Menu Icon

Debt Rattle August 6 2026

Aug 062026
 
 August 6, 2026  Posted by at 10:07 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  2 Responses »


SalvadorDali Girl At The Window 1925


• Iran-Oman Route ‘Agreed To’ as Iran Warns Against US ‘Interference’ (ZH)
• Iran Set To Emerge With More Hormuz Leverage Than Before The War (ZH)
• What the Situation on the Ground in Iran Actually Looks Like (VDH)
• Declassified FBI Document Blows Up Everything About Russiagate (Margolis)
• The Democrat Establishment Is Freaking Out Right Now (Matt Margolis)
• ‘Common Sense vs. Complete Insanity’ (Ben Whedon)
• Ukraine Shot Down Zero Missiles In Huge Russian Overnight Salvo (ZH)
• How Zelensky’s 40-Day ‘Influence Operation’ Against Russia Fell Apart (RT)
• EU Sets New Russian Gas Record Despite Ban Plans – Data (RT)
• Obama’s Exclusive Fundraiser for the Democrats’ Redistricting War (Thorne)
• Actor Fired for Opposing Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports (Turley)
• Spanish Immigration Crisis Exposes Cracks in European Union (JTN)

 


 

 


 


Are we at the point where the words are picked to make Iran’s leaders feel they can sell them?

• Iran-Oman Route ‘Agreed To’ as Iran Warns Against US ‘Interference’ (ZH)

A statement from Iran’s Foreign Ministry warns that the United States and military ‘interference’ remain the biggest obstacles to a final Hormuz deal to reopen the strait:


Esmaeil Baqaei: The geographical coordinates of the route proposed by Iran and Oman in the Strait of Hormuz have been agreed upon. If some third parties do not obstruct this process, the joint statement between the two countries is in the final review and drafting stage. The understanding between Iran and Oman, in itself, cannot guarantee the safety of the Strait for passing ships, because the factors that create insecurity in the Strait of Hormuz, particularly those stemming from the United States, such as the naval blockade and other aggressive and threatening actions against Iran and its interests, still exist.

Latest details from Financial Times: “Initially, Iran would send ships, including oil tankers, through the waterway to ensure it is free of mines before the strait opens to other shipping, FT reports citing sources. Ships would not be charged fees during the temporary arrangement, the people added.If a deal holds and the strait reopens, the US would lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports and reinstate a waiver to allow Iran to sell oil and petroleum-related products, one of the people said.

Iranian pundits and state media continue touting this as a ‘victory’ over the US-Israeli war of aggression: Ali Akbar Dareini, a Tehran-based researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies, has said Iran is aiming to “stabilise” its control over the Strait of Hormuz, which is its “biggest military achievement of the war”. “Negotiations are aimed at stabilizing those achievements,” Dareini told Al Jazeera. “You do not negotiate to give away your achievements but stabilise them.” Once Iran opens up the strait, Dareini said Iran is still likely to put in place a mechanism to “ensure that peace will prevail”.

“Iran wants to make sure that there will be innocent passage … But there will not be hazardous passage, there will not be war,” he said, arguing that Tehran needs to ensure the US and its allies do not transport military equipment that could be used for attacks against it. This also as Yemen’s Houthis continue a ‘siege for siege’ blockade of Red Sea passage, targeting Saudi-linked vessels of Yemen’s coast, as we described. Thus far on Wednesday, the White House has remained mostly quiet on what seem to be Iran and Omani-driven talks for terms of the Hormuz Strait’s reopening. Tehran, however, has not remained quiet – as US bombs have fallen silent over the past couple days:

IRAN SAYS NEW HORMUZ ROUTE TO BE VALID FOR 2-4 MONTHS: IRNA
IRAN: NEW OMAN DEAL TO CLOSE TEMPORARY HORMUZ SHIPPING ROUTES
GHARIBABADI SAYS IRAN RECEIVED MESSAGES FROM US: IRNA
IRAN: US SAID IN MESSAGES IT’S READY TO RETURN TO ITS PLEDGES

And via Israeli media, though without official confirmation from Washington: Approaching an agreement on opening the Strait of Hormuz, N12 reports, citing American officials; The signing of the agreement is possible as early as tonight. Meanwhile, much of all of the above depends on what ‘mood’ Trump is in:

Read more …

“.. talks between Iran and Oman over the Strait of Hormuz “have nothing to do with the United States”

• Iran Set To Emerge With More Hormuz Leverage Than Before The War (ZH)

President Trump said late Tuesday that talks with Iran are “moving along very nicely” – in a highly fluid and ambiguous situation where it appears the two sides are only interacting indirectly at best.


But the Iranian side has continued to insist that there are currently no peace or ceasefire talks happening, but only the Iran-Oman negotiations which focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and setting terms of how it will be managed. Consistent with this narrative, Al Jazeera freshly cites Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB which reports that talks between Iran and Oman over the Strait of Hormuz “have nothing to do with the United States”. But Washington is presenting it as a US-Oman deal for the strait’s reopening, even if it fundamentally remains an Iranian-Omani proposal.

Trump in his latest comments echoed his Treasury Secretary from the day prior, saying, “It could happen. Tomorrow or the next day.” This was on the heels of traveling to Los Angeles yesterday for a fundraising event hosted by the Republican National Committee. “A lot of progress has been made.”He told Fox that the White House is now having “very good discussions” with Iranian officials as part of an “all-day negotiation” and that the Strait of Hormuz reopening “is going to be open very soon.””If they back out again, they are going to get hit really hard,” the president told the outlet. He had said the same by close of last week, but by the weekend reversed course and decided to refrain from attack Iran again.

