential Big Picture blog, host of the renowned Masters in Business podcast, and author of the new book How Not to Invest—shares invaluable insights into making smarter investment decisions. Barry challenges common financial myths, explores why we’re drawn to faulty financial forecasts, and highlights red flags in popular financial advice.

Good stuff!

 

 

Sources:
EP 210: How Not to Invest: Avoiding Common Mistakes and Dangerous Financial Advice with Barry Ritholtz
by Peter Lazaroff |
The Long Term Investor, June 25, 2025

Audio: Apple Podcasts, Spotify

 

 

 

The post Avoiding Common Mistakes and Dangerous Financial Advice appeared first on The Big Picture.

Putin: 'Theft' Of $300BN in Frozen Assets A 'Price Worth Paying' To Break West's Grip On Global Finance

In somewhat surprising statements and what can be viewed as a very frank 'concession', President Vladimir Putin has said  Russia is "ready" to part with its $300 billion in frozen assets, framing it as a another way which accelerates Russia's and its allies' shift away from Western-dominated financial systems.

"A significant amount of Russian gold and currency assets is frozen in Western banks. They keep telling us they intend to steal our money," Putin said before the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) summit in Minsk on Thursday.

If the West does simply take the funds in the end, it would create an "irreversible trend toward the regionalization of payment systems" - and this in the long run would benefit the global economy. "I think it is probably worth paying for," Putin mused, while further describing the Moscow aims to strengthen its own financial settlement systems with "friendly states."

The Central Bank of Russia, Moskva News Agency

For now, the some $300 billion in Russian Central Bank assets currently frozen (mostly in Europe) hasn't been fully or outright appropriated permanently, but instead the plan is to fund Ukraine's defense based on interest earned on the significant assets.

This plan is already in effect, with for example former President Biden at the tail-end of his administration having announced that it disbursed a $20 billion loan for Ukraine, to eventually be paid back using interest earned on frozen Russian Central Bank assets.

The US Treasury Secretary had said the following at the time:

"These funds — paid for by the windfall proceeds earned from Russia’s own immobilized assets — will provide Ukraine a critical infusion of support as it defends its country against an unprovoked war of aggression."

"The $50 billion collectively being provided by the G7 through this initiative will help ensure Ukraine has the resources it needs to sustain emergency services, hospitals, and other foundations of its brave resistance," the statement said.

The Kremlin has consistently decried this as "theft" and "simply robbery" while vowing that retaliation will soon come.

Meanwhile, some 'respect' still thrown Trump's way by Putin...

Putin: I deeply respect Trump. He's a courageous man who survived two assassination attempts

I believe he truly wants peace in Ukraine and the Middle East, though it may be harder than he expected pic.twitter.com/73qH4qio0t

— RT (@RT_com) June 27, 2025

President Putin fresh words suggest Moscow is resigning itself to a situation where it won't see the funds handed back for anytime in the foreseeable future, at a moment Russia continues strengthening economic ties with BRICS countries.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/28/2025 - 08:45