According to Bloomberg, “The US, Iran and Oman are preparing to announce a 60-day agreement on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz” – but the Iranian side has not affirmed this.So as it stands, Tehran says it is driving the Oman talks and that Washington has been sidelined, while the White House claims that it has directly involvement in shaping the outcome.mBut all sides do seem in agreement that the technical details and mechanics of the deal are currently being worked on. According to the latest outline of what this is expected to look like via CBS:

Under the current proposal, ships entering the Strait would use the channel closest to Iran, with Iran coordinating inbound traffic, while vessels leaving the strait would use the Omani side, with Muscat managing outbound traffic. The proposal also includes a “service fee,” with the revenue split between Iran and Oman.According to the source, the broad outlines have largely been agreed upon, with the remaining discussions focused on implementation and timing. Axios reported something similar, in which the US is nearing a Hormuz deal. Axios added that no tolls or fees would be charged during the 60-day period and the parties would work on clearing naval mines from the median lane of the strait within 30 days.

As for the claim of ‘no tolls’, this could once again be just semantics, given the Iranian and Omani sides have consistently signaled the need for fund collection under the headers of safe navigation, logistics, and environmental protection.There has also been some progress on agreements for third-party demining operations. But as Rubio reminded the world yesterday, Washington still insists resolving the nuclear issue – something which the Iranians still say can only be broached after the conflict is ended and there is peace.

Read more …

Victor Davis Hanson.

• What the Situation on the Ground in Iran Actually Looks Like (VDH)

We’re hearing more and more every day about Iran and [President Donald] Trump as the midterms now are only about 90 days away. There’s kind of a narrative that is emerging, left and right, that we are bogged down. I’ve heard the word Vietnam evoked. Donald Trump may have contributed to that because, although in that 150 days, we’ve been operating in the Gulf, we’ve only bombed Iran about 50 or so days, and we’ve been discussing it for 100 days.


So the narrative has emerged that Donald Trump promises to hit them hard, they back down, and they say they want talks. They do not want talks. They want to delay, delay, delay, delay. Donald Trump then sporadically hits them. They come back to the table. We have no idea who we’re dealing with because the Iranian Revolutionary Islamic Guard seems to be playing the bad cop, and the moderate elected—“moderate elected”–officials, seem to put a happy face on things, and they either have no power or authority, or they’re in league with the hardcore to give them time and run out the clock.

So, what are the relative pressures? Everybody’s getting very angry over this on, off, on, off, on, and we’re concentrating too much on what Donald Trump says. We know what each side is doing. Donald Trump has 90 days before the midterms. If he should lose the midterms, his team is convinced, A, that there will be an impeachment circus for the next two years, and B, anybody around him will be hauled before Senate and House committees. But mostly in the House because I don’t think the Republicans will lose the Senate. And they will be inquired into, they will be researched, they will be berated, and it will cost them a fortune, and that will be a circus.

And so, Donald Trump doesn’t want that. To avoid that, he has to have gas getting near $3 a gallon, the world price around $65 a barrel, the Strait of Hormuz open, and all that requires him either to have a new Iranian government or a debilitated Iranian government or a negotiated settlement. What is Iran trying to do? Iran is trying to talk, hit the Gulf, close the Strait, talk, repeat, wash, rinse, spin, wash, rinse, spin, drag it out, see Donald Trump lose the House, have the House Left and its new Islamicist socialist base cut off funds for [the Iran conflict], and then wait out the clock and get a democratic socialist type of president that would follow the Obama regimen and pretty much appease them and let them do what they want.

So, what’s going on? What’s the big picture? I think we’re missing what’s actually happening every day. There is still an embargo on Iran. No tankers can come in with merchandise, food, material goods, industrial goods, and no Iranian oil is getting out. We have bombed now most of the rail links that go into the former Soviet Union and on into Russia and on into China. So, they are not getting imports, and they are not exporting. They may have some airlift capacity in regional airports where China or Russia are sending in material, but it won’t be much.

But more importantly, they are debanked. Assets are frozen. The economic embargo continues. They are losing in revenue about $500 million per day, and that loss is geometrically increasing, not just arithmetically. In other words, as you start to damage their infrastructure, their bridges, and we have, their roads, and you start to inflict enormous damage on the military, and they draw scarce resources from the domestic economy to fix it, the people are getting more anguished and poorer and poorer, and the country is getting worse and worse.

We don’t see that because of what? We don’t see that because there’s no ground troops. It’s not embedded. We don’t know what’s going on. mSo, while the Left keeps saying to all of us that time is running out for Donald Trump, we’re in a Vietnam quagmire, the war is lost, we need to just look at not what the Left says, not what the right says, not even what Donald Trump says, not what Iran says. Just look dispassionately and disinterestedly at two things. What is the actual state of affairs in Iran?

We have tragically lost 18 soldiers and probably spent $40 billion. But at that cost in blood and treasure, we have debilitated, neutered, deindustrialized, and pretty much destroyed the military, industrial, and nuclear complex industry of the largest state, in terms of economics and population and area, if you combine all those factors together, in the Middle East, and the bully, and the most anti-American. And so, while the Left thinks time is running out, the actual data show us that Iran is running out of time.

And I don’t know who will win this standoff, but Iran has less resources and less wherewithal to withstand this python-like squeezing of it than we do in inflicting it. We can do this forever. One final asterisk or footnote. Things have changed somewhat. Donald Trump and the Republicans don’t think the midterms are lost. If they thought the midterms were lost, then they would accelerate the bombing probably and say, “We have nothing left to lose. Let’s end the Iranian threat now.” But they don’t think it’s lost because of what?

Read more …

“A president asked why the FBI wouldn’t publicly admit what it privately told him, that he wasn’t under investigation, and the bureau treated the question as evidence of a Kremlin conspiracy.”

• Declassified FBI Document Blows Up Everything About Russiagate (Margolis)

For years, Democrats and their media allies swore up and down that the FBI’s investigation of Donald Trump was a serious national security investigation, launched only because of grave concerns about Russian collusion. Newly declassified FBI records tell a different story. It turns out that the bureau formally opened its full counterintelligence investigation into Trump back in 2017, and used his firing of FBI Director James Comey as the justification.


The president exercised his constitutional authority to fire an FBI director, and the FBI responded by opening a counterintelligence investigation into him. The key document is a declassified FBI “Opening Electronic Communication,” dated May 16, 2017, exactly one week after Trump fired Comey on May 9. It authorized a full investigation into the sitting president of the United States under the codename “Oxferd Comma.” No, that’s not a typo. Don’t ask me why it’s spelled that way.

“The FBI is opening a full investigation based on an articulable factual basis that reasonably indicates that President Donald J. Trump may be or has been, wittingly or unwittingly, involved in activities for or on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation which may constitute violations of federal criminal law or threats to the national security of the United States,” the document reads.

The stated goal was to determine “if President Trump is or was directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation in a manner constituting a threat to the national security of the United States and/or a violation of federal criminal statutes.” The same document reveals that investigators were also examining Trump for possible obstruction of justice.

So what was the “articulable factual basis” for treating a duly elected president as a suspected Russian asset? Trump’s conversations with Comey. The document claims Trump “sought Comey’s personal loyalty” and “asked Comey to publicize the fact that the President was not the subject of an FBI investigation.” It also states that Trump “asked Comey to do what he could to resolve the investigations.”

That’s it. That’s the smoking gun. A president asked why the FBI wouldn’t publicly admit what it privately told him, that he wasn’t under investigation, and the bureau treated the question as evidence of a Kremlin conspiracy.

The document also argues that Trump’s shifting explanations for firing Comey “can be reasonably read to imply that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was a factor in President Trump’s decision to terminate Comey.” In other words, the FBI took a routine personnel decision, one Trump had every legal right to make, and spun it into proof that he was doing the bidding of Moscow. The memos show that both Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were advised that the probe had been launched.

The FBI’s leadership was furious that Trump fired its director, so it retaliated by branding him a potential Russian agent. Naturally, Democrats ate all that up. The bureau didn’t open the probe because of collusion evidence. There wasn’t any. You know that. I know that. Even Democrats know it, but they pretend not to. Yet, we got years of breathless wall-to-wall coverage, endless Democrat fundraising emails, and a cloud over an entire presidency, all built on a document that cited a personnel decision as its foundation.

Russiagate hobbled Trump’s first term, poisoned public trust, and gave the left its favorite conspiracy theory. Now we have the receipts showing how it started, and it’s just as bogus as anyone could have expected. Every official who signed off on this disgrace owes the American people an explanation, and the country owes Trump something it will probably never get from the Democrat Party or the press: an apology.

Read more …

It’s probably very politically incorrect to say that no US senator should be named Abdul.

• The Democrat Establishment Is Freaking Out Right Now (Matt Margolis)

NBC News projected early Wednesday that Abdul El-Sayed defeated Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in the state’s Democrat senatorial primary. Our partner DDHQ has also just called the race. Establishment Democrats are freaking out right now.

Bernie Sanders’ organization Our Revolution also declared victory in the race. “Last night, Michigan delivered one of the clearest messages of this election cycle: people power can beat big money,” Joseph Geevarghese, Executive Director of Our Revolution, said in a statement. “Abdul El-Sayed was outspent by nearly ten to one, facing the largest single-race AIPAC investment in history and tens of millions of dollars from billionaire-backed super PACs determined to buy this election. But they couldn’t buy what mattered most: the trust of working people. Abdul refused corporate PAC money, built a grassroots movement that reached hundreds of thousands of voters, and won anyway.”

El-Sayed’s victory gives the party’s socialist wing a real foothold in a Midwest battleground heading into the November 2026 midterms. Stevens should have won this race easily. She’s a four-term congresswoman who, by every measure, was the more electable option in November. That’s exactly why Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer jumped into the race on July 24 with a late endorsement of Stevens, an obvious last-ditch attempt to keep El-Sayed off the ballot. Outgoing Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who chose not to seek a third term, also endorsed Stevens before Tuesday’s vote. It failed to stop El-Sayed, and now the party is stuck with him.

This is a genuinely terrible outcome for Democrats. The problem is November, where polling suggests El-Sayed is going to have a much rougher time closing the deal. Don’t forget that Trump carried Michigan in 2016 and 2024, so we’re not talking about a deep blue state here. This is winnable territory for Republicans, and a seat Democrats can’t afford to lose. And El-Sayed is the candidate the GOP wanted to face in November.

Just last month, El-Sayed, who has ties to antisemitic influencer Hasan Piker, said Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. He can’t quietly walk that one back before the general election. It’s on the record, and Republicans will make sure every Michigan voter hears it. Watch what happened when Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer questioned Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) on El-Sayed’s rhetoric. Dingell botched the answer badly, managing only to confirm that as the Democrat nominee, she would support him anyway. Other Democrats will face that same question throughout the rest of the campaign.

As more radical candidates like El-Sayed become the face of the party, Democrats won’t be able to put any real distance between themselves and the socialist wing. They can’t dismiss it as some fluke confined to the bluest corners of the bluest cities. This will reflect on the party at large heading into the midterms, whether Democrat leaders want to admit it or not. Losing a winnable Senate seat in the Midwest because the base chose ideology over electability would be a self-inflicted wound Democrats can’t afford.

Read more …

“Abdul doesn’t represent a vision for the future. He’s leading a movement grounded in ideological fanaticism,” Rogers said.”

• ‘Common Sense vs. Complete Insanity’ (Ben Whedon)

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., on Wednesday presented the Michigan Senate race as a choice between level-headed governance and radicalism after progressive Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination. Rogers faced no opponent in the Republican primary and is set to face El-Sayed in November. The progressive defeated Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., in what many analysts saw as a battle between the Democratic Party establishment and its progressive base. But the contest was unexpectedly close and the Associated Press did not call the race for El-Sayed until Wednesday morning.


Rogers, for his part, went on the offensive shortly after El-Sayed’s win. “The choice this November is simple: common sense or complete insanity,” he said in a statement. “For more than 25 years, one party has controlled Michigan’s two Senate seats — and they’ve run our state into the ground. They’ve driven 200,000 manufacturing jobs out of Michigan. They’ve dropped our schools to 45th in the nation. They’ve saddled families with the highest utility rates in the Midwest. Working people are paying more, earning less, and getting left behind.”

“And now the same failed politicians are asking us to send Abdul El-Sayed to Washington. Abdul isn’t just another liberal. He’s an extremist,” he added. “Abdul doesn’t represent a vision for the future. He’s leading a movement grounded in ideological fanaticism. His agenda would make our communities less safe and our state less affordable,” Rogers went on. “This election isn’t just about choosing a Senator. It’s about deciding whether Michigan has a future built on common sense — or whether we hand the keys to the most fringe extremists in the nation.”

The characterization of the race is likely to be a common theme for Republicans campaigning this election cycle, as many increasingly find themselves pitted against insurgent progressives, many of whom ousted incumbent lawmakers. Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Mich., has found himself in a similar position after socialist William Lawrence managed to defeat former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink for the Democratic nod in the state’s 7th Congressional District. That district, which is centered on Lansing, is regarded as a toss-up and could prove pivotal to the battle for the House.

Read more …

Earlier this week, Sundance wrote: “I give it four months, and it’s over..”

He’s quite likely right, but you are not supposed to know. You are supposed to think “we” are winning. That’s why we ban RT.

• Ukraine Shot Down Zero Missiles In Huge Russian Overnight Salvo (ZH)

According to a growing casualty count, a large barrage of ballistic missiles fired by Russia on Ukraine has killed at least 21 people and wounded dozens more. The overnight attack has raised the alarm for Ukraine’s Western backers, given it is being widely reported that among the over two dozen ballistic and anti-ship missiles fired, not a single one was intercepted by Ukraine.


The attacks come on the heels of a record month: July saw over 380 missiles of all types launched on Ukraine, with government authorities citing the highest civilian casualties since 2022, with at least 377 civilians killed, and another 2,129 wounded for the month of July.As Ukraine grapples with very low and limited missile interceptors, and amid reports that the Pentagon too is struggling to keep up supplies amid the Iran war, CNN also confirms that “as Russia fired more than two dozen ballistic and anti-ship missiles” and that “none” were intercepted by Ukrainian defenses.

President Zelensky again took to social media to urge partners to rapidly send more anti-air missiles: “It is crucial that our partners realize that delays in their delivery or a reluctance to provide anti-ballistic systems lead precisely to such horrific casualties and destruction,” he said. “Partners who are not ready to help more actively with the supply of interceptors right now can help by imposing new sanctions,” he added. Notably the Russian strikes have expanded to not just city infrastructure, energy cites, military bases, and ports – but now Russia appears to be going after prominent businesses.

This comes after Ukraine’s repeat attacks on Wildberries facilities, the Russian online retailer giant comparable to Amazon: The strikes also caused damage to prominent businesses in Ukraine, including the country’s largest e-commerce platform, Rozetka, and Epicentr, a retail chain comparable to IKEA. In a statement, Epicentr said Russia launched a ”devastating attack” on its manufacturing infrastructure, killing one of its male employees. In a matter of minutes, Russian missiles destroyed what the company had been building for decades, the statement said.

FOZZY group, which is one of Ukraine’s largest retailers that operates supermarket chains, said Russian shelling caused fires at two of its distribution centers. It said that six of its employees had been killed, while more have been injured.

But on the flip side Ukraine has only expanded its own long-range drone attacks on Russian territory, including on the capital city. Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin has explained to TASS that “In recent months, the number of drones launched toward Moscow has increased significantly. And overall, of all the attacks carried out almost daily against Russian territory, two-thirds of the drones are heading toward Moscow.”

Last month Zelensky had announced a 40-day “operation of influence” – describing a multi-pronged campaign of long-range drone strikes intent on forcing Moscow to halt the war and get to the negotiating table on terms favorable to Ukraine. The Russian military has all the while also been upping its response.

Read more …

“Let’s remember them in peace,” she added, “when there is peace.”

• How Zelensky’s 40-Day ‘Influence Operation’ Against Russia Fell Apart (RT)

In late June, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky announced a 40-day “operation of influence,” portraying it as a campaign of long-range drone strikes meant to force Russia to enter negotiations on Kiev’s terms.As of early August, the campaign in practice turned out to be what Moscow has described as “terrorist attacks” on Russian oil refineries, residential buildings, logistics hubs, and other critical infrastructure, resulting in the death of dozens of civilians.


Russia’s answer has been to pummel Ukraine’s defense industry – including facilities producing drones and missiles instrumental to Zelensky’s much-maligned campaign – while continuing to grind forward on the battlefield. As the 40-day deadline passed on Tuesday, there was no sign Russia had budged an inch.Here’s how Zelensky’s campaign collapsed far from its stated objectives. Zelensky approved the plan on June 25, describing it on social media as a combination of “long-range” and “medium-range sanctions” aimed at compelling Russia to end the hostilities.

Over the following weeks, Ukrainian strikes focused on three main target sets: Russian oil refineries, logistics warehouses belonging to retailer Wildberries (often described as “Russia’s Amazon”), and a wave of strikes that killed civilians far from any front line. Ukrainian officials have said that they seek to make the war psychologically “sweep over” large segments of Russian society. The Ukrainian leader has repeatedly insisted on freezing the conflict along the current front line before a final settlement can take place. Moscow, however, has objected to a ceasefire on the terms of Ukraine and its backers, arguing it would be used by Kiev to replenish its battered military and receive more Western-supplied weapons.

What impact have Ukraine’s strikes on oil infrastructure had?
Ukrainian drones have hit refineries across several Russian regions, including one major facility in Moscow, over the course of the campaign. The strikes did lead to temporary deficits, long lines at the pumps, caps on maximum fuel purchases for ordinary consumers, and logistics hurdles in several regions, particularly the Crimean Peninsula.

In late June, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the strikes were designed “to undermine our confidence in ourselves and our capabilities” and to “create conditions for launching negotiations on terms favorable to our adversary.” He stressed that Russia “will not give them [Ukraine] that opportunity,” adding that the attacks had “no impact whatsoever on the situation at the front.” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak said the government had banned gasoline and diesel exports while strengthening air defenses around refineries, ensuring that plants operate at maximum capacity, and sending additional fuel to the hardest-hit regions. By late July, Novak said the market was “gradually stabilizing” as several refineries resumed operations and purchase limits were lifted in a number of regions.

Has Ukraine targeted Russian civilians?
Since Zelensky’s announcement, there have barely been any days without Ukrainian strikes killing civilians. According to Rodion Miroshnik, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s mission tracking Ukraine’s alleged war crimes, in the week of July 20-26 alone 492 people were affected, including 57 killed, seven of them children. In the most recent weekly count, Miroshnik reported 49 people killed, including four children, as well as 342 wounded.

The campaign’s final days brought one of the deadliest strikes on civilians: On Monday, a Ukrainian drone came down on a beach near the resort city of Gelendzhik, southern Russia, killing at least eight civilians, including four children, with dozens of others injured. As part of the campaign, Ukrainian forces also started to attack Wildberries warehouses, hitting around a dozen facilities across Russia. At least eight people were killed and dozens more injured, with small sellers – mostly trading in clothes, toys, and other purely civilian-use items – suffering large and often irrevocable financial losses.

Zelensky has confirmed that the attacks were deliberate, claiming the warehouses stored dual-use components, including drone parts and navigation equipment – something any large-scale retailer in the world sells. Moscow has insisted the retailer does not supply the Russian military. Wildberries’ losses are difficult to estimate, but they reportedly exceed $1 billion. Following the strikes, the retailer will launch several warehouses in neighboring Kazakhstan.

How has Russia responded to Zelensky’s campaign?
Russia responded with long-range drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian defense-related facilities, with a focus on those producing UAVs that were ultimately being used in Zelensky’s campaign, along with attacks on cargo vessels it said were carrying military shipments in the Black Sea. Moscow maintains it does not target civilians.

On the ground, Russian forces continue to advance. According to TASS calculations, they liberated and took control of 32 settlements in July alone. The month’s biggest prize was Konstantinovka, a fortified stronghold in the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration that Russian troops fully secured in early July. Officials in Moscow estimated that Kiev lost around 13,500 troops while attempting to hold on to the settlement. Later in July, Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov announced that Russian forces were on the verge of liberating Krasny Liman, another key Donbass stronghold.

Has Kiev commented on its 40-day failure?
Zelensky himself has so far kept silent on the self-imposed 40-day deadline, but the head of his office, Kirill Budanov, argued that the calendar was irrelevant. “Don’t get hung up on these numbers – 40, 50, 100, 15 days. What matters is the result,” he said. Budanov is the same Ukrainian official who on several occasions in 2022 and 2023 predicted that Ukraine would retake Crimea; Kiev’s attacks were ultimately bogged down in Russian defenses far from that objective. Zelensky himself recently admitted that Ukraine is unlikely to seize the peninsula, which overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2014 after a Western-backed coup in Kiev.

How has Zelensky’s 40-day campaign been assessed?
Ukrainian outlet Strana.ua noted there were no signs Moscow was shifting its position after 40 days, while describing Russia’s de-facto naval blockade of Ukrainian ports – imposed in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russian vessels in the Black and Azov seas – as one of the most serious problems the campaign created for Kiev. RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan wrote that the operation, “announced by Zelensky with such bravado 40 days ago,” had instead concluded with the liberation of Konstantinovka, the dismissal of half of Ukraine’s government, and Kiev appealing for an “air truce.” “Let’s remember them in peace,” she added, “when there is peace.”.

Read more …

“Belgium relied entirely on imports of the fuel from Russia in July, according to Bloomberg..”

• EU Sets New Russian Gas Record Despite Ban Plans – Data (RT)

The EU has been importing record volumes of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) despite a push to fully stop imports from Russia, Bloomberg has reported. Plans exist to end long-term imports of Russian LNG from next year after the EU already banned purchases under new short-term contracts. Yet its latest watered-down sanctions package carved out exemptions for European companies to continue transporting Russian LNG to third-country markets after some member states balked at measures they said would damage their own economies.


Belgium relied entirely on Russian LNG imports in July as disruption in the Middle East curbed alternative supplies to Europe, according to Bloomberg calculations published on Monday. The country reportedly imported around 400,000 tons of Russian gas during the month, while total LNG purchases fell by more than 40% year-on-year. Moscow remained Europe’s second-largest LNG supplier after the US, the outlet wrote.

The EU has faced soaring energy costs after scaling back imports of Russian energy following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Natural gas has been the commodity the bloc has struggled most to replace since imposing unprecedented restrictions on Russia in 2022. Before then, Russia supplied about 45% of the EU’s natural gas imports. The Financial Times reported last month, citing Kpler data, that the bloc imported a record 9.89 million tons of LNG from Russia’s Yamal project in the first half of 2026, up 18% from a year earlier. France was the largest importer, followed by Belgium and Spain.

The US war on Iran and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz – a vital route carrying around 20% of global oil and LNG trade – have further strained Europe’s already volatile energy markets this year. Major suppliers such as QatarEnergy declared force majeure on shipments, sending European buyers scrambling for increasingly competitive US and West African LNG. The resulting spike in prices, freight costs, and supply disruptions has fueled inflation across the bloc, with analysts warning of gas shortages this winter.

The EU’s 21st package of sanctions targeting Russia included exemptions after Greece successfully lobbied to preserve European companies’ role in transporting Russian LNG to third-country markets. Athens warned the restrictions would hurt its shipping sector while benefiting foreign competitors. Moscow has condemned EU sanctions, particularly those targeting energy, as illegal and self-defeating, arguing they have undermined the bloc’s competitiveness.

Read more …

“Sure, that sounds representative and fair. Great stuff, Barry, Eric, and the NDRC. Enjoy your fancy party!”

• Obama’s Exclusive Fundraiser for the Democrats’ Redistricting War (Thorne)

All together now: It’s only bad when Republicans do it. In today’s episode, the “it” in question is redistricting, also known as gerrymandering, depending on who’s doing it. The subject has become heated in the past year because awful, evil Republicans successfully redistricted the state of Texas back in August 2025. The move is projected to net an additional five Republican seats in the U.S. House. A slew of majority-Republican states have followed, with Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama redrawing their districts. They are expected to gain an additional one, one, two, four, one, one, and one seat, respectively.


Altogether, the reconfigured red states could net Republicans as many as 16 seats in the 2026 midterms.So, you can see why Democrats are upset. But as usual, it’s not because Republicans invented some new way of cheating — it’s because Republicans started playing by Democrats’ rules. As a resident of the Northeastern United States, I can testify that we Republican voters — Conservatives and MAGAs — are pretty much completely disenfranchised by Democrat gerrymandering. New York and California and basically every Democrat-controlled state has long been unfairly apportioned to help them hold onto power.

This is a “both sides do it” issue, but until Trump re-took office and started nudging Texas to take action, Republicans exercised more restraint and fairness in the states they controlled. Now, they have finally decided to play by the new rules. Predictably, Democrats have started shrieking and fainting as though the GOP had just invented the practice. And their media wing helps push the narrative. But did you know that the very first fundraiser Barack Obama hosted after Trump kicked his pinko party to the curb in 2016 was for a Democrat redistricting PAC?

A PAC that he helped launch, along with his former AG and wingman, Eric Holder, his comrade from way back in their Columbia University Activist Proving Ground days? On its website, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) declares: Under Attorney General Holder’s leadership, the NDRC is the centralized hub to fight for fair maps. Since our founding, we have executed a comprehensive redistricting strategy that includes shifting the balance of power away from total Republican control of redistricting, raising awareness of redistricting, and empowering the public to get involved in the fight for fair maps.

Democrats lost substantial power on the local and state levels during the Obama years, so once the lads formed their PAC in 2016 and launched it in 2017, “we immediately began preparing for the 2020 Census and the 2021 redistricting cycle.” One can hardly blame the Republicans for fighting back against this Obama-level onslaught, almost 10 years on. And now, every August, the well-heeled swells on elite Martha’s Vineyard, one of the off-coastal enclaves in which the Obamas own a mansion, gather to raise millions in support of the NDRC. I must pause here to insert one of my all-time favorite memes, from ACT for America:

Ticket prices or admission tiers are never available for the NDRC’s ultra-exclusive big-money soirée, which is well into “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it” territory. The event generally raises between $1.5 and $2 million. Long-time supporter George Soros has personally contributed approximately $2.6 million to the NDRC over the years, and he is also linked to a 2025 $500,000 grant from Democracy PAC.[..]If you want a good laugh, visit the NDRC website to read tales of how the valiant organization fights “gerrymandering” (which is what Republicans do) with its noble efforts to “make our democracy truly representative and ensure that every voter has a fair shot at making their voice heard in the process” (which is what Democrats do).

On a separate page, you can read how the NDRC “Applauds Maryland General Assembly for Putting Redistricting on the Ballot.” Maryland Dems will attempt to amend their constitution this fall, enabling them to gerrymander the state from seven Democrat U.S. reps and one Republican rep to eight Democrats and zero Republicans. In a state where just over half the registered voters are Democrats (~51.5%), almost a quarter are Republicans (~23.5%), and a quarter (~25%) are unaffiliated or something else.

Sure, that sounds representative and fair. Great stuff, Barry, Eric, and the NDRC. Enjoy your fancy party!

Read more …

“It’s an old song. It’s a sad song. But we’re gonna sing it anyway.”

• Actor Fired for Opposing Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports (Turley)

Geno Segers was a widely acclaimed actor who starred in the Broadway production Hadestown. That came to an end this month when Segers expressed the view of the vast majority of Americans: women’s sports should be confined to biological women. He has now been fired, even after an attempt to apologize for expressing his own views on the subject. Other actors have expressed support for transgender players without any response other than praise in the latest example of the rising McCarthyism on the left.


This is only the latest termination over the political views of artists in New York. As the song states in Hadestown, “It’s an old song. It’s a sad song. But we’re gonna sing it anyway.” We have previously discussed how private companies can fire employees for public conduct or statements that bring controversy to their business or products. However, even though the First Amendment does not govern such controversies, there remains a free speech issue. Free speech goes beyond the confines of the First Amendment and private companies can engage in censorship that curtails this human right.

The question often comes down to consistency in companies enforcing content-based standards. I did not like some of the comments of Segers, but there is little question that equally strong comments against “cisgender” athletes or for transgender athletes would not result in such termination. Segers posted statements critical of transgender athletes playing in women’s sports as well as the posting of preferred pronouns. The comments were certainly mocking and insulting at points: “If you asked me what my preferred pronouns are and it’s not obvious to you that I’m a he/him, that I’m good with he/him — Surely you don’t need any help. I’m not wearing a dress.”

One can understand why transgender advocates would be upset with the content and tenor of these comments, including “I don’t see transgender people becoming oppressed or being oppressed … life is unfair.”However, Segers also wrote: “I’m not against anyone living out their lives the way they want, but I am against their rights superseding the rights of other people. That’s a little bit foul.” Segers attempted to apologize for his comments after the cancel campaign picked up steam:

I wish to extend my most sincere apologies to everyone impacted by my words. While I never intended to inflict harm, I recognize that the impact of my statements is what matters most. I am fully committed to listening, educating myself, and elevating my standards. I will work tirelessly to earn the opportunity to make things right.Actors, athletes, and academics routinely offer equally strident and insulting comments about the issue as well as radical comments on cisgender citizens and culture. Those comments generally do not trigger cancel campaigns.

In academia, the bias is obvious and open. As discussed this week, over 40 percent of academics say that they will vote against faculty candidates who voted for Trump regardless of the intellectual content of their scholarship. Even moderate conservatives are rare in teaching while higher education is heavily populated with the most extreme voices on the left.

An example is the recent book published by Pennsylvania Professor Beans Velocci claiming “sex isn’t real” and the gender “binary” is “incoherent.” The assistant professor in history and the sociology of science seemed to relish the anticipated controversy over his book, telling Duke University Press in an interview that “any right wing or TERF detractor who wants to s***-talk the book is going to have to say or write the phrase ‘Sex Isn’t Real’ in the process.” Velocci is no standout in higher education. Attacking “cisness” and conservatives is a clear winning strategy for faculty candidates. As with actors, the opposing views would be lethal to an applicant.

The same is true with athletes. The mob has now come for Sophie Cunningham as it did for authors such as J.K. Rowling. Cunningham stated her support for maintaining women’s sports for biological females, a position also declared yesterday by Aryna Sabalenka, the number-one-ranked female tennis player. Cunningham was not obnoxious or extreme in her comments. She simply stated her concern for girls in sports. Nevertheless, she has been viciously attacked (including by a team owner), as have girls who support her.

Athletes, including coaches, routinely make opposing statements with no cancel campaign, including a women’s basketball coach. Former U.S. Women’s National Team star Megan Rapinoe routinely made controversial statements in favor of transgender athletes without any repercussions. However, Cunningham is now the target for the mob. Guardian’s Howard Bryant wrote, “Sophie Cunningham is now … accepting the role as the right’s anti-Black, anti-transgender culture war ambassador.”

Whether it is actors, athletes, or academics, there is a demonstrably different level of tolerance for controversial views on gender. Take Segers’ statements, swap the nouns or pronouns, and ask yourself if there would have been a cancel campaign, let alone a termination. It is not the fact of the controversy but the lack of consistency that is so problematic in these areas. It is likely that Segers will now be effectively blacklisted in seeking new roles and productions. For him, the musical lyrics came true: “Hadestown, Hadestown, a place where you can die.”

Read more …

Who organizes this? Why are we not told?

• Spanish Immigration Crisis Exposes Cracks in European Union (JTN)

The Spanish immigration crisis has exposed cracks in the European Union and an opportunity for right-wing leaders heading into elections next year in Spain, Italy and France. Last week, tens of thousands of migrants poured over the Spanish border at Ceuta, a North African exclave ruled by Spain since 1580. The small coastal city is situated on a narrow peninsula on the southern edge of the Strait of Gibraltar between Spain and Morocco — the only place where a European border touches Africa.


Instead of fully backing Spain as they may have done in the past, more than 20 European leaders instead criticized the government of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez for passing policies that attract illegal immigrants. PBS reported that as many as 60,000 entered the nation illegally, and that at least 57 migrants died on the journey. Other leaders went further. The government of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni harshly criticized Sanchez’s leftist government and suspended Italy’s participation in the Schengen Area—the passport-free zone that is a pillar of the European Union.

Though at an emergency EU meeting on Tuesday, the various governments played down criticisms of Spain’s leaders and applauded its quick response to send the vast majority of those who crossed the border back to Morocco, the incident exposed cracks in the continental bloc. Specifically, the right-wing candidates with elections next year—in Spain, Italy and France—have used the incident as a way to bolster their own credentials ahead of the contests and seek to ride the wave of Europe’s move towards stricter immigration enforcement.

Earlier this year, while Europe was working on tightening border controls and rethinking its asylum policies, Spain was an outlier. Under Prime Minister Sanchez, Spain announced a reform that will grant up to half a million people legal status, amounting to around 1% of the population. The move sparked domestic backlash and elicited concerns from leaders around Europe. “Some say we’re going too far, that we’re going against the current,” Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez said at the time. “When did recognizing human rights become something radical?”

At the time, the tide had turned elsewhere in Europe. In France, Germany and Italy, leaders have been pushing for tighter immigration controls, stepping up border patrols, scaling back asylum rights and helping to fund initiatives to create incentives for would-be migrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asia to stay home, Just the News previously reported. Spain’s neighbors accused Sanchez’s legalization plan of creating “pull factors” for illegal immigration to Europe and endangering the continental efforts to curb “uncontrolled mass crossings” that have become the hallmark of migrant flows from Africa in recent years.

“Irregular and uncontrolled immigration poses a danger to national security:” Italy
The critics were led by the government of conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who has long campaigned on curbing illegal immigration to her country and to the European Union. Meloni’s Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, placed the blame squarely on Spain’s amnesty policy, arguing that it undermines national security. “Irregular and uncontrolled immigration poses a danger to national security. The images coming from Ceuta show how the Madrid Government’s decision to grant Spanish, and therefore European, citizenship to over 500,000 irregular immigrants is profoundly wrong and encourages human trafficking,” he said.

Meloni’s government temporarily suspended open air and sea transport between Spain and Italy on Friday amid concerns that Spain was not doing enough to control the flow of illegal migrants. Under the Schengen Agreement, 29 participating European countries created a passport-free travel zone without internal border checks. France also mobilized police and military units to conduct checks on the Spanish border. Meloni also led a joint letter by 22 European leaders, criticizing Spain for its policies that they contend attract illegal immigrants, putting the entire European Union at risk.

regularization of a very large number of irregular migrants,” the nearly two dozen European leaders, led by Meloni and Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, wrote to the European Commission. “We cannot allow uncontrolled mass crossings, the instrumentalization of migration or other hybrid threats to create the perception that illegal entry into the European Union is possible. That a migrant’s illegal entry can turn into a legal stay,” the leaders added.

Conservative party leaders and candidates across Europe also see the Spanish border crisis as an opportunity, especially in Spain, Italy and France. Those three countries are set to have elections next year. In Spain, where the crisis took place, Sanchez’s Socialist Workers’ Party is facing a likely alliance of conservative and right-wing populist parties polling ahead of his left-wing bloc. The populist Vox party is gaining steam as the main opposition against Sanchez’s immigration agenda.

Vox’s leader, Santiago Abascal, traveled to Ceuta amid the crisis to present a sharp contrast with Sanchez’s leadership. There he called for the militarization of Spain’s borders and labeled the flood of migrants an “invasion.” Abascal also called for Sanchez to be jailed over his handling of the crisis. Vox and Spain’s largest conservative party, the People’s Party, are gearing up for a general election next year. Sanchez’s leftist party has clung to power since 2023 after receiving fewer votes than the People’s Party. However, Vox and the PP were unable to form a coalition to remove Sanchez from power because they fell just short of an outright majority. Both are looking for an opportunity to oust Sanchez next year.

Blaming socialism
“By regularizing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, the socialist prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, has opened the doors of Europe,” said Jordan Bardella, leader of France’s conservative National Rally party and member of the European Parliament. The party’s longtime presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen, will run in the election to replace French President Emmanuel Macron next year. The first television debate will take place later this month. “In 2027, we will stop this madness by reserving Schengen free movement for EU nationals,” Le Pen said in a post to Facebook.

Meloni, who led the opposition to Spain’s immigration policies, will also have to answer to voters in an election next year. Italians will decide whether to reward the prime minister for her own efforts to crack down on illegal immigration to Italy, one of the core campaign promises that catapulted her party to the top of polls in Italy’s 2022 elections. Meloni has led a remarkably stable governing coalition of right-wing parties in Rome and is the country’s second-longest serving prime minister.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.